JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL AREAS WITHIN THE STATES REPORT OF THE INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR THE STUDY OF JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL AREAS WITHIN THE STATES PART II A Text of the Law of Legislative Jurisdiction Submitted to the Attorney General and transmitted to the President June 1957 Reprinted by Constitutional Research Associates P.O. Box 550 So. Holland, Illinois 06473 INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR THE STUDY OF JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL AREAS WITHIN THE STATES PERRY W. MORTON, Assistant Attorney General, Chairman ROBERT DECHERT,[1] General Counsel, Department of Defense, Vice Chairman HENRY H. PIKE,[2] Associate General Counsel, General Services Administration, Secretary ARTHUR B. FOCKE, Legal Adviser, Bureau of the Budget ELMER F. BENNETT,[3] Solicitor, Department of the Interior ROBERT L. FARRINGTON, General Counsel, Department of Agriculture PARKE M. BANTA, General Counsel, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare GUY H. BIRDSALL,[4] General Counsel, Veterans' Administration Staff Director EDWARD S. LAZOWSKA, Department of Justice Principal Assistants, Part II ROBERT W. GEWEKE, Department of Justice HAROLD HAM, Department of Agriculture Principal Staff, Part II BERNARD M. NEWBURG, Department of the Interior THOMAS A. PACE, Department of Justice CHARLES S. SULLIVAN, Department of Justice HERMAN WOLKINSON, Department of Justice Staff Department of Justice: HELEN BUCKLEY, Tax Division CALVIN W. DERRENGER, Office of Deputy Attorney General ALICE MILLER, Internal Security Division CLARE LUND, Lands Division ALICE B. BRIGHT, Lands Division [1] Succeeded MANSFIELD D. SPRAGUE On February 28, 1957, who had succeeded Wilber M. Brucker on October 13, 1955. [2] Succeeded MAXWELL H. ELLIOTT on August 27, 1956. [3] Succeeded J. REUEL ARMSTRONG on May 3, 1957. [4] Succeeded EDWARD E. ODOM on May 9, 1956. II III STAFF Department of Defense: GEORGE D. HEISSER FRED FIALKOW JOHN DAILEY, JR. BASIL S. NORRIS HORACE B. ROBERTSON, JR. FRANCIS J. McSHALLEY MARY L. GARDNER General Services Administration: FRANCIS J. McSHALLEY MARY L. GARDNER Veterans' Administration: R.B. WHITE Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: HELEN BOWMAN LETTER OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT THE WHITE HOUSE Washington, July 8, 1957 DEAR MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I have taken note of the final report (Part II) which you transmitted to me, rendered by the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States. It is my understanding that the report is to be published and distributed, for the purpose of making available to Federal administrators of real property, Federal and State legislators, the legal profession, and others, this text of the law of legislative jurisdiction in these areas. In view of the fact that the work of the Committee is completed, and since other departments and agencies of the Government now have clear direction for turning this work into permanent gains in improved Federal-Study of Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States is hereby dissolved. Chairman Perry W. Morton and the members of this Committee have my congratulations and sincere appreciation of their service to our country in bringing to light the facts and law in this much neglected field. This monumental work, culminating three years of exhaustive effort, lays an excellent foundation for allocating to the States some of the functions which under our Federal-State system should properly be performed by State governments. Sincerely, THE HONORABLE HERBERT BROWNELL, JR., The Attorney General, Washington, D.C. IV Preface The Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States was formed on December 15, 1954, on the recommendation of the Attorney General approved by the President and the Cabinet. The basic purpose for which the Committee was founded was to find means for resolving the problems arising out of jurisdiction status of Federal lands. Addressing itself to this purpose, the Committee, with assistance from all Federal agencies interested in the problems (a total of 33 agencies), from State Attorneys General, and from numerous other sources, prepared a report entitled Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States--Part I, The Facts and Committee Recommendations.1 This report, approved by the President on April 27, 1956, set out the findings of the Committee and recommended changes in Federal and State law, and in Federal agencies' practices, designed to eliminate existing problems arising out of legislative jurisdiction. It included two appendices. The Committee's research involved a general survey of the jurisdictional status of all federally owned real property in the 48 States, and a detailed survey of the status of individual such properties in the State of Virginia, Kansas, and California. These three named States were selected as containing Federal real properties representative of such properties in all the States. Information was procured concerning the practices and problems related to legislative jurisdiction of the 23 Federal agencies controlling real property, and of the advantages and disadvantages of the several legislative jurisdiction statuses for the various purposes for which federally owned land is used. This information is reflected and ana- VII VIII PREFACE lyzed in the several chapters of part I of the report, and is summarized in appendix A of the same part. The Committee's study included a review of the policies, practices, and problems of the 48 States related to legislative jurisdiction. Information concerning these matters similarly is reflected and analyzed in various portions of part I of the report, with chapter V of the part being entirely devoted to the laws and problems of States related to legislative jurisdiction. Also, the texts of State (and Federal) constitutional provisions and statutes related to jurisdiction in effect as of December 31, 1955, are gathered in appendix B of part I. The major conclusions of the Committee, set out in part I of the report, which, of cause, are applicable only to the 48 States to which the Committee's study extended, and do not apply to present Territories or the District of Columbia, are to the effect that in the usual case the Federal Government should not receive or retain any of the States' legislative jurisdiction within federally owned areas, that in some special cases (where general law enforcement by Federal authorities is indicated) the Federal Government should receive or retain legislative jurisdiction only concurrently with the States, and that in any case the Federal Government should not receive or retain any of the States' legislative jurisdiction with respect to taxation, marriage, divorce, descent and distribution of property, and a variety of other matters, specified in the report, which are ordinarily the subject of State control. The conclusions reached by the Committee were, of course, made only after an appraisal of the facts adduced during the study in the light of applicable law, including the great body of decisions handed down by courts and opinions rendered by governmental legal officers, Federal and State, interpretative of situations affected by legislative jurisdiction. Recommendations made by the Committee, based on the conclusions