Chapter VIII



                   CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS



   General observations.--The thorough study which has been given to

the exercise by the Federal Government of legislative jurisdiction

under article I, section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution has, in the

opinion of the Committee, been long overdue.  In the early days of the

Republic there may have been a requirement for the exercise of such

power in areas within the States which were acquired to carry out the

functions vested in the Federal Government by the Constitution.

However, even this is in doubt, for, as has been pointed out, there

was not a uniform practice with respect to the transfer of legislative

authority from the States to the United States during the first 50

years after the adoption of the Constitution.  In any event, the

tremendous expansion of Federal functions and activities which has

occurred in the recent history of the United States with a resultant

increase in Federal land holdings, changed patterns in the use of

Federal lands, development of new concepts of the rights and

privileges of citizens, and many other factors, have drastically

altered conditions affecting the desirability of Federal exercise of

exclusive legislative jurisdiction over federally owned areas.

   There is no question of the current requirement for a measure of

legislative jurisdiction in the Federal Government over certain

federally occupied areas in the States.  Indeed, in various instances

the Federal Government has insufficient jurisdiction over its

installations, to the detriment of law and good order.  On the other

hand, no doubt can exist that in the present period the Federal

Government has been acquiring and retaining too mush legislative

jurisdiction over too many areas as the result of the existence of

laws and the persistence of practices which were founded on conditions

of a century and more ago.

   Careful analysis has been made by the Committee of the advantages

and disadvantages to the Federal Government, to the States and local

governmental entities, and to individuals, which arise out of the

possession by the United States of varying degrees of legislative

jurisdiction over its properties in the several States.  It is clear

that exclusive legislative jurisdiction on the one hand, and a

proprietorial interest only on the other, each has certain but

different advantages and



                                 (69)







                                  70



disadvantages for all parties involved.  As the jurisdictional status

of a property varies from one to the other of these two extremes of

the legislative jurisdiction spectrum the advantages and disadvantages

of each tend to fade out, and to be replaced by the advantages and

disadvantages of the other.

   Principal Committee conclusions.--The Committee's study has been

persuasive to the conclusions that--

   1.  In the usual case there is an increasing preponderance of

disadvantages over advantages as there increases the degree of

legislative jurisdiction vested in the United States;

   2.  With respect to the large bulk of federally owned or operated

real property in the several States and outside of the District of

Columbia it is desirable that the Federal Government not receive, or

retain, any measure whatever of legislative jurisdiction, but that it

hold the installations and areas in a proprietorial interest status

only, with legislature jurisdictions several States;

   3.  It is desirable that in the usual case the Federal Government

receive or retain concurrent legislative jurisdiction with respect to

Federal installations and areas on which it is necessary that the

Federal Government render law enforcement services of a character

ordinarily rendered by a State or local government.  These

installations and areas consist of those which, because of their great

size, large population, or remote location, or because of peculiar

requirement based on their use, are beyond the capacity of the State

or local government to service.  The Committee suggests that even in

some such instances the receipt or retention by the Federal Government

of concurrent legislative jurisdiction can, and in such instances

should, be avoided; and

   4.  In any instance where an agency may determine the existence of

a requirement with respect to a particular installation or area of a

legislative jurisdictional status with a measure of exclusivity of

jurisdiction in the Federal Government, it would be desirable that the

Federal Government in any event not receive or retain with respect to

the installation or areas any part of the State's jurisdiction with

respect to taxation, marriage, divorce, annulment, adoption of the

mentally incompetent, and descent and distribution of property, that

the State have concurrent power on such installation or area to

enforce the criminal law, that the State also have the power to

execute on the installation or area any civil or criminal process, and

that residents of such installation or area not be deprived of any

civil or political rights.

   Requirement for adjustments in jurisdictional status.--It is clear

that the legislative jurisdictional status of many Federal

installations







                                  71



and areas is in need of major and immediate adjustment to being about

the more efficient management of the Federal operations carried out

thereon, the furthering of sound Federal-State relations, the

clarification of the rights of the persons residing in such areas and

the legalization of many acts occurring on these installations and

areas which are currently of an extra-legal nature.  Many adjustments

can be accomplished unilaterally by Federal officials within the

framework of existing statutory and administrative authority by

changing certain of their existing practices and policies.  Others may

be capable of accomplishment by cooperative action on the part of the

appropriate Federal and State officials.  In perhaps the majority of

instances, however, there is neither Federal nor State statutory

authority which would permit the adjustment of the jurisdictional

status of Federal lands to the mutual of the Federal and State

authorities involved.  For this reason the Committee recommends the

enactment of certain statutes, both Federal and State, which would

authorize the appropriate officials of these Governments to proceed

apace in the adjustments clearly indicated.

