Jurisdiction Over Federal
Areas Within the States
Report of the Interdepartmental Committee
for the Study of Jurisdiction Over
Federal Areas Within the States
REPORT OF THE
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE
FOR THE STUDY OF
JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL AREAS
WITHIN THE STATES
PART I
The Facts and Committee Recommendations
Submitted to the Attorney General and transmitted to the President
April 1956
The White House,
Washington, April 27, 1956
DEAR MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I am herewith returning to you, so
that it may be published and receive the widest possible distribution
among those interested in Federal real property matters, part I of the
Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for Study of Jurisdiction
over Federal Areas within the States. I am impressed by the wellplanned
effort which went into the study underlying this report and by
the soundness of the recommendations which the report makes.
It would seem particularly desirable that the report be brought
to the attention of the Federal administrators of real properties, who
should be guided by it in matters related to legislative jurisdiction,
and to the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, and appropriate State officials, for their
consideration of necessary legislation. I hope that you will see to
this. I hope, also, that the General services Administration will
establish as soon as may be possible a central source of information
concerning the legislative jurisdictional status of Federal properties
and that agency, with the Bureau of the Budget and the Department of
Justice, will maintain a continuing and concerted interest in the
progress made by all Federal agencies in adjusting the status of their
properties in conformity with the recommendations made in the report.
The members of the committee and the other officials, Federal and
State, who participated in the study, have my appreciation and
congratulations on this report. I hope they will continue their good
efforts so that the text of the law on the subject of legislative
jurisdiction which is planned as a supplement will issue as soon as
possible.
Sincerely,
DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.
The Honorable Herbert Brownell, Jr.,
The Attorney General, Washington, D.C.
(III)
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Office of the Attorney General,
Washington, D.C., April 27,1956.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: On my recommendation, and with your
approval, there was organized on December 15, 1954, an
interdepartmental committee to study problems of jurisdiction related
to federally owned property within the States.
This Committee has labored diligently during the ensuing period
and now has produced a factual report (part I), together with
recommendations for changes in Federal agency practices, and in
Federal and State laws, designed to eliminate existing problems
arising out of Federal-State Jurisdictional situations.
Subject to your approval, I shall bring the report and
recommendations to the attention of the President of the Senate and
the Speaker of the House of Representatives for the purpose of
bringing about consideration of the Federal legislative proposals
involved to the attention of State officials through established
channels for consideration of the State legislative proposals
involved, and to the attention of heads of Federal Departments and
agencies, for their guidance in matters relating to this subject.
Part II of the Committee's report is now in course of preparation
and will be completed in the next several months. It will be a text
which will discuss the law applicable to Federal jurisdiction over
land owned in the States. Immediately upon completion of the legal
text it will be sent to you. The Committee is of the view, in which I
concur, that the two parts of the report are sufficiently different in
content and purpose that they may issue separately.
Respectfully,
Herbert Brownell, Jr.,
Attorney General
THE PRESIDENT,
THE WHITE HOUSE.
(IV)
LETTER OF SUBMISSION
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR THE STUDY OF
JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL AREAS WITHIN THE STATES,
APRIL 25, 1956
DEAR MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Committee has completed its
studies of the factual aspects of legislative jurisdiction over
Federal areas within the several States, and of the Federal and State
laws relating thereto, and herewith submits for your consideration and
for transmission to the President its report subtitled "Part I. the
Facts and Committee Recommendations."
Part II of the Committee's report will be completed within the
next several months. It will be a text of the law on the subject of
legislative jurisdiction, particularly covering judicial decisions and
rulings of legal officers of administrative agencies concerning the
subject. It is the view of the Committee that the two mentioned parts
of the report are sufficiently different in their contents and
purposes that they may issue separately.
Respectfully submitted,
PERRY W. MORTON,
Assistant Attorney General (Chairman).
MANSFIELD D. SPRAGUE,
General Counsel,
General Services Administration (Secretary).
HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF FEDERAL
LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION
Origin of article I, section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution.--
This provision was included in the Constitution as the result of
proposals made to the Constitutional convention on May 29 and August
18, 1787, by Charles Pinckney and James Madison. The clause was born
because of the vivid recollection of the members of the Convention of
harassment suffered by the Continental Congress at Philadelphia, in
1783, at the hands of a mob of soldiers and ex-soldiers whom the
Pennsylvania authorities felt unable to restrain, and whose activities
forced the Congress to move its meeting place to Princeton, N.J. The
delegates to the constitutional convention, many of whom had suffered
indignities at the hands of this mob as members of the Continental
Congress, were impressed by this incident, and by a general
requirement for protection of the affairs of the then weak Federal
Government from undue influence by the stronger States, to provide for
an area independent of any State, and under federal jurisdiction, in
which the Federal Government would function. Without much debate
there was accepted the their that places other than the seat of
government which were held by the Federal Government for the benefit
of all the States similarly should not be under the jurisdiction of
any single State.
Objections made by Patrick Henry and others, based upon the dangers
to personal rights and liberties which clause 17 presented, were
anticipated or replied to by James Iredell of North Carolina
(subsequently a United States Supreme court Justice) and Mr. Madison.
They assured that the rights of residents of federalized areas would
by protected by appropriate reservations made by the States in
granting their respective consents to federalization. (It may be
noted that this assurance has to this time borne only little fruit.)
Early practice concerning acquisition of legislative jurisdiction.-
-The Federal City was established at what became Washington on land
ceded to the Federal Government for this purpose by the States of
Maryland and Virginia under the first portion of clause 17. However,
the provision of the second portion, for transfer of like jurisdiction
to the Federal Government over other areas acquired for Federal
purposes, was not uniformly exercised during the first 50 years of the
existence of the United states. It was exercised with respect to
most, but not all, lighthouse sites, with respect to various forts and
arsenals, and with respect to a number of other individual properties.
But search of appropriate records indicates that during this period it
was often the practice of the Government merely to purchase the lands
upon which its installations were to be placed and to enter into
occupancy for the purposes intended, without also acquiring
legislative jurisdiction over the lands.
Acquisition of exclusive jurisdiction made compulsory.--The Federal
practice of not acquiring legislative jurisdiction in many cases was
terminated in 1841, as a result of what appears to have been a
legislative accident. A controversy had developed between the Federal
Government and the State of New York concerning the title to (not the
legislative jurisdiction over) a single area of land on Staten Island
upon which a fortification had been maintained for many years at
Federal expense. Presumably to avoid a repetition of such incidents,
the Congress provided by a joint resolution of September 11, 1841 (set
out in appendix B to this report as sec. 355 of the Revised Statutes
of the United States), that thereafter no public money could be
expended for public buildings [public works] on land purchased by the
United States until the Attorney General had approved title to the
land, and until the legislature of the State in which the land was
situated had consented to the purchase.
In facilitating Federal construction within their boundaries most
States during the ensuing years enacted statutes consenting to the
acquisition of land (frequently any land) within their boundaries by
the Federal Government. These general consent statutes had the effect
of implementing clause 17 and thereby vesting in the United States
exclusive legislative jurisdiction over all lands acquired by it in
the States. The only exceptions were cases where the Federal
Government plainly indicated, by legislation or by action of the
executive agency concerned, that the jurisdiction proffered by the
State consent statute was not accepted. Necessity for plain
indication by the Federal Government of nonacceptance of jurisdiction
came about because of a general theory in law that a proffered benefit
is accepted unless its nonacceptance is demonstrated.
It should be noted that lands already under the proprietorship of
the United States when these general consent statutes were enacted,
such as the lands of the so-called public domain, were not affected by
the statutes, and legislative jurisdiction with respect to them
remained in the several States. Curiously, therefore, the vast areas
of land which constitute the Federal public domain generally are held
by the United States in a proprietorial statute only. It should also
be noted that the 1841 Federal statute did not apply to lands acquired
by the United States upon which there was no intent to erect public
build-
ings within the broad meaning of the statute. However, the Federal
Government quite completely divested the States, with their consent,
of legislative jurisdiction over numerous and large areas of land
which it acquired during the hundred year period following 1841
without, apparently, much concern being generated in any quarter for
the consequences.
