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 State


or local taxation of the property on such areas, such as personal property of residents of such areas, and property of lessees of standby Government industrial facilities on such areas, thereby resulting in considerable diminution of State and local tax revenues.

   Likewise, the States cannot exercise regulatory powers over areas under Federal exclusive legislative jurisdiction. While this power of the States is often curtailed under the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution regardless of the jurisdictional status of any lands which might bo involved, two recent cases have brought into focus the effect which differing jurisdictional positions will have upon otherwise substantial similar factual circumstances.

   The companion cases of Penn Dairies v. Milk Control Comm'n (318 U. S. 261), and Pacific Coast Dairy v. Dept. (318 U. S. 285 (1943)), both concerned the legality of minimum pricing under State milk control acts of milk sold to the Federal Government. In one instance the milk was delivered by a dealer to the United States on land over which the United States had no legislative jurisdiction; in the other the land was under its exclusive jurisdiction. In the first case (no Federal jurisdiction) it was held that the denial of a license renewal to the dealer for selling milk to the Government at less than the prescribed minimum price was valid, the court stating, "* * * the mere fact that nondiscriminatory taxation or regulation of the contractor imposes an increased economic burden on the Government is no longer regarded as bringing the contractor within any implied immunity of the Government from State taxation or regulation." The second case (exclusive Federal jurisdiction) denied the right of the State to revoke a license to distribute milk, holding that "* * * the true purpose was to punish California's own citizens for doing in exclusively Federal territory what by the law of the United States was there lawful, under the guise of penalizing preparatory conduct occurring in the State, to punish the appellant for a transaction carried on under sovereignty conferred by article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution, and under authority superior to that of California by virtue of the supremacy clause."

   The dairy cases point out the effect which jurisdictional status may have where there is an attempted indirect regulation of the Federal Government by a State. It remains clear, however, that direct State regulation of the Federal Government or its instrumentalities is not permissible under the supremacy clause regardless of the nature of Federal jurisdiction. It is also clear, and was pointed out by the Court in the dairy cases, that the Congress may waive any immunities accruing to the United States under an exclusive jurisdiction status and, on the other hand, may effectively prohibit any interference, however


indirect, with any activities of the United States or its instrumentalities. Immunity from State regulation of activities in exclusive legislative jurisdiction areas extends, of course, beyond minimum pricing of milk. Control of the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, and licensing of persons engaged in occupations affecting public health and safety, are two matters frequently involved, for example. Probably the incident of exclusive legislative jurisdiction which has most numerous, and most serious, effects is that residents of exclusive jurisdiction areas have been held not to be residents of the State or local subdivision thereof in which such area is physically situated. As a result such persons may be denied many of the important rights and privileges which are contingent upon State residence. They are not entitled to vote, to hold public office, or to serve on juries, and their children are not entitled to receive an education in the free public school systems of the State. The right of access to State courts in matters where jurisdiction is based upon residence within the State may be denied them, and problems consequently arise in the fields of divorce, adoption, administration of estates, and juvenile offenses. There is no obligation on the State to admit residents to State-sponsored or administered hospitals or sanatoriums, nor to provide such residents with other governmental services such as visiting nurses, public libraries, welfare services and the like. And generally there are no equivalent services provided from Federal sources for persons residing on areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction. It has been suggested that where States are exercising the right to tax residents of exclusive Federal jurisdiction areas such residents are entitled to rights and privileges as residents of the State, on the theory that the State cannot acknowledge them on the one hand as State residents for taxation purposes and on the other deny them qualification as residents for other purposes. The Committee recognizes considerable logic in this reasoning, but since the legal theory which is involved appears not to have been sufficiently tested in the courts the Committee is not relying on it for the purposes of this study.

   Other than as has been indicated, the United States has not enacted laws of any major import for exclusive jurisdiction areas except to define and provide punishment for a number of major crimes, to provide for liability for the causing of death or injury by wrongful act, and to provide for workmen's compensation.

   Concurrent legislative jurisdiction. — Under concurrent jurisdiction, the two sovereigns, the Federal Government and a State, occupy an area, each having all the rights recorded a sovereign with the broad qualification that such rights run concurrently with those of the other sovereign. Exact equivalence of rights is not present, however, for at

all 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.

                              CHAPTER V
                       LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION

   Use of material from State sources. — The great bulk of the material received by the committee from State attorney general and other State sources consists of excerpts appertaining to legislative jurisdiction from the constitutions and statutes of the States. This particular material, conformed to reflect the status of the law as of December 31, 1955, will be found in appendix B to this report arranged alphabetically by States. The judicial decisions and legal opinions which the attorneys general directed to the attention of the committee, which were invaluable in forming apart of the basis for the views of the Committee set out in this report, in the main will be specifically referred to only in part II of the report, which constitutes a text of the law on the subject of legislative jurisdiction. Certain aspects of the material relating to State appear appropriate for discussion at this point, however.

   Provisions of State constitutions and statutes relating to jurisdiction. — It is noted by the Committee that the constitutions on Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota have ceded to the United States exclusive legislative jurisdiction over certain specified areas, so that amendments to the constitutions might be required in effecting changes of the jurisdictional status of the areas involved. The constitution of the State of Washington gives the consent of the States over tracts of land held or reserved for the purposes of article I, section 8, clause 17, of the United States Constitution, so that no limitation apparently may be placed by the State legislature on the exercise by the United States of exclusive jurisdiction over such areas within the State. While three other States (California, Georgia, Texas) also have constitutional provisions which bear some relation to legislative jurisdiction, such relation is indirect and relatively insignificant.