   The Committee also strongly feels that agencies of the Federal

Government should do all that is possible immediately and in the

future, under existing and developing law, to establish and maintain

the jurisdictional status of their properties in conformity with the

recommendations made in this report.  The General Services

Administration, in its regular inventorying of Federal real

properties, should bring together information concerning the

jurisdictional status of such properties in order to provide a general

index of the progress made in adjusting their status.  This will also

provide a central source of information on the jurisdictional status

of individual properties, such a central source being sorely needed,

in the view of the Committee.  The progress made by agencies in

adjusting the jurisdictional status of their properties should be

taken into account by the Bureau of the Budget in considering budget

estimates and legislative proposals which are related to such status.

It is the further view of the Committee that these two agencies,

together with the Department of Justice, should maintain a continuing

and concerted interest in the progress made by agencies in adjusting

the status of their properties and should review such progress at

appropriate intervals.

   Retrocession of unnecessary Federal jurisdiction.--The most

immediate need, in the view of the Committee, is to make provision for

the retrocession of unnecessary jurisdiction to the States.  A number

of Federal agencies, as well as a significant proportion of the

responding state attorneys general, have made recommendations







                                  72



along this line.  The Committee heartily concurs in these

recommendations.

   The Committee feels that this end could best be accomplished by

amending section 355 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, as

amended (49 U.S.C. 255; 33 U.S.C. 733; 34 U.S.C. 520; 50 U.S.C. 175)

so as to give to the heads of Federal agencies and their designers the

necessary authority to retrocede legislative jurisdiction to the

States.  An appropriate amendment would permit each Federal agency to

adjust the amount of jurisdiction it retains to the actual needs of

the installation concerned.  It is hoped, in this regard, that the

present report and the forthcoming textual study will give to Federal

land management agencies a full appreciation of the many factors which

they should consider in making their determinations of what measure of

jurisdiction best suits a particular installation.  The Committee

therefore recommends that section 355 of the Revised Statutes, as

amended, be further amended by adding a paragraph in the following

language:



   Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the head or other

authorized officer of any department or agency of the United States

may, in such cases and at such times as he may deem desirable,

relinquish to the State in which any lands or interests therein under

his jurisdiction, custody, or control are situated all, or such

portion as he may deem desirable for relinquishment, of the

jurisdiction theretofore acquired by the United States over such

lands, reserving to the United States such concurrent or partial

jurisdiction as he may deem necessary.  Relinquishment of jurisdiction

under the authority of this act may be made by the filing with the

Governor of the State in which the land may be situated a notice of

such relinquishment or i such other manner as may be prescribed by the

laws of such State, and shall take effect upon acceptance by the

State, or, if there is in effect in the State a general statute of

acceptance not specifying the means thereof, upon the day immediately

following the date upon which such notice of relinquishment is filed.



   Acceptance by States of relinquished jurisdiction.--It can be seen

that for a relinquishment made under this proposed amendment to

section 355, Revised Statutes, to be effective, there must be an

acceptance by the State.  The Committee feels such a provision is

necessary as a matter of sound policy.  It would inject some

preciseness into an area which, as has been seen throughout the

report, is replete with confusion and vagueness.  By the use of the

present provisions of section 355 of the Revised Statutes, together

with the proposed addition, the proper Federal and State officials

could, by the necessary exchange of instruments, fix precisely for any

Federal installation or sovereign.  No parcels of Federal property

affected by any change of legislative jurisdictional status under the

amended section 355 would be left dangling in an uncertain status.







                                  73



   At present, however, only a few states have statutory provisions

which would authorize them to accept such tendered jurisdiction.  The

Committee therefore suggests the advisability of enactment by the

States of uniform legislation in this respect.  This proposed

legislation might well take the form of the final section of a uniform

State cession and acceptance statute which the Committee is prepared

to recommend.  The text of this proposed uniform statute will be set

out in full text at a later point in this section of the report.

   Rulemaking and enforcement authority.--An additional change in the

Federal statutes which is, in the view of the Committee, of major

importance is further 1, 1948 (62 Stat. 281), as amended (40 U.S.C.