State inroads upon acquisition of exclusive jurisdiction.--In the
course of the tremendous expansion of Federal land acquisition
programs which occurred in the 1930's the States became increasingly
aware of the impact upon State and local treasuries (which will be
discussed in considerable detail) of Federal acquisition of exclusive
legislative jurisdiction and its further impact on normal State and
local authority. With the development of this awareness there began
the development of a tendency on the part of States to repeal their
general consent statutes and in some cases to substitute for them what
may be termed "cession statutes," specifically ceding some measure of
legislative jurisdiction to the United States while frequently
reserving certain authority to the State. In other instances States
amended their consent statutes so that such states similarly reserved
certain authority to the State. Included among the reservations in
such consent and cession statutes are the right to levy various taxes
on persons and property situated on Federal lands and on transactions
occurring on such lands; criminal jurisdiction over acts and omissions
occurring on such lands; certain regulatory jurisdiction over various
affairs on such lands such as licensing rights, control of public
utility rates, and control over fishing and hunting; and the most
complete type of reservation--a retention by the State of all its
jurisdiction, to the Federal Government.
It should be emphasized that Federal instrumentalities and their
property are not in any event subject to State or local taxation or to
most types of State or local controls. However, the transfer to the
United States of exclusive legislative jurisdiction over an area has
the effect, speaking generally, of divesting the State and any
governmental entities operating under its authority of any right to
tax or control private persons or property upon the area. It was the
divesting of such rights that reservations in consent and cession
statutes were designed to combat.
Statutory enactments of various States have also fixed conditions
concerning procedural aspects of Federal acceptance of legislative
jurisdiction. For example, some States require publication of intent
to accept and recordation with county clerks of metes and bounds of
property, or have other similar requirements. In the case of one
State these procedural requirements have been deemed by some federal
agencies to be so onerous, and the reservations of jurisdiction made
by the State to be so broad, that the agencies have not felt justified
in meeting the procedural requirements in view of the small amount of
jurisdiction which is thereby acquired.
Retrocession by the Federal Government.--The States could not by
unilateral action retrieve from the Federal Government authority which
they had surrendered over areas as to which they had already ceded
exclusive legislative jurisdiction to the Government, but during the
mentioned period when States were altering their consent statutes the
Federal Government relinquished to the States the authority to tax
sales of motor vehicle fuels, to impose sales and use taxes, and to
levy income taxes. These relinquishments, or retrocession, were
applicable to areas as to which jurisdiction previously had been
acquired as well as to future acquisitions. The term "retrocede" is
used generally here and throughout this report to include waivers of
immunity as well as retrocession of jurisdiction. The statutes
involved are set out in appendix B in the codified form in which they
appear in title 4 of the United States Code.
Exclusive jurisdiction requirement terminated.--There was also
enacted, on February 1, 1940, an amendment to section 355 of the
Revised Statues of the United States which eliminated the requirement
for State consent to any Federal acquisition of land as a condition
precedent to expenditure of Federal funds for construction on such
land. The amendment substituted for the previous requirement provided
that (1) the obtaining of exclusive jurisdiction in the United States
over lands which it acquired was not to be required, (2) the head of a
Government agency could file with the governor or other appropriate
officer of the State involved a notice of the acceptance of such
extent of jurisdiction as he deemed desirable as to any land under his
custody, and (3) until such a notice was filed it should be
conclusively presumed that no jurisdiction had been accepted by the
United States. This amendment ended the 100-year period during which
nearly all the land acquired by the United States came under the
exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
Subsequent developments.--Federal abandonment, through the revision
of Revised Statute 355, of the nearly absolute requirement for State
consent to federal land acquisition had two direct effects: (1) the
state tendency to amendment of consent and cession laws so as to
provide various reservations was accelerated, and (2) Federal
administrators, particularly of newer agencies which did not have
long-established habits of acquiring exclusive legislative
jurisdiction, tended not to acquire any legislative jurisdiction for
their lands. The first
tendency has developed to the point that, it may be seen from appendix
B to this report, as of a recent date only 25 States, many of these
having relatively little Federal property within their boundaries,
still proffered exclusive legislative jurisdiction to the Federal
Government by a general consent or cession statute. The other
tendency has been sufficiently manifested that, it will be noted from
more specific information offered later in this report, a very large
proportion of federal properties is now held with less than exclusive
jurisdiction in the United States.