   The Committee's study indicates that as recently as 25 years ago all States had in effect consent or cession statutes of more or less general application which permitted the vesting in the United States of exclusive legislative jurisdiction, or substantially exclusive legislative jurisdiction, over properties acquired by it within the State. As of



December 31, 1955, only 25 States (identified in the table presented at the end of this chapter) continued to have such statutes. In addition, exclusive (or lesser) jurisdiction may be ceded in Virginia by action of the Governor and attorney general, and in Florida and Alabama by their respective Governors. Three States, Illinois, Kentucky, and Tennessee, have wholly repealed their consent and cession statutes. Pennsylvania consents to the Federal acquisition of property (and therefore exclusive legislative jurisdiction over such property) necessary for the erection of aids to navigation, but not for other purposes of the government. The other States have consent and cession statutes containing various limitations and reservations. All States which have such statutes reserve authority for the service of process upon areas the jurisdiction over which is transferred based on events which occurred off the areas. The table which appears at the end of this chapter, together with its notes, gives certain information concerning the provisions made in State constitutions and statutes with respect to legislative jurisdiction. For more detailed information it is suggested that reference be had to appendix B to this report.

   Expressions by State attorneys general respecting Federal exercise of jurisdiction. — The attitude of the attorney general of Kentucky with respect to the exercise by the Federal government of exclusive legislative jurisdiction over areas within his State, which was particularly well expressed, perhaps reflects views of other State officials and reasons why the States have tended in recent years to limit the availability to the United States of legislative jurisdiction:

   In commenting generally, we feel that the existence of any Federal enclaves in this State has probably been conductive to embarrassment to both the Federal and the State authorities. We have noted in our dealings with the Atomic Energy Commission at Paducah, whose installation there is partially within a Federal enclave and partially without, that this most secret of all federal activities an be carried on most successfully within the State jurisdiction, and the atomic Energy Commission officials width whom we have dealt have so expressed themselves. The transfer of jurisdiction to the Federal Government is as anachronism which has survived from the period of our history when Federal powers were so strictly limited that care had to be taken to protect the Federal Government from encroachment by officials of the all-powerful States. Needless to say, this condition is now exactly reversed. If there is any activity which the Federal Government cannot undertake on its own property without the cession of jurisdiction, we are unaware of it.

   It is our hope that your Committee will be able to recommend a retrocession to Kentucky of all of the Federal enclaves in this State, so that our local governments, our law courts, our administrative agencies and our Federal officials themselves may cease to be vexed with this annoying and useless anachronism.


   Another view, which is, nevertheless, critical of practices of Federal agencies with respect to the acquisition of legislative jurisdiction, is also well stated by the attorney general of New York:

   It would seem that it would result in a change for the better if acquisition by the United States of jurisdiction over areas in this State were limited to those cases in which such acquisition is absolutely necessary to the accomplishment of the Federal purposes for which the lands have been or are acquired and to which they are devoted, and that the jurisdiction heretofore acquired by the United States should be returned to the State in all cases where its retention by the United States in not absolutely required.

   It is difficult to see, for instance, how the advantages,if any, outweigh the disadvantages of acquisition by the United States of exclusive jurisdiction over sites within the State acquired for the purposes of post offices, office buildings, courthouses, lighthouses, veterans' hospitals, and the like. In the absence of exclusive Federal jurisdiction,such places and the inhabitants thereof would by subject to and would receive the protection and benefits of State and local laws except insofar as the operation of such laws might adversely affect the United Stats in the use of the property for the purposes for which it is maintained (Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647, 650 ).

   A good beginning was made by the act of Congress of February 1, 1940 (54 Stat. 19; 40 U.S.C.A. 255), sometimes C referred to as the act of October 9, 1940 (54 Stat. 1083). Adoption of that act followed the decisions of the Supreme Court in James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134; Mason Co. v.Tax Commission,302 U.S.186; and Collins v. Yosemite Park Co., 304 U.S. 518 (See Adams v. U.S., 319 U.S.312).

   One of the underlying reasons for that act was a realization by Congress of the fact, adverted to by the Supreme Court at page 148 of its opinion in James v. Dravo Contracting Co., that "a transfer of legislative jurisdiction carries with it not only benefits but obligations, and it may be highly desirable, in the interests of both the National Government and of the State, that the latter should not be entirely ousted of its jurisdiction." But the benefits of that act will not be achieved in the measure hoped for unless administrative departments of the Federal government exercise a discriminating, self- imposed restraint in applying for and accepting cessions to the United states of exclusive jurisdiction over lands within the Stats.

   Not all attorneys general were critical of the exercise of legislative jurisdiction, however. The general of Maine and Florida, for example, indicated that their problems arising out of legislative jurisdiction were minor. Nevertheless, in each instance the existence of such problems was acknowledged.

   Difficulty of determining jurisdictional status of Federal areas. — Perhaps the problems most often referred to by State attorneys general arose out of the difficulty of determining the jurisdictional status of federally owned areas, where the task was to ascertain whether State laws, or which state law applied in an area. In Kansas and in Maryland, for example, there presently exist serious situations with respect to the indefinite jurisdictional status of important highways. The basic question involved in Kansas situa-

tion appears to be whether the Federal Government in 1875 received legislative jurisdiction over a federally owned highway adjoining Fort Leavenworth on which many problems of law enforcement now occur. The Maryland situation arises out of the fact that a large portion of the Baltimore-Washington Expressway, contained almost wholly within the territorial boundaries of the State of Maryland, passes through areas acquired at separate times, for separate purposes, and with differing legislative jurisdictional statuses, by the Federal Government. Since the United States has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over various of these areas the boundaries of which cannot easily be established there exists a Balkanized situation on the highway as a result of which Maryland law-enforcement authorities are finding it virtually impossible, particularly with respect to traffic violations, to establish jurisdiction over crimes committed on segments of the highway which actually are within their jurisdictional authority.