indicated above and on certain subsidiary findings, now constitute the policy of the Executive branch of the Federal Government, and are being implemented by Federal agen- IX cies to the extent possible under existing law. However, full implementation of these recommendations must await the enactment of certain suggested Federal and State legislation. In the course of its study the Committee ascertained the existence of a serious lack of legal bibliography on the subject-matter of its interest. With the concurrence of the Attorney General of the United States and the encouragement of the President, it has proceeded with the publication of this part II of its report, a compilation of the court decisions and legal opinions it weighed in the course of its study of the subject of legislative jurisdiction. CONTENTS Page COMMITTEE AND STAFF MEMBERSHIP................................. II PRESIDENT'S LETTER OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT........................... IV ATTORNEY GENERAL'S LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL....................... V COMMITTEE'S LETTER OF SUBMISSION............................... VI PREFACE........................................................ VII CASES CITED.................................................... XIX CHAPTER I OUTLINE OF LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION FEDERAL REAL PROPERTIES Holdings extensive.......................................... 1 Activities thereon varied................................... 1 Legal problems many......................................... 2 FEDERAL POSSESSION OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION By constitutional consent................................... 2 By Federal reservation or State cession..................... 3 Governmental power merged in Federal Government............. 3 EXERCISE OF EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION Legislative authority little exercised...................... 4 Exercise as to crimes....................................... 5 Exercise as to civil matters................................ 5 RULE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Extended by courts to provide civil law..................... 6 Problems arising under rule................................. 6 ACTION TO MITIGATE HARDSHIPS INCIDENT TO EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION By Federal-State arrangement................................ 7 Federal efforts limited; State efforts restricted........... 7 By State statute or informal action, and State reservations. 8 RESERVATION OF JURISDICTION BY STATES Development of reservations................................. 8 Early requirement, of R.S. 355, for exclusive Federal jurisdiction Present variety of jurisdictional situations................ 10 JURISDICTIONAL STATUSES DEFINED Exclusive legislative jurisdiction.......................... 10 Concurrent legislative jurisdiction......................... 11 Partial legislative jurisdiction............................ 11 Proprietorial interest only................................. 11 XI XII CONTENTS Page OTHER FEDERAL RIGHTS IN FEDERALLY OWNED AREAS To carry out constitutional duties........................... 11 To made needful rules, and necessary and proper laws, and effect of Federal supremacy clause........................ 12 GENERAL BOUNDARIES OF THE WORK.............................. 13 CHAPTER II ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION ORIGIN OF ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 17, OF THE CONSTITUTION Harassment of the Continental Congress....................... 15 Debates in Constitutional Convention concerning clause 17.... 18 Debates in State rafting conventions......................... 22 Federal legislation prior to 1885............................ 28 Early court decisions........................................ 37 CHAPTER III ACQUISITION OF LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION THREE METHODS FOR FEDERAL ACQUISITION OF JURISDICTION Constitutional consent....................................... 41 State cession................................................ 42 Federal reservation.......................................... 43 No Federal legislative jurisdiction without consent, cession, or reservation................................... 45 NECESSITY OF STATE ASSENT TO TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Constitutional consent....................................... 46 State cession or Federal reservation......................... 47 NECESSITY OF FEDERAL ASSENT Express consent required by R.S. 355......................... 48 Former presumption of Federal acquiescence in absence of dissent...................................................... 49 Presumption in transfers by cession.......................... 50 Presumption in transfers by constitutional consent........... 51 What constitutes dissent..................................... 53 NECESSITY OF STATE ASSENT TO RETRANSFER OF JURISDICTION TO STATE In general................................................... 54 Exception.................................................... 56 DEVELOPMENT OF RESERVATIONS IN CONSENT AND CESSION STATUTES Former Federal requirement (R.S. 355) for exclusive jur- isdiction................................................. 57 Earlier theory that no reservation by State possible......... 59 State authority to make reservation in cession statutes recognized................................................ 60 XIII CONTENTS DEVELOPMENT OF RESERVATIONS IN CONSENT AND CESSION STATUTES --continued Page State authorized to make reservations in consent statutes recognized................................................ 62 Retention by Federal Government of less than exclusive jur- isdiction on admission of State........................... 64 Non-interference with Federal use now sole limitation on reservations by States.................................... 64 Specific reservations approved............................... 65 LIMITATIONS ON AREAS OVER WHICH JURISDICTION MAY BE ACQUIRED BY CONSENT OF STATE UNDER CLAUSE 17 In general................................................... 66 Area required to be "purchased" by Federal Government........ 67 Term "needful Buildings" construed........................... 70 LIMITATIONS ON AREAS OVER WHICH JURISDICTION MAY BE ACQUIRED BY CESSION OF STATE Early view................................................... 73 Present view................................................. 74 Specific purposes for which cessions approved................ 78 LIMITATIONS ON AREAS OVER WHICH JURISDICTION MAY BE RETAINED BY FEDERAL RESERVATION....................................... 79 PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS IN STATE CONSENT OR CESSION STATUTES JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FEDERAL EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION Conflict of decisions........................................ 80 CHAPTER IV TERMINATION OF LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION UNILATERAL RETROCESSION OR RECAPTURE OF JURISDICTION Retrocession................................................. 83 Recapture.................................................... 83 MEANS OF TERMINATION OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION In general................................................... 