The tendencies described have not had any substantial effect on the
bulk of properties as to which jurisdiction was acquired by the United
States prior to 1949. Property acquired by the Federal Government
with a vesting of legislative jurisdiction continues to this time in
the same general jurisdictional status as originally attached. An
exception occurs in those cases in which there is a limitation on the
exercise of legislative jurisdiction by the United States specifically
or by implication set out in the State statute under which the Federal
Government procured such jurisdiction (such as a limitation that the
proffered jurisdiction shall continue in the United States only so
long as the United States continues to own a property, or so long as
the property is used for a specified purpose). Once legislative
jurisdiction has vested in the United states it cannot be retested in
the State, other than by operation of a limitation, except by or under
an act of Congress.
The Congress has acted, mainly, only to authorize imposition of the
specific State taxes already mentioned, to permit States to apply and
enforce their unemployment compensation and workmen's compensation
laws in Federal areas, and to retrocede to the States jurisdiction
over a mere handful of properties (in the last category the usual case
involves only a retrocession of concurrent criminal jurisdiction with
respect to a public highway traversing a Government reservation). The
Congress has also authorized the Attorney General and the
Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, respectively, to retrocede
jurisdiction in certain limited instances, but this authority appears
to have been rarely used; and the Congress has extended to the State
jurisdiction over criminal offenses occurring on immigrant stations.
Whether the Congress has authorized imposition of State and local
taxes on private interests in all military housing constructed under
the so-called Wherry Act, some of which is located on areas as to
which the United States has received legislative jurisdiction, is a
question now before the Supreme Court of the United States. All the
statutes involved are, as has already been indicated, set out in
appendix B to this report.
CHAPTER IV
BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SEVERAL
CATEGORIES OF LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION
Effects of varying statutes.--To each of the four categories of
legislative jurisdictional situations (in which the United States has
(a) exclusive, (b) concurrent, (c) or partial legislative
jurisdiction, or (d) a proprietorial interest only) differing legal
characteristics attach. These differences result in various
advantages, various disadvantages, and many problems arising for the
Federal Government, for State and local governments and for
individuals, out of each of the several types of legislative
jurisdiction. Specific advantages, disadvantages, and problems will
be discussed in succeeding portions of this report. Knowledge of the
basic incidents of the several categories of legislative jurisdiction
is essential, however, to the identification and appraisal of these
matters.
Exclusive legislative jurisdiction.--When the Federal Government
receives exclusive legislative jurisdiction over an area, the
jurisdiction of the State and of any local governments (which of
course derive their authority from the State) is ousted, subject only
to the right to serve process and to t several concessions made by the
Federal Government which have already been mentioned. Thereafter only
Congress has authority to legislate for the area. However, while
Congress has legislated for the District of columbia, it has not
legislated for other areas under its exclusive legislative
jurisdiction except in a few particulars which will be indicated
hereinafter.
The courts have filled the vacuum which might otherwise have
occurred by adopting for such areas a rule of international law
whereby as to ceded territory the laws of the displaced sovereign
which are in effect at the time of cession and which are not in
conflict with laws or policies of the new sovereign remain in effect
as laws of such new sovereign until specifically displaced. Under the
international law rule it is anticipated that the new sovereign will
act to keep the laws of the ceded territory up to date, for any
enactments or amendments by the old sovereign have not effect in
territory which has been ceded. In view of the fact that Congress has
not acted except as will be stated to amend or otherwise maintain the
laws in areas other than the District of Columbia which are under its
exclusive legislative jurisdiction, the laws generally in effect in
each such area are the former State laws which were in effect there as of the time,
be it 20 or 120 years ago, when jurisdiction over the area passed to
the United States. It can be seen that since laws of every State have
been developing and changing throughout the years, the laws applicable
in Federal exclusive jurisdiction areas in the same State vary
according to the time at which jurisdiction there over passed to the
United States. It can also be seen that since the laws applicable in
these areas have not developed or changed during the period of Federal
exercise of jurisdiction in the areas, such laws are in most cases,
obsolete, and in many cases archaic. This condition adversely affects
nearly all who may be involved, with the effects most likely to be
felt by persons residing or doing business on the area and those who
deal with such persons.