   On the subject of what givers rise to the principal difficulties has by States with respect to areas under Federal jurisdiction the attorney general of Maryland states:

   I would generally say that the most important item to be considered at the outset, insofar as the State of Maryland is concerned, is an exact inventory of each and every item of federally owned real estate, together with an ascertainment of the existing jurisdictional picture as to each such area. Once we have determined this, we will be in a far better position to assess what is necessary in the way of agreements between the Federal Government and the State and in clarifying legislation.

   Taxing problems. — These are another apparently serious concern arising for State attorneys general and other State officials out of legislative jurisdictional situations. In the usual case the problem does not directly involve the United States or an instrumentality thereof, the immunities of which from State and local taxation are well known to responsible State officials. Rather, the problems arise from legal discriminations still existing with respect to areas under Federal exclusive legislative jurisdiction whereby residents of such areas, persons doing business in the areas, and privately owned property contained in the areas, must receive from State and local taxing authorities treatment different from that accorded to very similarly situated persons and property on areas as to which the United States does not have exclusive legislative jurisdiction. The situations obviously complicated by the fact that the imposition of certain taxes on private persons, activities, and properties in Federal exclusive legislative jurisdiction areas have been authorized by the Congress while others have not.


   A frequently mentioned problem in the tax field was that arising with respect to so-called Wherry housing,which is housing constructed and operated by private persons for military personnel. This housing is usually located land leased from the Federal Government which is part of the side of a military installation, and which often is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States. White the Congress has in certain specific terms authorized State and local taxation of private leasehold interests in such housing projects, many States and local taxing districts do not have tax laws applicable to leasehold interest, as distinguished from fee interests, and hence are having difficulty in collecting revenue from that interest which the Congress has made taxable. However, this particular problem does not arise out of legislative jurisdictional status. A related problem, as to whether the Congress authorized the imposition of taxes on such lease hold interests where the housing is located on land under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States is presently before the Supreme Court of the United States.

   Other problems. — Numerous problems of criminal jurisdiction, licensing and control of alcoholic beverages, and licensing and control of persons engaged in occupations affecting public health and safety were mentioned by attorneys general as arising in areas under the legislative jurisdiction of the United States.

   The attorneys general also made frequent references to problems existing for residents of exclusive jurisdiction areas and their children, particularly with respect to voting, divorce, old age assistance, admission to State institutions, and loss of rights to attendance at public schools.

   Summary. — The information received by the Committee from State sources indicates that numerous problems for States and local governmental entities,and for persons residing in Federal areas within the States result from Federal legislative jurisdiction, and particularly exclusive legislative jurisdiction, over such areas, with a considerable disruption of the normal relations of State and other governmental entities with persons within their geographical boundaries.

Analysis of State constitutional provisions and statutes of general effect concerning the acquisition of legislative jurisdiction by the United States
              |        |         | Cession of jurisdiction |         |State reservations, restrictions, conditions, and other requirements |        |
              |        |         |-------------------------| Written |---------------------------------------------------------------------|        | Duration of jurisdic-
States        |Consti- | Consent | Exclu- |Con-   |Partial | instru- |Jurisdiction re- | De-    | Full  | Limited | Per- | Income |  Mis-  | Others | tion as specifically
              |tutional| to      | sive   |current|        | ment    |tained over      | scrip- | power | general | sonal| tax    | cella- |        | provided for by stat-
              |provi-  | pur-    |        |       |        | required|persons          | tion   |of tax-| power   | prop-|        | neous  |        | ute
              |sion    | chase   |        |       |        | by State|-----------------| and    |ation  | of tax- | erty |        | tax    |        |
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |Civil  |Criminal | plat   |       | ation   | tax  |        | provi- |        |
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |       |         | filing |       |         |      |        | sions  |        |
Alabama       | No     | Yes     | Governor may cede such  | Yes     | No    | No      | No     | No    | Yes     | Yes  | Yes    | .....  | .....  | So long as owned and
              |        |         | jurisdiction he deems   |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | used for the purposes
              |        |         | necessary.[1]           |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | of cession.
Arizona       | No     | Yes     | Yes[2] | ..... | .....  | No      | No    | No      | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  |Public domain--so long
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        |as reserved for mili-
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |                 |        |       |         |      |        |        |        |tary: Acquired--so
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |                 |        |       |         |      |        |        |        |long as owned.
Arkansas      | No     | Yes     | Yes[3] | ..... | .....  | No      | No    | No      | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | No provision.
California    | Yes[4] | Yes[5]  | .....  | ..... | Yes    | No[6]   |Yes[7] | No      | No     | Yes   | Yes     | Yes  | Yes    | .....  | .....  | So long as owned and
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | compliance with Sec.
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | 126 of Government
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | Code (California)
Colorado      | No     | Yes     | Yes    | ..... | .....  | No      | No    | No      | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | So long as owned.
Connecticut   | No     | Yes     | Yes    | ..... | .....  | No      | No    | No      | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | So long as owned. For
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | aid of navigation
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | lands.[8]
Delaware      | No     | Yes[9]  | Yes    | ..... | .....  | No      | No    | No      | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | No provision.[10]
Florida       | No     | Yes     | Governor may cede       | Yes[11] |Yes[11]| No      | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | So long as owned and
              |        |         | exclusive jurisdiction  |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | used for the purposes
              |        |         | on application |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | set forth in statute.
Georgia       | Yes[12]| Yes     | .....  | ..... | Yes[13]| No      |Yes[14]| Yes[14] | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | Yes[15]| So long as owned.
Idaho         | No     | Yes     | Yes    | ..... | .....  | No      | No    | No      | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | No provision.
Illinois      | No     | General cession and consent statutes repealed by 2 acts of July 10, 1953 (Jones Illinois Statutes Ann., Vol. 26, 1953,     |
              |        |                                        cumulative supplement, p. 20.[16]                                                   |
Indiana       | No     | No[17]  | .....  | ..... | Yes[17]| No      | No    | No      | Yes    | No    | No      | No   | Yes[18]| .....  | .....  | Do.
Iowa          | No     | Yes     | .....  | ..... | Yes[19]| No      |Yes[19]| Yes[19] | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | Do.
Kansas        | No     | Yes     | .....  | ..... | Yes    | No      |Yes[20]| No      | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | Yes[21]| .....  | So long as owned
Kentucky      | No     | Yes     | General assembly may    | No      | No    | No      | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | Until retroceded or
              |        |         | cede jurisdiction it    |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | lands conveyed to
              |        |         | deems proper.[22]       |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | private owners.
Louisiana     | No     | Yes     | Yes[23]| ..... | .....  | No      | No    | No      | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | So long as owned or
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | leased.
Maine         | No     | Yes     | Yes    | ..... | .....  | No      | No    | No      | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | So long as owned.