318, 318a, b, c).  Under the present provisions of that statute the

General Services Administration is authorized to make needful rules

and regulations for the government of Federal property and to annex to

these rules and regulations reasonable penalties  The General Services

Administration is also given authority by the act to appoint its

uniformed guards as special policemen for the preservation of law and

order on Federal property under that agency's control, but the

jurisdiction and policing powers of such special policemen are

restricted to areas over which the United States has acquired rent

jurisdiction.  Upon the application of the head of any other Federal

agency the General Services Administration is authorized to extend to

lands of such an agency, over which the United States has acquired

exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction, the application of General

Services Administrations rules and regulations and to detail special

policemen for the protection of such property.

   Because of the requirement of Federal legislative jurisdiction and

other practical difficulties mentioned earlier in this report, many

Federal agencies have found it impossible to make use of the authority

granted in the act.  In other instances the requirement that the lands

concerned by under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the

United States before General Service Administration rules and

regulations can be extended to them has resulted in the undesirable

practice on the part of some agencies of acquiring otherwise unneeded

legislative jurisdiction over Federal lands.  For these reasons the

Committee recommends that the rulemaking authority presently granted

to the General Services Administration by the mentioned act of June 1,

1948, as amended, be broadened to allow the head or other duly

authorized officer of each Federal land-management agency to make

needful rules and regulations for the management of the Federal

property under the control of such agency.







                                  74



   The power to make and enforce the necessary rules and regulations

for the management of Federal property does not depend,

constitutionally, on the acquisition by the Federal Government of

legislative jurisdiction.   Indeed, several Federal agencies already

enjoy authority in this respect without reference to the

jurisdictional status of the lands concerned.  The General Services

Administration by section 2 of the act just discussed (40 U.S.C. 318a)

and the Department of the Interior with respect to the national parks

(16 U.S.C. 3) provide examples of this.  Additionally, it may be noted

that the authority which employees of the National Park Service and

the Forest Service enjoy in the enforcement of rules and regulations

for the protection of the national parks and national forests is

similarly free from any dependence upon the jurisdictional status of

the lands concerned.  For this reason the Committee recommends the

elimination of the requirement of section 1, of the act of June 1,

1948, as amended (40 U.S.C. 318), that the police jurisdiction of the

General Services Administration special policemen be limited to areas

under the concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.

It further recommends that the regulatory authority which it proposes

be granted to all Federal land management agencies should not be made

to depend on the acquisition of Federal jurisdiction over the lands

concerned. Because of the confusion and other adverse effects which

multiplication of Federal police forces well might have on law

enforcement, however, the Committee does not propose the extension to

any other Federal agencies of the authority presently granted to the

General Services Administration by the act of June 1, 1948, as

amended, to point uniformed guards as special policemen.  The

authority of such agencies is, in the view of the Committee, ample to

meet the needs of these agencies in that respect.

   In summary, therefore, the Committee recommends that the act of

June 1, 1948 (62 Stat. 281), as amended (40 U.S.C. 318-318c), be

further amended as follows:

   Section 1 (40 U.S.C. 318), amend all after "unlawful assemblies,"

to read as follows:



and to enforce any rules and regulations made and promulgated pursuant

to this Act.



   Section 2 (40 U.S.C. 318a), amend to read as follows:



   The head of any department or agency of the United States or such

other officers duly authorized by him are authorized to issue all

needful rules and regulations for the government of the Federal

property under their charge and control, and to annex to such rules

and regulations such reasonable penalties, within the







                                  75



limits prescribed in section 4 of this Act, as will insure their

enforcement: Provided, That such rules and regulations shall be posted

and kept posted in a conspicuous place on such Federal property.  This

authority shall not impair or effect any other authority existing in

the head of any department or agency.



   Section 3(40 U.S.C. 318b), amend to read as follows:



   (1) The head of any department or agency of the United States and

such officers duly authorized by him, whenever it is deemed economical

and in the public interest, are authorized to utilize the facilities

and services of existing Federal law-enforcement agencies, and, with

the consent of any State or local agency, the facilities and services

of such State or local law enforcement agencies, to enforce any

regulations promulgated under the authority of section 2 of this Act.

   (2)  Upon the application of the head of any department or agency

of the United States the Administrator of General Services and

officials of the General Services Administration duly authorized by

him are authorized to detail such special policemen as are necessary

for the protection of the Federal property under the charge or control

of such department or agency.



   Section 4 (40 U.S.C. 318c), amend to insert "than" between "more"

and "$50."