In certain instances, even within a single area under exclusive
Federal jurisdiction, an engineering survey may be necessary to
determine exactly where an act giving rise to a legal effect occurred,
in order to ascertain which of several successive state laws, all
archaic, is applicable. This necessity develops from the fact that
ordinarily consent and cession statutes have not transferred
jurisdiction to the United States until it has acquired title, a
process that, at least with respect to larger reservations, has lasted
several years and often has resulted in the applicability under the
international law rule of different State laws to different tracts of
land within the same reservation. This was particularly the case
before the enactment of legislation. permitting the United States to
acquire title upon the filing of a condemnation suit, rather than at
the termination of such often protracted litigation.
In other cases, amendments to State consent and cession statutes
during the process of land acquisition have resulted in the United
States' exercising different quanta of legislative jurisdiction in the
same Federal reservation. These areas of different legislative
jurisdiction are often so random and haphazard that only litigation,
again dependent upon an engineering survey, can determine even what
court has jurisdiction, without regard to questions of substantive
law.
In addition, although a body of substantive law is carried over for
areas over which the Federal Government assumes exclusive legislative
jurisdiction, the agencies and administrative procedures which often
are necessary to the functioning of the substantive law are not made
available by the Federal Government. For example, while a marriage
law is carried over, there is no licensing and recordkeeping office;
and while there are public health and safety laws, there rarely are
available the necessary Federal facilities for administering and
enforcing these laws.
In order to avoid the probably insurmountable task of enacting and
maintaining a code of criminal laws appropriate for all the areas
under its legislative jurisdiction, the Congress has passed the so
called Assimilative Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 13), set out in appendix B.
In this statute the congress has provided in legal effect, that all
acts or omissions occurring on an area under its legislative
jurisdiction which would constitute a crime if the area continued
under State jurisdiction are to constitute a crime if the area
continued under State jurisdiction are to constitute a similar crime,
similarly punishable, under Federal law. The assimilative Crimes Act
does not apply to make Federal crimes based on State statutes which
are contrary to Federal policy. Unlike the court-adopted rule of
international law, the Assimilative Crimes Act provides that the State
laws applicable shall be those in force "at the time of such act or
omission." The criminal laws in areas over which the Congress has
legislative jurisdiction as to crimes are thus as up to date as those
of the surrounding State.
Law enforcement must, of course, be supplied by the Federal
Government since, the State law being inapplicable within the
enclave, local policemen and other law-enforcement agencies do not
have authority nor do the State courts have criminal jurisdiction over
offenses committed within the reservation. However, Federal law
enforcement facilities are distant from many Federal areas, and the
machinery of the Federal court system is not designed to handle
efficiently or with reasonable convenience to the public or to the
Federal Government the administration of what are essentially local
ordinances.
Federal areas of exclusive jurisdiction are considered in many
respects to comprise legal entities separate from the surrounding
State, and, indeed, until a recent decision the United States Supreme
Court dispelled the notion, were viewed as completely sovereign areas
(under the sovereignty of the United States), geographically
surrounded by another sovereign. As a result there is not obligation
on the State or on any local political subdivision to provide for such
areas normal governmental services such as disposal of sewage, removal
of trash and garbage, snow clearance, road maintenance, fire
protection and the like.
Persons and property on exclusive jurisdiction areas are not
subject to State or local taxation except as Congress has permitted
(income, sales, use, motor vehicle fuel, and unemployment and
workmen's compensation taxes only have been permitted). It should be
noted that the Federal Government and its instrumentalities are not
subject to direct taxation by States or local taxing authorities
regardless of the legislative jurisdiction status of the area on which
they may be operating. However, the immunity from State authority of
exclusive jurisdiction areas has the additional effect of barring
Stateall times, under this jurisdictional status as under all others, the
Federal government has the superior right under the supremacy clause
of the Constitution to carry out Federal functions unimpeded by State
interference.
State law, including any amendments which may be made by the State
from time to time, is applicable in a concurrent jurisdiction area.