Maryland      | No     | Yes     | State reserves jurisdiction to fullest extent permitted by constitution and not inconsistent with govern-        |
              |        |         |                                   mental uses, purposes and functions.[24]                                       |
Massachusetts | No     | No      | No general cession laws as to lands dedicated to military purposes, but cedes excusive jurisdiction for          | So long as used for
              |        |         |                                           specified purposes.                                                    | specified purposes.
Michigan      | No     | Yes     | Yes    | ..... | .....  | No      | No    | No      | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | So long as owned.
Minnesota     | No     | Yes[25] | .....  | ..... | Yes[26]| No[27]  | No    | Yes     | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | Yes[28]| So long as owned or
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | occupied for the pur-
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | poses of cession.
Mississippi   | No     | Yes     | Governor may   | Yes[29]| No      |Yes[29]| Yes[29] | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | Yes[29]| .....  | So long as owned for
              |        |         | cede partial   |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | the purposes of ces-
              |        |         | jurisdiction.  |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | sion.
Missouri      | No     | No      | .....  | ..... | Yes[30]| No      | No    | No      | No     | Yes   | Yes     | Yes  | Yes    | .....  | .....  | So long as owned and
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | used for the purposes
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | of cession.
Montana       | Yes[31]| Yes     | .....  | ..... | Yes    | No      |Yes[32]| Yes[32] | Yes    | No    | Yes[33] | Yes  | Yes    | .....  | Yes[34]| So long as held and
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | occupied for the pur-
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | poses of cession.
Nebraska      | No     | Yes     | Yes    | ..... | .....  | No      | No    | No      | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | So long as owned and
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | occupied.
Nevada        | No     | Yes[35] | .....  | ..... | Yes    | No      |Yes[36]| Yes[37] | Yes[37]|Yes[38]| Yes     | Yes  | Yes    | Yes[39]| Yes[40]| Public Domain--so
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | long as used for pur-
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | poses reserved: other
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | --owned and used.
New Hampshire | No     | No      | Yes    | ..... | .....  | No      | No    | No      | Yes    | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | So long as owned.
New Jersey    | No     | Yes     | Yes    | ..... | .....  | No      | No    | No      | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | Do.
New Mexico    | No     | Yes     | Yes    | ..... | .....  | No      | No[41]| No      | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | Do.
New York      | No     | Yes     | Yes    | Governor cedes | Yes     | No    | No      | Yes    | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | Yes[42]| So long as owned and
              |        |         |        | Jurisdiction.  |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | used for purposes of
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | cession.
North Carolina| No     | Yes     | Yes[43]| ..... | .....  | No      | No    | No      | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | So long as owned.
North Dakota  | Yes    | Yes     | Yes    | ..... | .....  | No      | No    | No      | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | No provision.
Ohio          | No     | Yes     | Yes    | ..... | .....  | No      | No[44]| No      | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | So long as owned.
Oklahoma      | No     | Yes     | Yes    | ..... | .....  | No      | No    | No      | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | Do.
Oregon        | No     | Yes     | Yes    | ..... | .....  | No      | No    | No      | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | No provision.
Pennsylvania  | No     | No[45]  | .....  | ..... | Yes[45]| No      | No    | No      | Yes[46]| Yes   | Yes     | Yes  | Yes    | .....  | .....  | So long as used.[47]
Rhode Island  | No     | Yes     | Yes    | ..... | .....  | No      | No    | No      | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | No provision.
South Carolina| No     | Yes     | Yes[48]| ..... | .....  | No      | No    | No      | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | So long as owned.
South Dakota  | Yes    | Yes[49] | Yes    | ..... | .....  | No      | No    | No      | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | So long as owned and
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | occupied.
Tennessee     | No     | General acts of session repealed (Section 1, Tennessee Acts, 1943, Chapter 10).[50]      |      |        |        |        |
Texas         | Yes    | Yes     | Governor may   | Yes[51]| Yes     | No    | No      | No     | No    | No      | Yes  | No     | Yes[52]| .....  |So long as owned, used
              |        |         | cede juris-    |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        |and occupied for pur-
              |        |         | diction        |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        |poses of cession.
Utah          | No     | No      | .....  |Yes[53]| .....  | No      | Yes   | Yes     | No     | Yes   | Yes     | Yes  | Yes    | .....  | .....  |So long as owned, held,
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        |or reserved for pur-
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        |poses of cession.
Vermont       | No     | Yes[54] | Yes    | ..... | .....  | No      | No    | No      | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | So long as held and
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | occupied for public
              |        |         |        |       |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | purposes.
See footnotes at end of table.