84 FEDERAL STATUTORY RETROCESSION OF JURISDICTION In general................................................... 84 Right to retrocede not early apparent........................ 85 Right to retrocede established............................... 87 Constriction of retrocession statutes........................ 88 SUMMARY OF RETROCESSION STATUTES Retrocession few............................................. 89 Statutes enact to afford civil rights to inhabitants of Federal enclaves............................................. 90 Statutes enacted to give State or local governments author- ity for policing highways.................................... 93 Miscellaneous statutes retroceding jurisdiction.............. 95 XIV CONTENTS Page REVERSION OF JURISDICTION UNDER TERMS OF STATE CESSION STATUTE In general................................................... 96 Leading eases................................................ 96 REVERSION OF JURISDICTION BY TERMINATION OF FEDERAL USE OF PROPERTY Doctrine announced........................................... 99 Discussion of doctrine....................................... 99 CHAPTER V CRIMINAL JURISDICTION RIGHT OF DEFINING AND PUNISHING FOR CRIMES Exclusive Federal jurisdiction............................... 105 Concurrent Federal and State criminal jurisdiction........... 109 Law enforcement on areas of exclusive or concurrent jur- isdiction................................................. 111 Partial jurisdiction......................................... 113 State criminal jurisdiction retained......................... 114 Acts committed partly in areas under State jurisdiction...... 115 Retrial on change in jurisdiction............................ 116 SERVICE OF STATE CRIMINAL PROCESS In general................................................... 116 Right by Federal grant....................................... 117 Right by State reservation................................... 117 Reservations to serve process not inconsistent with exclusive jurisdiction.............................................. 118 Warrant of arrest deemed process............................. 121 Arrest without warrant not deemed service of process......... 122 Coroner's inquest............................................ 122 Writ of habeas corpus........................................ 123 FEDERAL CRIMES ACT OF 1790 Effects limited.............................................. 124 ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES STATUTES Assimilative Crimes Act of 1825.............................. 126 Assimilative Crimes Act of 1866.............................. 128 Re-enactments of Assimilative crimes Act, 1898-1940.......... 128 Assimilative crimes Act of 1948.............................. 131 INTERPRETATIONS OF ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES ACT Adopts State law............................................. 132 Operates only when offense is not otherwise defined.......... 132 Includes common law Excludes status of limitations........... 134 Excludes law on sufficiency of indictments................... 134 Offenses included............................................ 135 Offenses no included......................................... 135 UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS ACT OF 1940........................ 142 XV CONTENTS CHAPTER VI CIVIL JURISDICTION RIGHT OF DEFINING CIVIL LAW LODGED IN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Page In general................................................... 145 State reservations of authority.............................. 147 Congressional exercise of right--statute relating to death or injury by wrongful act................................. 148 Early apparent absence of civil law.......................... 155 INTERNATIONAL LAW RULE Adopted for areas under Federal legislative jurisdiction..... 156 Federalizes State civil law, including common law............ 158 Only laws existing at time of jurisdictional transfer feder- alized.................................................... 158 CIRCUMSTANCES WHEREIN FORMER STATE LAWS INOPERATIVE By action of the Federal Government.......................... 159 Where activity by State officials required................... 161 Inconsistency with Federal law............................... 163 INTERNATIONAL LAW RULE IN RETROCESSION OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION................................................. 164 STATE AND FEDERAL VENUE DISCUSSED.............................. 165 FEDERAL STATUTES AUTHORIZING OF STATE LAW...................... 167 CHAPTER VII RELATION OF STATES TO FEDERAL ENCLAVES EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION State basically without authority............................ 169 Exclusion of State authority illustrated..................... 169 Authority to tax excluded.................................... 177 Other authority excluded..................................... 180 Status of State and municipal services....................... 186 Service of process........................................... 187 STATE RESERVATIONS OF JURISDICTION In general................................................... 188 Reservations construed......................................... 188 AUTHORITY OF THE STATES UNDER FEDERAL STATUTES In general................................................... 190 Lea Act...................................................... 190 Buck Act..................................................... 192 Military Leasing Act of 1947................................. 203 Workmen's compensation....................................... 207 Unemployment compensation.................................... 211 XVI CONTENTS CHAPTER VIII RESIDENTS OF FEDERAL ENCLAVES EFFECTS OF TRANSFERS OF LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION Page In general..................................................... 215 Education...................................................... 216 Voting and office holding...................................... 219 Divorce........................................................ 225 Probate and Lunacy proceedings generally....................... 230 Miscellaneous rights and privileges............................ 236 CONCEPTS AFFECTING STATUS OF RESIDENTS Doctrine of extraterritoriality................................ 238 Contrary view of extraterritoriality........................... 239 Theory of incompatibility...................................... 243 Weaknesses in incompatibility theory........................... 243 Former exclusivity of Federal jurisdiction..................... 244 Present lack of Federal jurisdiction........................... 244 Rejection of past concepts..................................... 245 Interpretations of federal grants of power as retrocession..... 245 Summary of contradictory theories on rights of residents....... 247 CHAPTER IX AREAS NOT UNDER LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION FEDERAL OPERATIONS FREE FROM INTERFERENCE In general..................................................... 249 Real property.................................................. 251 FREEDOM OF USE OF REAL PROPERTY ILLUSTRATED Taxation....................................................... 259 Special assessments............................................ 269 Condemnation of Federal land................................... 271 FEDERAL ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION OF REAL PROPERTY Acquisition.................................................... 