   "Jurisdiction of United States commissioners.--The above-

recommended broadening of the regulatory and enforcement authorities

of Federal agencies with regard to the management of their properties

would make necessary a corresponding enlargement of the jurisdiction

of United States commissioners.  The present jurisdiction of United

States commissioners is delineated by section 3401 of title 18 of the

United States Code, which provides that United States commissioners

specially designated for that purpose by the court by which they were

appointed have jurisdiction to try and sentence--



persons committing petty offenses in any place over which the Congress

has exclusive power to legislate or over which the United States has

concurrent jurisdiction.



   In view of the Committee's recommendation that the regulatory

authority of land management agencies of the United States be freed

from the limitations of a legislative jurisdictional requirement, and

in view, further, of the obvious fact that regulations issued under

such authority must be capable of enforcement, a forum must be

provided in which persons accused of violations of such regulations

can be tried and, if convicted, sentenced.  The Committee therefore

recommends that subsection (a) of section 3401, title 18, United

States Code, be amended to read as follows:



   (a)  Any United States commissioner specially designated for that

purpose by the court by which he was appointed has jurisdiction to try

and sentence persons committing petty offenses in any place over which

the Congress has exclusive power to legislate or over which the United

States has concurrent or partial jurisdiction, or which is under the

charge and control of the United States, and within the judicial

district for which such commissioner was appointed.







                                  76



   Miscellaneous Federal legislation.--The only further amendment to

Federal statutes which the Committee feels are necessary at this time

are the repeal of section 103 of title 4, United States Code, and of

sections 4661 and 4662 of the Revised Statutes of the United States

(33 U.S.C. 727, 728), with the substitution for the last-mentioned

section of a new section in title 40 of the United States Code

substantially as follows:



   Any civil or criminal process, lawfully issued by competent

authority of any State or political subdivision thereof, may be served

and executed within any area under the exclusive, partial, or

concurrent jurisdiction of the United States to the same extent and

with the same effect as though such area were not subject to the

jurisdiction of the United States.



   The Committee recommends repeal of section 4661 for the reason that

its provisions requiring a cession of jurisdiction over the sites of

lighthouses, beacons, public piers and landmarks as a condition

precedent to the erection of such structures are inconsistent with

section 355 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, as amended.

The first sentence of section 4 at type of jurisdiction is sufficient

to meet the requirements of section 4661, and requires exclusive

jurisdiction in the United States.  Its repeal is recommended for this

reason.  The second sentence of section 4662 should be preserved,

however, to insure the power of the several States to serve civil and

criminal process within such sites already acquired under this act.

The Committee recommends, however, that its application be broadened

to all Federal lands and has therefore recommended that, as a

codification matter, the new section be inserted in title 40.

   The repeal of section 103 of title 4, United States Code, is

recommended because the section is obsolete.  The section gives to the

President authority to procure the assent of the legislature of a

state to the Federal purchase of land, so that the Federal Government

shall acquire legislative jurisdiction over the property, where a

purchase of land has been made without the prior consent of the State.

Authority to acquire legislative jurisdiction over the previously

acquired property now is adequately provided by section 355 of the

Revised Statutes of the United States, as amended.

   State legislation.--As has already been pointed out, the Committee

is of the opinion that additional legislation on the part of many

States, and amendments of State constitutions in several instances,

will be required to allow relinquishment of unneeded Federal

legislative jurisdiction to them by the United States.  Additionally,

it is the Committee's view that further State legislative action is

indicated with respect to uniformity in State cession and consent

statutes.

   The States of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Washington,

as has been indicated earlier, have in their constitutions pro-







                                  77



visions for the exercise of exclusive jurisdiction by the United

States to which these States may wish to give attention.

   Uniform State cession and acceptance statute.--The Committee's

study also has revealed that considerable disparities exist among the

various States in their legislation pertaining to the cession of

legislative jurisdiction to the United States.  Some of these

differences have been pointed out in an earlier part of this report.

In view of the fact that the Federal Government's power to legislate

for ceded areas is dependent initially upon a grant of consent in this

respect by the State concerned, it is obvious under these

circumstances that unilateral action on the part of the Federal

Government directed toward sounder policies and practices in this

field could be only partially successful.  It is for this reason that

the Committee invites to the attention of the States the desirability

of their enactment of a uniform State cession and acceptance statute

along the following lines; optional matter, to provide conformity with

existing State practices, is included in brackets:



   SECTION 1. (a) Whenever the United States shall desire to acquire

legislative jurisdiction over any lands within this State and shall

make application for that purpose, the Governor is authorized to cede

to the United States such measure of jurisdiction, not exceeding that

requested by the United States, as he may deem proper over all or any

part of the lands as to which a cession of legislative jurisdiction is

requested, reserving to the State such concurrent or partial

jurisdiction as he may deem proper.