Virginia      | No     | Condi-  | Governor and   | Yes[56]| Yes[57] |Yes[58]| Yes[59] | No[60] | No    | No      | Yes  | No     | Yes[61]| Yes[62]| So long as owned and
              |        | tional  | Attorney       |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | used for purposes of
              |        | con-    | General may    |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | cession. [Reverts if
              |        | sent[55]| cede additional|        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | not used for 5
              |        |         | jurisdiction.  |        |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        | Years.
Washington    | Yes[63]| Yes     | .....  | Yes   | .....  | No      |Yes[63]| Yes[63] | Yes    | Yes   | Yes     | Yes  | Yes    | .....  | .....  | Do.
West Virginia | No     | Yes     | .....  | Yes   | .....  | No      | Yes   | Yes     | No     | Yes   | Yes     | Yes  | Yes    | .....  | .....  | Do.
Wisconsin     | No     | Yes     | Yes    | Governor exe-  | Yes     | No    | No      | Yes    | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | So long as owned.
              |        |         |        | cutes certifi- |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        |
              |        |         |        | cate.          |         |       |         |        |       |         |      |        |        |        |
Wyoming       | No     | Yes     | Yes    | ..... | .....  | No      | No    | No      | No     | No    | No      | No   | No     | .....  | .....  | Do.

1 Alabama: Whether the State retains civil or criminal jurisdiction over persons in the territory acquired by United States depends on the type of jurisdiction ceded to United States by Governor. The State reserves the right to exercise over Government lands all jurisdiction which may be released or receded by the United States to the State.

2 Arizona: Includes public domain land reserved or used for military purposes.

3 Arkansas: Concurrent jurisdiction over wildlife in national forests ceded to the United States.

4 California: State constitution requires the United States to conform to State Laws with respect to water on lands acquired by the United States.

5 California: County board of supervisors may acquire and convey lands to United States for any military purposes. Legislative body of a local agency may acquire and convey land which it owns to United States for Federal purposes. Governor, on application by a duly authorised agent, may convey to the United States any tract of land, not exceeding 10 acres, belonging to the State and covered by navigable waters for aids to navigation.

6 California: Certified copies of the State Lands Commission's orders or resolutions to be filed in office of the California secretary of state and recorded in the county where the land is situated.

7 California: Reserves all civil and political rights, including the right of suffrage to all persons residing in ceded territory.

8 Connecticut: Lands in aid of navigation conveyed by the State to the United States revert to the State if not built on within 5 years or United States abandons use of land for such purposes.

9 Delaware: Consent given to acquisition of not exceeding 100 acres for forts, magazines, arsenals, and dock yards. 10 acres for lighthouses, 1 acre for any lifesaving station in any one place or locality.

10 Delaware: Title to land acquired for aids to navigation escheat to State if construction thereon not commenced within 2 years and completed 10 years thereafter.

11 Florida: Any person in the service of the United States Government living within the borders of the State is deemed a resident for the purpose of maintaining any suit in chancery or action at law.

12 Georgia: State constitution permits any resident of a United States Army post or military reservation within the State for 1 year to bring an action for divorce in any adjacent county.

13 Georgia: State cedes exclusive jurisdiction over wildlife in national forests to United States.

14 Georgia: State retains civil and criminal jurisdiction over persons in ceded territory, except territory used by the Department of Defense. But see footnote 12 supra.

15 Georgia: State retains jurisdiction over the regulation of public utility services in any ceded territory.


16 Illinois: Act minting to the United States right to enter upon and take possession of small parcels or tracts of land lying within Illinois on waters of Ohio and Wabash Rivers not repealed.

17 Indiana: Exclusive jurisdiction granted United States over sites for river improvements. State consents to the United States purchasing lands lying on the backs of Ohio or Wabash Rivers for river improvements, and cedes exclusive jurisdiction and rights of assessment and taxation over such lands.

18 Indiana: State reserves right to tax gross receipts or income of any person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation which is received on account of performance of contracts or other activities upon lands acquired for post offices, customhouses, or other structures used for Government purposes, but not including lands acquired for lighthouse sites or river improvement.

19 Iowa: United States may exercise jurisdiction over acquired lands, but not to the extent of limiting the provisions of the laws of the State. State reserves concurrent criminal jurisdiction over lands held by United States, except when used for naval or military purposes.

20 Kansas: A resident of any United States Army post or military reservation within the State for 1 year may bring an action for divorce in any adjacent county.

21 Kansas: State reserves right to tax the property and franchises of any railroad, bridge, or other corporations within the boundaries of such lands.

22 Kentucky: Commonwealth consents to any retrocession by the United States of lands within its boundaries whenever the United States shall cease to exercise jurisdiction over such lands. The conveyance of lands to private owners is deemed to constitute a retrocession.