272 Disposition.................................................... 273 PROTECTION OF PROPERTY AND OPERATIONS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Property....................................................... 272 Operations..................................................... 273 AGENCY RULES AND REGULATIONS.................................. 277 CONTROL OVER FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION.............................. 280 Building codes and zoning...................................... 284 Contractor licensing........................................... 288 XVII CONTENTS CHAPTER X FEDERAL OPERATIONS NOT RELATED TO LAND STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLES Page Federally owned and operated vehicles.......................... 293 Vehicles operated under Federal contract....................... 299 STATE LICENSE, INSPECTION AND RECORDING REQUIREMENTS Licensing of Federal activities................................ 301 Applicability of inspection laws to Federal functions.......... 302 Recording requirements......................................... 304 APPLICABILITY OF STATE CRIMINAL LAWS TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND FUNCTIONS Immunity of Federal employees.................................. 308 Obstruction of Federal functions............................... 311 Liability of employees acting beyond scope of employment....... 312 LIABILITY OF FEDERAL CONTRACTORS TO STATE TAXATION Original immunity of Federal contractors....................... 313 Later view of contractors' liability........................... 314 Immunity of Federal property in possession of a contractor..... 316 Economic burden of State taxation on the United States......... 318 Legislation exemption of Federal instrumentalities............. 319 INDEX.......................................................... 323 Cases Cited Page Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506 (1859)........................ 123, 312 Adams v. Londeree, 139 W.Va.748, 83 S.E.2nd 127(1954)...... 219, 224, 245, 248 Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312 (1943).................. 48, 107 Air Terminal Services, Inc. v. Rentzel, 81 F.Supp. 611 (E.D. Va, 1949)............................................. 135, 138, 182 Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U.S. 1 (1941)................. 315, 319 Alaska Packers Assn. v. Comm'n., 294 U.S. 532 (1935)............. 210 Alexander v. Movietonews, Inc., 273 N.Y. 511, 6 N.E. 2nd 604 (1937), cert den., 301 U.S. 702............................. 209 Allen v. Industrial Accident Com., 3 Cal. 2d 214, 43 P. 2d 787 (1935).................................................. 81, 210 Alward v. Johnson, 282 U.S. 509 (1931)........................... 299 American Automobile Ins. Co., et al., v. Struwe, 218 s.w. 534 (Tex., 1920................................................. 294 American Boiler Works, Inc., Bankrupt, In the Matter of, 220 F.2d 319 (C.A. 3, 1955)................................. 304 American Insurance Company v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511 (1828).......... 157 American Motors Corp. v. City of Kenosha, 274 Wis. 315, 80 N.W. 2d 363 1957)................................................... 317 Anderson v. Chicago and Northwestern R. R., 102 Neb. 578, 168 N.W. 196 (1918).................................................. 160 Anderson v. Elliott, 101 Fed. 609 (C.A. 4, 1900), app. dism., 22 S.Ct. 930, 46 L. Ed. 1262 (1902)............................ 311 Andrews v. Auditor, 69 Va. 115 (1877)............................ 263 Antelope, The, 10 Wheat. 66 (1825)............................... 108 Application for the Removal of Names from Registry List, 133 Misc. 38, 231 N.Y. Supp. 396 (1928)......................... 221 Arapojolu v. McMenamin, 113 Cal.App. 2d 824, 249 P.2d 318 (1952).... 66, 219, 222, 224, 225, 245, 248 Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423 (1931)....................... 286 Arledge v. Mabry, N.M. 303, 197 P.2d 884 (1948)......... 68, 92, 221, 223, 226, 228, 239, 247 Arlington Hotel Co. v. Fant, 278 U.S. 439 (1929)......... 65, 75, 77, 103, 104, 146, 159, 165 Armstrong v. Foote, 11 Abb. Pr. 384 (Brooklyn City Ct., 1860).... 166 Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936)..... 276 Atkinson v. State Tax Commission, 303 U.S. 20 (1938)..... 48, 54, 158, 179, 247 Atkinson v. State Tax Commission, 156 Ore. 461, 62 P. 2d 13 (1936).......................................... 179 XIX XX CASES CITED Page Bagnell v. Broderick, 13 Pet. 436 (1839)......................... 274 Bailey v. Smith, 40 F. 2d 958 (S.D. Iowa, 1928).................. 185 Baker v. State, 47 Tex.Cr.App. 482, 83 S.W. 1122 (1904).. 52, 80, 105 Baltimore & A.R.R. V. Lichtenberg, 176 Md. 383, 4 A2d 734 (1939), app. dim., 308 U.S. 525..................................... 300 Baltimore Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. v. Baltimore, 195 U.S. 375 (1904)..................................... 89, 206 Bank v. Supervisors, 7 Wall. 26 (1869)........................... 307 Bank of Phoebus v. Byrum, 110 Va. 708, 67 S.E. 349 (1910)........ 237 Bancroft Inv. Corporation v. Jacksonville, 157 Fla. 546, 27 So. 2d 162 (1946)......................................... 100 Bannon v. Burnes, 39 Fed. 897 (C.C.W.D.Mo., 1889).................. 70 Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582 (1858)............................. 229 Barrett v. Palmer, 135 N.Y. 336, 31 N.E. 1017 (1892), aff'd., 162 U.S. 399............................................ 97, 224 Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 (1833)........................... 110 Battle v. United States, 209 U.S. 36 (1908).............. 43, 70, 105 Beaufort County v. Jasper County, 220 S.C. 469, 68 S.E. 2d 421 (1951)....................................... 46 Beechwood, In re. 142 Misc. 400, 254 N.Y. Supp. 473 (1931)....... 234 Bennett v. Ahrens, 57 F.2d 948 (C.A. 7, 1932).................... 122 Bennett v. Seattle, 22 Wash. 2d 455, 156 P.2d 685 (1945)......... 298 Benson v. United States, 146 U.S. 325 (1892)......... 43, 50, 72, 75, 102, 103, 104 Birmingham v. Thompson, 200 F. 2d 505 (C.A. 5, 1952)....... 139, 140, 184, 189 Bliss v. Bliss, 133 Md. 61, 104 Atl. 467 (1918)............. 231, 234 Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19 (1939)............... 43, 78, 105, 114 Bowen v. United States 134 F.2d 845 (C.A. 5, 1943), cert. den., 319 U.S. 764................................................ 105 Bowen v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 51 F.Supp. 652 (W.D. Okla., 1943).......................................... 202 Bradley, In re, 96 Fed. 969 (C.C.S.D.Cal., 1898)................. 123 Bragg Development Co. v. Brazion, 239 N.C. 427, 79 S.E. 2d 918 (1954)....................................... 204 Bragg Investment Co. v. Cumberland County, 245 N.C. 492, 96 S.E. 2d 341 (1957)....................................... 205 Breeding v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 243 Ala. 240, 9 So. 2d 6 (1942)........................................... 210 Brooke v. State, 155 Ala. 78, 46 So. 491 (1908).................. 114 Brookley Manor v. State, 90 So. 2d 161 (Ala., 1956).............. 205 Brooks Hardware Co. v. Greer, 111 Me. 78, 87 Atl. 889 (1911).............................. 52, 69, 71, 147 Brown v. Cain, 56 F.Supp. 56 (E.D. Pa. 1944)..................... 