Thus there is absent the tendency which exists in exclusive
jurisdiction areas for general laws to become obsolete. Federal law
appertaining generally to areas under the legislative jurisdiction of
the United States also applies. State or local agencies and
administrative processes needed to carry out various State laws, such
as laws relating to notaries, various licensing boards, etc., can be
made available by the State or local government in accordance with
normal procedures. State criminal laws are, course, applicable in the
area for enforcement by the State. The same laws apply for
enforcement by the Federal Government under the Assimilative Crimes
Act, which by its terms is applicable to areas under the concurrent as
well as the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States,
and other Federal criminal laws also apply. Most crimes fall under
both Federal and State sanction, and either the Federal or State
Government, or both, may take jurisdiction over a given offense.
Unlike the situation in exclusive jurisdiction areas, the State and
the local governmental subdivisions have the same obligation to
furnish their normal governmental services, such as sewage disposal,
to and in the area, as they have elsewhere in the state. They also
have the compensating right of imposing taxes on persons, property,
and activities in the area (but not, of course, directly on the
Federal Government or its instrumentalities). The regulatory powers
of the States may be exercised in the area but, again, not directly on
the Federal Government or its instrumentalities, and not so as to
interfere with Government activities. Most significant in many cases,
residency in a concurrent jurisdiction area, as distinguish from
residency in an exclusive jurisdiction area, in every sense and to the
same extent qualifies a person as a resident of a State as residency
in any other part of the State, so that none of the problems relating
to personal rights and privileges that may arise in an exclusive
jurisdiction area are raised in a concurrent jurisdiction area.
Partial legislative jurisdiction.--This jurisdictional status
occurs where the State grants to the Federal Government the authority
to exercise certain State powers within an area but reserves for
exercise only by itself, or by itself as well as the Federal
Government, other powers constituting more than merely the right to
serve civil or criminal process.
As to those State powers granted by the State to the Federal
Government without reservation, administration of the Federal area is
the same as if it were under exclusively Federal legislative
jurisdiction, and the powers which were relinquished by the State may
be exercised only by the Federal Government. As to the powers
reserved by the State for exercise only by itself, administration of
the area is as though the United States had no jurisdiction whatever
(i. e., proprietorial interest only ); the reserved powers may not be
exercised by the federal government, but continue to be exercised by
the State. As to those powers granted by the State to the Federal
Government with a reservation by the State of authority to exercise
the same powers concurrently, administration of the area is as though
it were under the concurrent legislation jurisdiction status described
above; only the powers specified for concurrent exercise can, of
course, be exercised by both the Federal and State Governments.
The reservations made by States which result in a partial
legislative jurisdiction status relate usually to such matters as
taxation of individuals on the area and their property and activities,
but can and do relate to numerous combinations of the matters affected
by legislative jurisdiction. Depending on which powers have been
granted to the United States for exercise exclusively by it, various
State laws may or may not be applicable. In any event (assuming no
complete reservation to itself by the State of the right to make or
enforce criminal laws) the Assimilative Crimes Act applies, allowing
law enforcement by Federal officials. Depending also on which powers
have been granted by the State, the relations of the residents of the
area with the State are disturbed to a greater or lesser degree in the
usual case. The exact incidents of this type of jurisdiction need to
be determined in each case by a careful study of the applicable State
cession or consent statute.
Proprietorial interest only.--Where the Federal Government has no
legislative jurisdiction over its land, it holds such land in a
proprietorial interest only and has the same rights in the land as
does any other landowner. In addition, however, there exists a right
of the Federal Government to perform the functions delegated to it by
the Constitution without interference from any source. It may resist,
by exercise of its legislative or executive authority or through
proceedings in the court, according to the circumstances, any
attempted interference by a State instrumentality as well as by
individuals. Also, the Congress has special authority, vested in it by
article IV, section 3, clause 2, of the Constitution, to enact laws
for the protection of property belonging to the United States.
Subject to these conditions, in the case where the United States
acquires only a proprietorial interest the State retains all the
jurisdiction over the area which it would have if a private individual
rather than the United States owned the land. However, for the
reasons indicated the State may not impose its regulatory power
directly upon the Federal Government nor may it tax the Federal land.