23 Louisiana: State cedes exclusive jurisdiction over wildlife in national forests to United States.

24 Maryland: Prior to 1947. State ceded exclusive jurisdiction over lands acquired for customhouses courthouses, postoffices, aids to navigation, and military purposes, and partial jurisdiction for other public purposes. It might be argued that since the United States Constitution does not require the acquisition by the United States of any jurisdiction it was the intent of the Maryland Legislature to retain to the State full jurisdiction and that the United States can acquire only a proprietorial interest over lands in that State. On the other hand, it might be contended that since the State had previous to the 1947 statute ceded exclusive jurisdiction, the legislature only intended to reserve concurrent jurisdiction by that statute and now offers to cede that measure of jurisdiction to the United States.

25 Minnesota: Consent to purchase given by land exchange commission, upon application of the United States.

26 Minnesota: State cedes exclusive jurisdiction in or over any place owned or acquired by the United States for any purpose specified in sec. 1.042 required by or under the Constitution or Laws of the United States.

27 Minnesota: Consent to acquisition of land or exercise of jurisdiction by United States evidenced by certificate of Governor.

28 Minnesota: State retains right to protect, regulate, control, and dispose of any property of the State therein.

29 Mississippi: State cedes exclusive jurisdiction to the United States over lands acquired for customhouses, post offices, or other public buildings, and over wildlife in national forests. For any other public works or purposes, the Governor, upon application of the United States, is authorized to cede jurisdiction for the purpose of the cession; however, such cession of jurisdiction does not prevent the laws of Mississippi from operating over such land. United States may also acquire lands for roadways or parkways over which State cedes partial jurisdiction, reserving, however, the right to tax sales of motor fuels and persons and corporations on roads and parkways.

30 Missouri: State consents to United State's acquisition of exclusive jurisdiction over land for Internal Revenue and other Government offices (other than those required for military purposes), hospitals, sanitariums, fish hatcheries, and land for reforestation, recreational, and agricultural uses.

31 Montana: State constitution grants exclusive jurisdiction to United States over Fort Assinaboine, Fort Custer, Fort Keogh, Fort Maginnis, Fort Missoula, and Fort Shaw so long as they remain military reservations. General cession laws provide that the jurisdiction of the United States over other places is qualified by the terms of cession, or the laws under which such land was purchased or condemned.

32 Montana: By general cession laws. State reserves right to serve and execute civil or criminal process in any suits or transactions for or on account of any rights obtained, obligations incurred, or crimes committed in this State, within or without such territory.

33 Montana: By general cession laws. State reserves right to tax persons and corporations, their franchises and properly within said territory.

34 Montana: State reserves to its inhabitants and citizens the right to fish and hunt; and State reserves the right of access, ingress, and egress to and through said ceded territory to all persons owning or controlling Livestock for the purpose of watering the same. State also reserves jurisdiction to enforce laws relating to the duties of the Livestock Sanitary Board and the State Board of Health, and their regulations.

35 Nevada: State consents to Federal acquisition of land required by Department of Defense or Atomic Energy Commission; as to other lands, except lands or water rights located within existing national forests. State consent given by concurrence of a majority of the members of the State Tax Commission, which majority shall include the Governor.

36 Nevada: State reserves right to serve any criminal or civil process upon land acquired for the Department of Defense or Atomic Energy Commission for any cause there or elsewhere in the State arising. Except for lands acquired for the purposes expressly provided for in art. I. sec. 8, clause 17, of the United States Constitution, State reserves jurisdiction over all civil and criminal cases, and to all persons residing on such land all civil and political rights, including the right of suffrage.

37 Nevada: Map required only for lands acquired by Department of Defense or Atomic Energy Commission.

38 Nevada: On lands acquired by Department of Defense or Atomic Energy Commission. State reserves only the right to tax private property.

39 Nevada: On lands acquired by United States, other than for the Department of Defense or Atomic Energy Commission, United States must make tax payments or in lieu of tax payments, unless the State waives same.

40 Nevada: Except land acquired by Department of Defense or Atomic Energy Commission, State reserves the right to control, maintain, and operate all State highways constructed upon land acquired by the United States.

41 New Mexico: Persons residing on lands ceded to the United States may establish residence for voting purposes. Military personnel who have been continuously stationed on any military base or installation in the State for 1 year shall be deemed residents of the State and county where such base or military installation is located for maintaining an action for divorce.

42 New York: Aside from certain exceptions, cession laws (art. 4) do not apply to Orange County.

43 North Carolina: State retained concurrent criminal jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States between 1905 and 1907 for purposes specified in sec. 104-1. State cedes exclusive jurisdiction over wildlife in national forests.


44 Ohio: Officers, employees, or inmates at any national asylum for disabled volunteer soldiers and infirm or disabled soldiers who are inmates of a national home may exercise the right of suffrage, if otherwise qualified.

45 Pennsylvania: No general cession laws as to lands dedicated to military purposes. State cedes partial jurisdiction to United States over lands not to exceed 10 acres to be used for purposes of erecting post offices, customhouses, or other structures exclusively owned and used by United States. State consents to acquisition by United States, by purchase or otherwise, of lands for dams, locks, etc., over which United States is given concurrent jurisdiction.

46 Pennsylvania: Not required for lands acquired for dams, locks, etc.

47 Pennsylvania: No provision for lands acquired for dams, locks, etc.

48 South Carolina: Certain statutes enacted prior 1908 ceding lesser jurisdiction to United States carried in code.

49 South Dakota: Tracts acquired for public buildings shall not exceed 10 acres.

50 Tennessee: By acts of 1867. State ceded exclusive jurisdiction to the United States over lands thereafter acquired for national cemeteries Notarial acts performed by any commissioned officer in active service of the Armed Forces may be filed or used in any court in the State. Persons residing on Federal territory within the boundaries of State for 1 year meet residence requirements for adoption purposes.