310 Brown v. United States, 257 Fed. 46 (C.A. 5, 1919), rev'd., 256 U.S. 335 (1921)............................... 70, 78, 80, 81 Buckstaff Bath House Co. v. Mckinley, 308 U.S. 358 (1939)................................. 75, 189, 211 Buford v. Houtz, 133 U.S. 320 (1890)............................. 283 Burgess v. Territory of Montana, 8 Mont. 57, 19 Pac. 558 (1888).. 45 Burgess v. United States, 274 U.S. 328 (1927) ................... 135 Burrus, In re, 136 U.S. 586 (1890).......................... 229, 236 Buttery v. Robbins, 177 Va. 368, 14 S.E. 2d 544 (1941)....................... 65, 80, 81, 83, 166 California v. Mouse, 278 U.S. 614, 662 (1928).................... 68 Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540 (1888)............................ 248 XXI CASES CITED Page Camden v. Harris, 109 F.Supp. 311 (W.D.Ark., 1953).............. 147 Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 518 (1897)........ 256, 258, 259 Capetola v. Barclay White Co., 139 F. 2d 556 (C.A. 3, 1943), cert. den., 321 U.S. 799....... ........................... 210 Carlton, In re, 7 Cow. 471 (N.Y., 1827)......................... 123 Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp. v. Alderson, 127 W.Va. 807, 34 S.E. 2d 737 (1945), cert den., 326 U.S. 764..................... 202 Carson v. Roane-Anderson Company, 342 U.S. 232 (1952)...... 290, 320 Castle v. Lewis, 254 Fed. 917 (C.A. 8, 1918).................... 310 Chalk v. United States, 114 F.2d 207 (C.A. 4, 1940), cert. den., 312 U.S. 679................................................ 184 Chaney v. Chaney, 53 N.M. 66, 201 P. 2d 782 (1949)..... 68, 92, 225, 226, 227, 228, 230 Chavez, et al., In Re, 149 F.ed 73 (C.A. 8, 1906)................ 157 Chicago, R. I. & P.Ry. v. Davenport, 51 Iowa 451, 1 N.W. 720 (1879)...................................................... 263 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. v. McGlinn, 114 U.S. 542 (1885)..... 75, 103, 146, 156, 157, 159, 160, 163, 165 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. v. Satterfield, 135 Okla. 183, 185, 275 Pac. 303, 305, 306 (1929)................................ 65 Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665 (1912)............................. 307 Clay v. State, 4 Kan. 49 (1866).............................. 44, 114 Cleveland v. United States, 323 U.S. 329 (1945).................. 268 Cockburn v. Willman, 301 Mo. 575, 257 S.W. 458 (1923)....... 116, 121 Coffman v. Cleveland Wrecking Co., 24 F.Supp. 581 (W.D.Mo., 1938)......................... 158, 165 Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 (1821)...................... 38, 107 Coleman v. Bros. Corp. v. City of Franklin, 58 F.Supp. 551 (D.N.H., 1945), aff'd., 152 F.2d 527 (C.A. 1, 1945), cert. den. 328 U.S. 844.......................................... 180 Collins v. Yosemite Park Co., 304 U.S. 518 (1938)............ 43, 66, 75, 77, 139, 140, 161, 182, 189 Colorado v. Symes, 286 U.S. 510 (1932).......................... 308 Colorado v. Toll, 268 U.S. 228 (1925)............. 81, 137, 145, 284 Columbia River Packers' Ass'n. v. United States, 29 F.2d 91 (C.A. 9, 1928)............................................. 51 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Clark, 202 F.2d 94 (C.A. 7, 1953)...................................................... 137 Commonwealth v. Cain, 1 Legal Op. (Seig & Morgan, Harrisburg, Pa.) 25 (Ct. of Quarter Sessions, Cumberland County, Pa., 1870)...................................................... 114 Commonwealth v. Clary, 8 Mass. 72 (1811)........... 39, 52, 117, 118, 119, 178, 185, 237, 238, 241, 243 Commonwealth v. Closson, 229 Mass. 329, 118 N.E. 653 (1918)...... 293 ....................................................... 295, 297 Commonwealth v. Cushing, 11 Mass. 67 (1814)...................... 123 Commonwealth v. Dana, 2 Metc. 329 (Mass., 1841).................. 109 Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 2 Parsons Eq. Cas. 384 (Pa., 1848)... 114 Commonwealth v. King, 252 Ky. 699, 68 S.W. 2d 45 (1934)......... 52, 61, 74, 103, 104, 105 Commonwealth v. Rohrer, 37 Pa. D. and C. 410 (1937)......... 115, 171 Commonwealth v. Trott, 331 Mass. 491, 120 N.E. 289 (1954)........ 114 XXII CASES CITED Commonwealth v. Vaughn, 64 Pa. D. and C. 320 (1948).............. 116 Commonwealth v. Young, Juris. (Hall's, Phila.) 47 (Pa., 1818)..60, 259 Concessions Co. v. Morris, 109 Wash. 46, 186 Pac. 655 (1919)... 75,179 Conley Housing Corp. v. Coleman, 211 Ga. 835, 89 S.E. 2d 482 (1955)....................................... 204 Consolidated Milk Producers v. Parker, 19 Cal. 2d 815, 123 P.2d 440 (1942)................................................. 171 Cory v. Spencer, 67 Kan. 648, 73 Pac. 920 (1903)................. 221 Cotton v. United States, 11 How. 229 (1850)...................... 279 County of Allegheny v. McClung, 53 Pa. 482 (1867)...... 105, 122, 181 County of Cherry v. Thacher, 32 Neb. 350, 49 N.W. 351(1891).. 118,179 County of Norfolk v. Portsmouth, 186 Va. 1032, 45 S.E.2d 136 (1947)................................... 201, 241 County of Prince William v. Thomason Park, 197 Va. 861, 91 S.E. 2d 441 (1956)....................................... 204 Covell v. Heyman, 111 U.S. 176 (1884)..............................312 Covington & C. Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U.S. 2004 (1894)...... 288 Craig v. Craig, 143 Kan, 56 P.2d 464 (1936), clarification denied, 144 Kan. 155, 58 P.2d 1101 (1936)........................158, 227 Crater Lake Nat. Park Co. v. Oregon Liquor Control Comm'n, 26 F.Supp. 363 (D. Oreg., 1939)........................ 139, 140 Crook, Horner & Co. v. Old Point Comfort Hotel Co., 54 Fed. 604 C.C.E.D. Va., 1893................. 61, 97, 157, 224 Cross v. North Carolina, 132 U.S. 131 (1889)..................... 110 Crowder v. Virginia, 197 Va. 96, 87 S.E.2d 745 (1955), app. dism., 350 U.S. 957.................................... 300 Crownover v. Crownover, 58 N.M. 597, 274 P.2d 127 (1954)......... 228 Curry v. State, 111 Tex. Cr.App. 264, 12 S.W.2d 796 (1928)... 52, 61, 73, 74, 114 Curry v. United States, 314 U.S. 14 (1941)....................... 316 Curtis v. Toledo Metropolitan Housing Authority et al., 432, 78 N.E.2d 676 (1947)........................................ 285 Custis v. Lane, 17 Va 579 (1813)................................. 219 Daniels v. Chanute Air Force Base Exchange, 127 F.Supp. 920 (E.D. Ill., 1955)........................................... 198 Danielson v. Donmopray, 57 F.2d 565 (D.Wyo., 1932).......... 157, 165 Darbie v. Darbie, 195 Ga. 769, 25 S.E.2d 685 (1943)......... 227, 228 Dastervignes v. United States, 122 Fed. 30 (C.A. 9, 1903)....... 283 Davis v. Howard, 3006 Ky. 149, 206 S.W.2d 467 (1947).... 56, 202, 246 Dayton Development Fort Hamilton Corp. v. Boyland, 133 N.Y.S.2d 831 (Sup. Ct., 1954), aff'd., 1 App. Div. 2d 979, 151 N.Y.S. 2d 928, app.. pending, 137 N.E.2d 457 (1956)................ 204 De La Rama v. De La Rama, 201 U.S. 303 (1906).................... 229 Delamater v. Folz, 50 Hun 528, 3 N.Y. Supp. 711 (Sup.Ct., 1889).. 116 De Luz Homes, Inc. v. County of San Diego, 45 Cal. 2d 546, 290 P.2d 544 (1955)......................................... 204 DeNicola v. DeNicola, 132 Conn. 185, 43 A.2d 71 (1945)........... 229 Deni v. United States, 8 Ariz. 138, 71 Pac. 920 (1903), rev'd., 8 Ariz. 413, 76 Pac. 455............................ 