Neither may the state regulate the actions of the residents of the
land in any way which might directly interfere with the performance of
a Federal function. State action may in some instances impose an
indirect burden upon the Federal Government when it concerns areas
held in a proprietorial interest only, as in the Penn Dairies case,
supra. Any persons residing on the land remain residents of the State
with all the rights, privileges, and obligations which attach to such
residence.
Minnesota Statutes Annotated sections--
1.041 Concurrent jurisdiction of state and United States.—
Subdivision 1. Rights of State.--Except as otherwise expressly provided, the jurisdiction of the United States over any land or other property within this state now owned or hereafter acquired for national purposes is concurrent with and subject to the jurisdiction and right of the state to cause its civil and criminal process to be executed therein, to punish offenses against its laws committed therein, and to protect, regulate, control, and dispose of any property of the state therein.
Subd. 2. Land exchange commission may concur.--In any case not otherwise provided for, the consent of the State of Minnesota to the acquisition by the United States of any land or right or interest therein, in this state desired for any authorized national purpose,
with concurrent jurisdiction as defined in subdivision 1, may be given
by concurrence of a majority of the members of the Land Exchange
Commission created by the Constitution of the State of Minnesota,
Article 8, Section 8, upon finding that such acquisition for such
consent is made by an authorized officer of the United States, setting
forth a description of the property, with a map when necessary for
proper identification thereof, and the authority for, purpose of , and
method used or to be used in acquiring the same. The commission may pre-scribe the use of any specified method of acquisition as a condition of such consent.
In case of acquisition by purchase or gift, such consent shall be
obtained prior to the execution of any instrument conveying the lands
involved or any interest therein to the United States. In case of
condemnation, such consent shall be obtained prior to the commencement
of any proceeding therefore.
1.042 Consent of state.--Subdivision 1. Given for Certain
Purposes. The consent of the State of Minnesota is hereby given in
accordance with the Constitution of the United States, Article I,
Section 8, Clause 17, to the acquisition by the United States in any
manner of any land or right or interest therein in this state required
for sites for customs houses, courthouses, hospitals, sanatoriums,
post-offices, prisons, reformatories, jails, forestry depots, supply
houses, or offices, aviation fields or stations, radio stations,
military or naval camps, bases, stations, arsenals, depots, terminals,
cantonments, storage places, target ranges, or any other military or
naval purpose of the United States.
Subd. 2. Jurisdiction ceded to United States. So far as
exclusive jurisdiction in or over any place in this state now owned or
hereafter acquired by the United States for any purpose specified in
subdivision 1 is required by or under the constitution or laws of the
United States, such jurisdiction is hereby ceded to the United States,
subject to the right of the state to cause its civil and criminal
process to be executed on the premises, which right is hereby reserved
to the state. When the premises abut upon the navigable waters of
this state, such jurisdiction shall extend to and include the underwater lands adjacent thereto lying between the line of low-water mark and the bulkhead or pier-head line as now or hereafter established.
1.043 When jurisdiction vests.--The jurisdiction granted or
ceded to the United States over any place n the state under section
1.041 or section 1.042 shall not vest until the United States has
acquired the title to or right of possession of the premises affected,
and shall continue only while the United States owns or occupies the
same for the purpose or purposes to which such jurisdiction appertains
as specified in those sections.
1.046 Evidence of consent.--The consent of the state given by or
pursuant to the provisions of sections 1.041 to 1.048 to the
acquisition by the United States of any land or right or interest
therein in this state or to the exercise of jurisdiction over any
place in this state shall be evidenced by the certificate of the
governor, which shall be issued in duplicate, under the great seal of
the state, upon application by an authorized officer of the United
States and upon proof that title to the property has vested in the
United States. The certificate shall set forth a description of the property, the authority for, purpose of, and method use in acquiring the same, and the conditions of the jurisdiction of the state and the United States in and over the same, and shall declare the consent of the state thereto in accordance with the provisions of sections 1.041 to 1.048, as the case may require. When necessary for proper identification of the property a map may be attached to the certificate, and the applicant may be required to furnish the same. One duplicate of the certificate shall be filed with the secretary of state. The other shall be delivered to the applicant, who shall cause the same to be recorded in the office of the register of deeds of each county in which the land or any part thereof is situated.