   (b)  Said application on behalf of the United States shall state in

particular the measure of jurisdiction desired and shall be

accompanied by an accurate description of the lands over which such

jurisdiction is desired and information as to which of such lands are

then owned [or leased] by the United States.

   (c)  Said cession of jurisdiction shall become effective when it is

accepted on behalf of the United States, which acceptance shall be

indicated, in witting upon the instrument of cession, by an authorized

official of the United States and [admitting it to record in the

appropriate land records of the county in which such lands are

situated] [filing with the Secretary of State].

   Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, there are

reserved over any lands as to which any legislative jurisdiction may

be ceded to the United States pursuant to this act, the State's entire

legislative jurisdiction with respect to taxation and that of each

State agency, county, city, political subdivision, and public district

of the State; the State entire legislative jurisdiction with respect

to marriage, divorce, annulment, adoption, commitment of the mentally

incompetent, and descent and distribution of property; concurrent

power to enforce the criminal law; and the power to execute any

process, civil or criminal law; and the power to execute any process,

civil or criminal, issued under the authority of the State; nor shall

any persons residing on such civil or  political rights, including the

right of suffrage, by reason of the cession of such jurisdiction to

the United States.

   Sec. 3. (a)  Whenever the United States tenders to the State a

relinquishment of all or part of the legislative jurisdiction

theretofore acquired by it over lands within this State, the Governor

is authorized to accept on behalf of the State the legislative

jurisdiction so relinquished.







                                  78



   (b)  The Governor shall indicate his acceptance of such

relinquished legislative jurisdiction by a writing addressed to the

head of the appropriate department or agency of the United States and

such acceptance shall be effective when said writing is deposited in

the United States mails.



   The foregoing proposal, if enacted into law by the several States,

when used in conjunction with the applicable Federal authority as it

would exist after the enactment of the amendments recommended just,

previously, would permit cooperative action on the part of appropriate

Federal and State officials for the resolution of most of the manifold

problems of both the Federal and State Governments, and of the

residents of Federal areas, by the existence of Federal legislative

jurisdiction over so many lands within the States.

   The proposed statute has been drawn in the form in which it appears

above in order to meet a number of needs which came to the attention

of the Committee in the course of its study.  The following comments

in respect to certain of its specific provisions are considered

appropriate: (a) The authority to make the actual cession of

jurisdiction and to determine the measure thereof which should be

ceded are confided to the Governor in order to permit an adjustment of

the amount of jurisdiction which is ceded to the needs of the

particular lands involved; the need for such discretion in some State

official has been apparent throughout the Committee's study; (b) the

amount of jurisdiction which the Governor may cede is limited to not

more than what has been asked for on behalf of the Federal Government

for the reason that it is obviously to the advantage of the State, the

United States, and the residents of the area, for the United States to

acquire only the amount of jurisdiction sufficient to meet its needs;

(c) provision is made for the cession of jurisdiction over lands not

yet acquired by the United States to allow the continuance of the

desirable practices followed by certain United States agencies of (1)

determining in advance what jurisdiction is necessary for the purpose

to which the lands are to be put and acquiring such lands only when

such jurisdiction is obtainable, and (2) acquiring by a single cession

from a State one type of jurisdiction over a large area eventually to

become part of one Federal installation but for which the lands are to

be acquired at different time or over a period of time; (d) provision

is made for admission to record of all cessions of jurisdiction in

order that the respective limits of State and Federal jurisdiction

will be readily ascertainable; (e) by section 2 of the act certain

irreducible minimums of authority are left in the States; as

examination of the provisions of this section will reveal, the taxing

power of the State and that of its political subdivisions is in no

wise reduced, nor is the power to enforce the criminal law; and care

has been exercised to preserve the rights and privilege of the

residents







                                  79



of ceded areas; and (f) the necessary provisions for acceptance of

relinquished jurisdiction, mentioned earlier, have been made.

   Summary.--It is the belief of the Committee that the need for the

Federal and State legislation which has recommended is demonstrated by

its study and in this report.  With the enactment of such legislation,

and with the revision by Federal agencies of their policies and

practices relating to the acquisition or retention of legislative

jurisdiction so that they are in conformity with the recommendations

made in the report, the Committee is confident that most of the

problems presently arising out of this subject could be resolved, to

the great benefit of the General Government, the States and local

governmental entities, residents of Federal areas, and the many others

who are affected.