283 XXIII CASES CITED Dibble v. Clapp, Dicks v. Dicks, Dickson, Ex parte, Divine v. Unaka National Bank, Dunaway v. United States, Edberg v. Johnson, Edelstein v. South Post Officers Club, Ellis v. Davis, El Toro Dev. Co. v. County of Orange, Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. DiLeo, England v. United States, Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Evans, Exum v. State, Fagan v. Chicago, Fair, In re, Fairfield Gardens v. County of Solano, Faleni v. United States, Falls City Brewing Co. v. Reeves, Farley v. Mayor, etc., of New York City, Farley v. Scherno, Farrell v. O'Brien, Fay v. Locke, Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Crosland, Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., Federal Power Commission v. Idaho Power Co. Federal Power Commission v. Oregon, Federal Trust Co. v. Allen, Field v. Clark, First Iowa Coop. v. Power Comm'n., Foley v. Shriver, Fort Dix Apartments Corp. v. Borough of Wrightstown, Fort Leavenworth R. R. v. Lowe, Franklin v. United States, Franklin v. United States, French v. Bankhead, XXIV Gallagher v. Gallagher, Garrison v. State, Gay v. Jemison, CHAPTER I OUTLINE OF LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION FEDERAL REAL PROPERTIES: Holdings extensive.--The Federal Government is the largest single owner of real property in the United States. Its total holdings exceed the combined areas of the six New England States plus Texas, and the value of these holdings is enormous. They consist of over 11,-000 separate properties, ranging in size from few hundred square foot monument or post office sites to million acre military reservations, and ranging in value from nearly worthless desert lands to extremely valuable holdings in the hearts of large metropolitan centers. Activities thereon varied.--The activities conducted on these properties are as varied as the holdings are extensive. They include, at one extreme, the development of nuclear weapons, and at the other, the operation of soft drink stands. Some of the activities are conduct in utmost secrecy, with only Government personnel present, and others, such as those in national parks, are designed for the enjoyment of the public, and the presence of visitors is encouraged. In many instances, the performance of these activities requires large numbers of resident personnel, military or civilian, or both, and the presence of these personnel in turn necessitates additional functions which, while not normally a distinctively Federal operation (e.g., the personnel), are nevertheless essential to procuring the performance of the primary Federal function. 2 Legal problems many.--In view of the vastness of Federal real estate holdings, the large variety of activities conducted upon them, and the presence on many areas of resident employees and other person, it is to be expected that many legal problems will arise on or with respect to these holdings. In addition to the problems normally encountered in administering and enforcing Federal laws, complicated by occasional conflict with overlapping States laws, the ownership and operation by the Federal Government of areas within the States gives rise to a host of legal problems largely peculiar to such areas. They arise not only because of the fact of Federal ownership and operation of these properties, but also because in numerous instances the federal Government has with respect to such properties a special jurisdiction which excludes, in varying degrees, the jurisdiction of the State over them, and which in other instances is, to varying extends, concurrent with that of the State. FEDERAL POSSESSION OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION: By constitutional consent.--This special jurisdiction which is often possessed by the United States stems, basically, out of article I, section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution of the United States, which provides, in legal effect, that the Federal Government shall have exclusive legislative jurisdiction over such area, not exceeding 10 miles square, as may become the seat of government of the United States, and like authority over all places acquired by the Government, with the consent of the States involved, for various Federal purposes. It is the latter part 3 of the clause, the part which has been emphasized, with which this study is particularly concerned. There is a general public awareness of the fact that the United States Government exercises all governmental authority over the District of Columbia, by virtue of power conferred upon it by a clause of the Constitution. There is not the same awareness that under another provision of this same clause the United States has acquired over several thousand areas within the States some or all of these powers, judicial and executive as well as legislative, which under our Federal-State system of government ordinarily are reserved to the States. By Federal reservation or States cession.--For many years after the adoption of the Constitution, Federal acquisition of State-type legislative jurisdiction occurred only by direct operation of clause 17. The clause was activated through the enactment of State statutes consenting to the acquisition by the Federal Government either of any land, or of specific tracts of land, within the State. In more recent years the Federal Government has in several instances made reservations of jurisdiction over certain areas in connection with the admission of a State into the Union. A third means for transfer of legislative jurisdiction to the Federal Government. Courts and other legal authorities have distinguished at various times between Federal legislative jurisdiction derived, on the one hand, directly from operation of clause 17, and, on the other, form a Federal reservation or a State cession of jurisdiction. In the main, however, the characteristics of a legislative jurisdiction status are the same no matter by which of the three means the Federal Government acquired such status. Differences in these characteristics will be specially pointed out in various succeeding portions of this work. Governmental power merged in Federal Government.--Whether by operation of clause 17, by reservation of jurisdiction by the United States, or by cession of jurisdiction by 4 States, in many areas all governmental authority (with recent exceptions which will be noted) has been merged in the Federal Government, with none left in any State. By this means same thousands of areas have become Federal in lands, sometimes called "enclaves," in many respects foreign to the States is which they are situated. In general, not State but Federal law is applicable in an area under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States, for enforcement not by State but Federal authorities, and in many instances not in State but in Federal courts. Normal authority of a State over areas within its boundaries, and normal relationships between a State and its inhabitants, are disturbed, disrupted, or eliminated, as to enclaves and their residents. The State no longer has the authority to enforce its criminal laws in areas under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. Privately owned property in such areas is beyond the taxing authority of the State. It has been generally held that residents of such areas are not residents of the State, and hence not only are not subject to the obligations of residents of the State but also are not entitled to any of the benefits and privileges conferred by the State upon its residents. Thus, residents of Federal enclaves usually cannot vote, serve on juries, or run for office. They do not, as a matter of right, have access to State schools, hospitals, mental institutions, or similar establishments. The acquisition of exclusive jurisdiction by the Federal Government render as unavailable to the residents of the affect areas the benefits of the laws and judicial and administrative processes of the State relating to adoption, the probate of wills and administration of estates, divorce, and many other matters. Police, fire-fighting, notarial, coroner, and similar services performed by or under the authority of a State may not be rendered with legal sanction, in the usual case, in a Federal enclave. EXERCISE OF EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION: Legislative little exercised.