51 Texas: Governor cedes jurisdiction after application for such by United States.

52 Texas: State reserves right to tax personal property as well as any portion of the Government lands and improvements which are used by any person, association, firm, or corporation in a private capacity or to conduct a private business.

53 Utah: Includes lands held by United States under lease, use permit, or reserved from the public domain.

54 Vermont: Consent not given to land acquisition for flood control purposes or for other needful buildings unless and until acquired by the State and conveyed to United States with written approval of Governor.

55 Virginia: Unconditional consent given for acquisition of post offices.

56 Virginia: State retains concurrent jurisdiction so far as it lawfully can over lands acquired by the United States prior to 1919 over which the United States obtained jurisdiction.

57 Virginia: Deed required when jurisdiction in addition to what is granted in secs. 7-18, 7-19, and 7-21 is requested by the head or other authorised officer of any department or agency of the United States (sec. 7-34, Code of Virginia, 1950). Under the last-mentioned section, exclusive jurisdiction may be ceded by deed executed by the governor and the attorney general.

58 Virginia: For all purposes of the jurisdiction of the courts of Virginia over persons, transactions, matters and property on such lands, the lands are deemed to be a part of the county or city in which they are situated.

59 Virginia: Over all lands acquired by or leased or conveyed to the United States pursuant to the conditional consent conferred, the State cedes to the United States concurrent jurisdiction, legislative, executive, and judicial, with respect to the commission of crimes and the arrest, trial, and punishment therefor.

60 Virginia: Filing of description required for acquisition of waste and unappropriated lands.

61 Virginia: State reserves the power to levy a tax on oil, gasoline, and all other motor fuels and lubricants owned by others than the United States and a tax on the sale thereof on such lands, except sales to the United States for use in the exercise of essentially governmental functions.

62 Virginia: The State further reserves the right to license and regulate, or to prohibit, the sale of intoxicating liquors on any such lands and to tax all property, including buildings erected thereon, not belonging to the United States and to require licenses and impose license taxes upon any business or businesses conducted thereon.

63 Washington: Constitutional consent given to the United States exercising exclusive legislation over land then held or reserved by the United States. General cession laws cede concurrent jurisdiction to the United States, saving cessions of jurisdiction before act. but expressly reserving such jurisdiction and authority over land acquired or to be acquired by the United States as is not inconsistent with jurisdiction ceded to the United States. Statutory consent given to the United States to exercise exclusive legislation over lands acquired by donations from any county.

                              CHAPTER VI

   Basic grouping of jurisdictional preferences. — Federal agencies can be divided into three groups as to their views of their legislative jurisdictional needs. Those in the first group feel that their functions are carried on most effectively when the United States acquires exclusive legislative jurisdiction — or some shade of partial jurisdiction approaching exclusive — over the sites of some of the installations under their management; the second group consists of agencies which consider that only a proprietorial interest in the Federal Government, with legislative jurisdiction left in the States, best suits the requirement of their operations.

   Agencies preferring exclusive or partial jurisdiction. — The group preferring exclusive or partial legislative jurisdiction includes the Veterans' Administration (which states that it desires exclusive jurisdiction, or at least concurrent jurisdiction, over all its installations except office buildings in urban areas, as to which a proprietorial interest only is deemed satisfactory), the National Park Service of the Department of the Interior (which desires to have partial jurisdiction over national parks and over national monuments of large land area), and the three military departments, the Department of the Army (which desires to procure or retain exclusive as well as other forms of legislative jurisdiction over various individual installation on an individually determined basis, except as to land dedicated to civil projects of the Corps of Engineers, for which only a proprietorial interest in the United States as may be necessary is deemed best suited), the Department of the Navy (which desires an exclusive or certain partial legislative jurisdiction for its major installations, on an individually determined basis), and the Department of the Air Force (which desires a partial legislative jurisdiction but which would find concurrent legislative jurisdiction acceptable under certain conditions). Also, the Bureau of the Census and the Civil Aeronautics Administration of the Department of Commerce each consider that no less than an existing exclusive or partial legislative jurisdiction is best suited to one certain Federal property which each occupies.



   Agencies preferring concurrent jurisdiction. — The group preferring, in special situations, concurrent jurisdiction for certain of its properties consists of the General Services Administration (which finds a proprietorial interest sufficient for general purposes but, in the event of a failure to secure certain statutory changes hereinafter recommended, would desire concurrent jurisdiction for limited areas requiring special police services), the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (which desires such jurisdiction for a small number of properties in special situations, but which considers a proprietorial interest generally satisfactory), the Department of the Navy (which desires such jurisdiction, but alternatively would not find only a proprietorial interest grossly objectionable, as to all properties other than the major properties for which it determined exclusive or partial legislative jurisdiction most desirable), the Bureau of Prisons of the Department of Justice (which desires concurrent legislative jurisdiction for its installations in which prisoners are maintained), the Bureau of Public Roads of the Department of Commerce (which desires concurrent jurisdiction for five installations), and the Department of the Interior (which consider that this status may be desirable for certain wildlife areas).