--States do not have authority to legislate for areas under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of 5 the United States, but Congress has not legislated for these areas either, except in some minor particulars. Exercise as to crimes.--With respect to crimes occurring within Federal enclaves the federal Congress has enacted the Assimilative Crimes Act, which adopts for enclaves, as Federal law, the State law which is in effect at the time the crime is committed. The Federal Government also has specifically defined and provided for the punishment of a number of crimes which may occur in Federal enclaves, and in such cases the specific provision, of course, supersedes the Assimilative Crimes Act. Exercise as to civil matters.--Federal legislation has been enacted authorizing the extension to Federal enclaves of the workmen's compensation and unemployment compensation laws of the States within the boundaries of which the enclaves are located. The Federal Government also has provided that State law shall apply in suits arising out of the death or injury of any person by the neglect or wrongful act of another in an enclave. It has granted to the States the right to impose taxes on motor fuels sold on Government reservations, and sales, use, and income taxes on transactions or uses occurring or services performed on such reservations; it has allowed taxation of leasehold interests in Federal enclaves; and it has retroceded to the States 6 jurisdiction pertaining to the administration of estates of residents of Veterans' Administration facilities. This is the extent of Federal legislation enacted to meet the special problems existing on areas under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States. RULE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: Extended by courts to provide civil law.--The vacuum which would exist because of the absence of State law or Federal legislation with respect to civil matters in areas under Federal exclusive legislative jurisdiction has been partially filled by the courts, through extension to these areas of a rule of international law that when one sovereign in effect at the time of the taking which are not inconsistent with the laws or policies of the second continue in effect, as laws of the succeeding sovereign, until changed by that sovereign. Problems arising under rule.--While application of this rule to Federal enclaves does provide a code of laws for each enclave, the law varies from enclave to enclave, and sometimes in different parts of the same enclave, according to the changes in State law which occurred in the periods between Federal acquisition of legislative jurisdiction over the several enclaves or parts. The variances are multiplied, of course, by the number of States. And Federal failure to keep up to date the laws effective in these enclaves renders such laws increasingly obsolete with passage of time, so that business and other relations of long elsewhere discarded. Further, many former State laws become wholly or partially inoperative immediately upon the transfer of jurisdiction, since the Federal Government does not furnish the machinery, formerly furnished by the State or under State authority, necessary to their operation. The Federal Government makes no provision, by way of example, for executing the former State laws relating to notaries public, 7 coroners, and law enforcement inspectors concerned with matters relate to public health and safety. ACTION TO MITIGATE HARDSHIPS INCIDENT TO EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION: By Federal--State arrangement.--The requirement for access of resident children to school has been met by financial arrangements between the Federal Government and the State and local authorities; as a result, for the moment, at least, no children resident on exclusive jurisdiction areas are being denied a primary and secondary public school education. No provision, however, has been made to enable residents to have access to State institutions of higher leaning on the same basis as State residents. Federal efforts limited; State efforts restricted.--While the steps taken by the Federal Government have served to eliminate some small number of the problems peculiar to areas of exclusive jurisdiction, Congress has not enacted legislation governing probate of wills, administration of estates, adoption, marriage, divorce, and many other matters which need to be regulated or provided for in a civilized community. Residents of such areas are dependent upon the willingness of the State to make available to them its processes relating to such matters. Where the authority of the State to act in these matters requires jurisdiction over the property involved, or requires that the persons affected be domiciled within the State, the State's proceedings are of doubtful validity. Once a State has, by one means or another, transferred jurisdiction to the United States, it is, of course, powerless to control many of the consequences; without jurisdiction, it is without the authority to deal with many of the problems, and having transferred jurisdiction to the United States, it cannot unilaterally recapture any of the transferred jurisdiction. The efforts of the State to ameliorate the consequences of exclusive jurisdiction are, therefore, severely restricted. 8 By State statute or informal action, and State reservations.--One of the methods adopted by some States to soften the effects of exclusive Federal legislative jurisdiction has consisted of granting various rights and privilege and rendering various services to residents of areas of exclusive jurisdiction, either by statute or by informal action; so, residents of certain enclaves enjoy the right to vote, attend schools, and use the State's judicial processes in probate and divorce matters; they frequently have vital statistics maintained for them and are rendered other services. The second method has consisted of not transferring to the Federal Government all of the State's jurisdiction over the federally owned property, or of reserving the right to exercise, in varying degrees, concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Government as to the matters specified in a reservation. For example, a State, in ceding jurisdiction to the United States, might reserve exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction as to criminal matters, or more commonly, concurrent jurisdiction to tax private property located within the Federal area. RESERVATION OF JURISDICTION BY STATES: Development of reservations.--In recent years, such reservations and withholdings have constituted the rule rather than the exception. In large part, this is accounted for by the sharp increase, in the 1930's, in the rate of Federal land acquisition, with a consequent deepening awareness of the practical effects of exclusive Federal jurisdiction. In earlier years, however, serious doubts had been entertained as to whether article I, section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution, permitted the State to make any reservations of jurisdiction, other than the right to serve civil and criminal process n an area, which right was not regarded as in derogation of the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. Not until, relatively recent years (1885) did the Supreme Court recognize as valid a reservation of jurisdiction in a State cession statute, and not until 1937 did it approve a similar reservation where jurisdiction is transferred by a consent under clause 17, rather than by a cession. It is 9 clear that today a State has complete discretion as to the reservations it may wish to include in its cession of jurisdiction to the United States or in its consent to the purchase of land by the United States. The only over-all limitations that the reservation must not be one that will interfere with the performance of Federal functions. Early requirement, of R.S. 355, for exclusive Federal jurisdiction,--The extent of the acquisition of legislative jurisdiction by the United States was influenced to an extreme degree by the enactment, in 1841, of a Federal statute prohibiting the expenditure of public money for the erection of public works until there had been received from the appropriate State the consent to the acquisition by the United States of the site upon which the structure was to be placed. The giving of such consent resulted, of course, in the transfer of legislative jurisdiction to the United States by operation of clause 17. Not until 1940 was this statute amended to make Federal acquisition of legislative jurisdiction optional rather than mandatory. 10 The intervening 100-year period saw Federal acquisition of exclusive legislative jurisdiction over several thousand areas acquired for Federal purposes, since in the interest of facilitating the carrying on of Federal activities on areas within their boundaries each of the States consented to the acquisition of land by the United States within the State. Areas acquired with such consent continue under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States, since only with respect to a very few areas has the Federal Government retroceded to a States jurisdiction previously acquired. Present variety of jurisdictional situations.--Removal of the Federal statutory requirement for acquisition of exclusive legislative jurisdiction has resulted in amendment by many States of their consent and cession statutes so as to reserve to the State the right to exercise various powers and authority. The variety of the reservations in these amended statutes has created an almost infinite number of jurisdiction situations. JURISDICTION STATUTES DEFINED: Exclusive legislative jurisdiction.--In this part II, as in part I, the term "exclusive legislative jurisdiction" is applied to situations wherein the Federal Government has received, by whatever method, all the authority of the State, with no reservation made to the State except of the right to serve process resulting from activities which occurred off the land involved. This term is applied notwithstanding that the State may exercise certain authority over the land, as may other States over land similarly situated, in consonance with the several Federal statutes which have been mentioned above. 11 Concurrent legislative jurisdiction.--The term "concurrent legislative jurisdiction" is applied in those instances wherein in granting to the United States authority which would otherwise amount to exclusive legislative jurisdiction over an area the State concerned has reserved to itself the right to exercise, concurrently with the United States, all of the same authority. Partial legislative jurisdiction.--The term "partial legislative jurisdiction" is applied in those instances wherein the Federal Government has been granted for exercise by it over an area in a State certain of the State's authority, but where the State concerned has reserved to itself the right to exercise, by itself or concurrently with the United States, other authority constituting more than the right to serve civil or criminal process in the area (e.g., the right to tax private property). Proprietorial interest only.--The term "proprietorial interest only" is applied in those instances where the Federal Government has acquired some right of title to an area in a State but has not obtained any measure of the State's authority over the area. In applying this definition, recognition should be given to the fact that the United States, by virtue of its functions and powers and immunities with respect to areas in which are not possessed by ordinary landholders, and of the further fact that all its properties and functions are held or performed in a governmental rather than a proprietary (private) capacity. OTHER FEDERAL RIGHTS OWNED AREAS: To carry out constitutional duties.--The fact that the United States has only a "proprietorial interest" in any particular federally owned area does not mean that agencies of the Federal Government are without power to carry out in that area the functions and duties assigned to them under the Constitution and statutes of the United States. On the contrary, the authority and responsibility vested in the Federal Government by various provisions of the Constitution, such 12 as the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States (art. I, sec. 8, cl. 3), to establish Post Offices and post roads (art. I, sec. 8 cl. 7), and to provide and maintain a Navy (art. I, sec. 8, cl. 13) are independent of the clause 17 authority, and carry, certainly as supplemented by article I, section 18, of the Constitution, self-sufficient power for their own execution. To make needful rules, and necessary and proper laws, and effect of Federal supremacy clause.--There is also applicable to all federally owned land the constitutional power (art. IV, sec. 3, cl. 2) given to Congress, completely independent of the existence of any clause 17 authority, "to * * * make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other of Congress (art. I, sec. 8, cl. 18), "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof," is, of course, another important factor in the Federal functions. And any impact of State or local laws upon the exercise of Federal authority under the Constitution is always subject to the limitations of what has bee termed the federal supremacy clause of the Constitution, article VI, clause 2. 13 GENERAL BOUNDARIES OF THE WORK: The following pages deal, within the bounds generally outlined above, with the law--the constitutional and statutory provisions, the court decisions, and the written opinions of legal officers, Federal and State--relating to Federal exercise, or non-exercise, of legislative jurisdiction as to areas within the several States. They are not purported to deal with the law cited may, or may not, be applicable. Opinions are those of the authorities by whom they were rendered, and unless otherwise clearly indicated do not necessarily coincide with those of the Committee.