   Agencies preferring a proprietorial interest only. — The last and largest group, which desires for its properties only a proprietorial interest in the United States, with legislative jurisdiction left in the States, includes all Federal agencies not mentioned in the two paragraphs above which occupy or supervise real property of the United States and, as to certain of their properties, several of the mentioned agencies. Among the major landholding agencies in this third group are the Department of Agriculture, the General Services Administration for all of its properties (except those as to which concurrent jurisdiction is required unless certain amendments to its authority to furnish special police services are enacted), the Tennessee Valley Authority (which reserved judgment as to whether one certain installation should be under an exclusive jurisdiction status for security reasons), the Atomic Energy Commission, the Department of the Treasury, the Housing and Home Finance Agency, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare as to most of its properties, and the International Boundary and Water Commission. The Central Intelligence Agency and the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice hold relatively minor amounts of real property but it is interesting to note, in view of the security aspects of their operations, that they are also included in the group which desires only a proprietorial interest for their properties.


   Lands held in other than the preferred status. — One of the facts which early came to the attention of the Committee is that while many Federal agencies have more or less definite views as to what legislative jurisdictional status is best suited for their lands in the light of the purposes to which the lands are put, they often hold large proportions of such lands indifferent status. The Central Intelligence Agency and the United States Information Agency are the only Federal agencies which hold all their properties solely in the status (proprietorial interest only) which they consider best for their purposes.

   Where, as is usually the case, the lands are held with more jurisdiction in the United States than is considered best by the Federal agency concerned, the explanation often, and with most agencies, lies in the fact that jurisdiction was acquired prior to February 1, 1940, during the 100-year period when it was generally mandatory under Federal law (Rev. Stat. 355,see appendix B) that agencies procure the consent of the State to purchase of land (whereby the United State acquired exclusive legislative jurisdiction over such land by operation of art. I, sec. 8, clause 17, of the Constitution). In other instances the land was acquired by transfer from other agencies which preferred a status involving more jurisdiction in the United States than is desired by the agency presently utilizing the property. The latter is particularly true of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Department of Agriculture, and other agencies desiring little or no legislative jurisdiction, which now hold certain lands originally acquired by one of the military departments. In still other instances an agency has been required by old Federal statutes, or by newer legislation patterned on old statutes, to acquire a particular type of jurisdiction over land to be utilized for certain purposes. The last reason applies to national park areas under the supervision of the Department of the Interior, the jurisdictional status of which is fixed with few exceptions by statutes pertaining to individual such areas, which statutes for many years apparently have been patterned on similar preexisting laws.

   Another basic cause of an excess of jurisdiction in the United States, and of some link of desired jurisdiction, is that with only three exceptions (Alabama, florida, and Virginia) the States in their general consent or cession statutes rigidly fix the quantum of jurisdiction available to the federal Government, which measure of jurisdiction is accepted by Federal agencies actually desiring a lesser measure in

order to avoid requirement for requesting special State legislation. In this connection in may that while Federal law (Rev. Stat. 355, as amended) currently grants authority to Federal administrators to acquire only such jurisdiction as they deem necessary, state laws with the three exceptions noted are not designed to permit any accommodation to differing Federal needs. A further basic cause of an excess of jurisdiction in the United States is the fact, already mentioned, that while Federal law gives authority (with minor exceptions) to Federal administrators to acquire jurisdiction, it does not (with similarly minor exceptions) give them like authority to dispose of jurisdiction once it is acquired.

   Where, on the other hand, the lands of an agency are held with less jurisdiction in the United States than is considered best by the Federal agency concerned, the most frequent explanation would appear to be that the State law does not permit the acquisition of the type of legislative jurisdiction (or at least concurrent jurisdiction) in nearly all cases, has accepted no jurisdiction over its more recent acquisitions in California because of what it considers the onerous procedural provisions of the California cession statute and the indefinite nature of the jurisdiction acquired once the procedures have been completed.

   Lack of firm agency policy with respect to the quantum of jurisdiction which should be acquired for various types of agency installation is also responsible for many instances in which less jurisdiction than deemed desirable is had by an agency over various of its properties. The Navy, for example, has indicated that its practice has been to acquire legislative jurisdiction over its installations only after the local commander has submitted a justified request for such acquisition. The Committee has received information from several agencies, and the replies of several other agencies suggest the same fact, that until the present study had focused their attention to matters relating to jurisdiction, many Federal agencies had developed no policy in this field. This has been responsible for the acquisition of an excess of jurisdiction more often than of too little jurisdiction, but has been an apparently significant factor in each case. The Committee feels that if its work served no other purpose than has already been accomplished in simulating the agencies to a study of their own policies, practices and procedures with respect to acquisition of legislative jurisdiction it will have been worthwhile.

   Difficulty of obtaining information concerning jurisdiction status. — Another factor of considerable significance which has been brought to light by the work of the Committee has been the incompliance and inaccuracy of agency land records as to the jurisdictional

status of the lands held. In many cases the opinion expressed by an agency as to the type of jurisdiction that existed over a particular installation differed from that expressed by the local commander or manager of the installation. In still other cases no information or opinion whatever appeared to be readily available on the subject. Unfortunately, these situations are confined to no few agencies, but exist rather generally.

   Six States (Alabama, California, Florida, New York, Texas, and Virginia) have requirements set out in their general consent or cession laws for the filing of information concerning jurisdictional status with the governor or secretary of state, or the city or county or court clerk or registrar with whom title records are required to be filed. To the extent that such State laws apply, information on the jurisdictional status of an area is available to all interested parties. Otherwise such information apparently may be unavailable except perhaps after considerable research by a person skilled in the law relating to this intricate subject, since jurisdictional status may in a given case depend on a special rather than a general State consent or cession statute, upon acceptance by a Federal administrator, and upon other factors.