Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1947 )

R-746
T~E:A~OR~YGENERAI.
OF TEXAS
AUI+TIN aa.Trcx~e
PRICE DANIEL
ATTORNEY GENERAL
September 17, 1947
Hon. Wllllam IV. ~Henaley Opinion Ro. v-380
Criminal District Attorney
Bexar County Re: Authorlty of the
San Antonio, Texas Jutitlce of the
Peace to conduct
an lnquwt on a
federal military
reservation.
Dear Sir:
Your requeet for our oplnlon on the above
subjeat matter la in part as followa :
‘We have a request for an opinion
from the Honorable M. D. ‘Buck’ Jones,
Justice, of the Pea&, Precinct No. 1,
Place Ro. 1, Bexar County, Texas (a copy
of which Is lncloaed herein) wherein he
has asked us the following questions:
nI 1 Does a Justice of the Peace
have autiiorlty to oonduct an inquest on
Qovernment Reservations?
11‘2 . Does It make any difference
whether the individual upon whom the
inquest la conduoted be olvlllan or
military personnel?
IfI3. Am I aa a Justloe of the
Peace required, in the mandatory aenne,
to hold an inquest upon a Military Re-
servation where the clroumatances Of
the death oome within the terma of Ar-
ticle 968, R.C.S.?“’
Article 5247, V.C.S., provides:
‘Whenever the United States shall
acquire any land8 under this title, and
shall,dealre to acquire conatitutlonaal
jurisdiction over such lands for any
IIon, Wllliu ,Ko HensleJ - ?yr 2 v-380
purpose omthorlzad herein,. it rhill be law-
ful fop the Oo+flsreor;' ln.th4 ,uam*:and IQ
behalf of thi State, to a@s to'the Unitad
States 4x4lusfvs' juriri%iotion over an7 lands
ao~aoqulx~d, when h)pll$+log u$ be,mads to
him for that )tirpoL~,, Wh,lOh rpplioitlo``,
tak4n plaor; md sw~t``oonditlonrhall ba ln-
sorted In 8tmh inrtmmsnt of 0418Ion~" (Em-
phasir a&lo&)
,,,
W4 quote ttib.
fotiiowlng f&m Curry v. Strta
(Crime Appo),~&2,S,,W. (26) 796;
"Title ,T9f',oSthe 11)95it@tute whloh
oootataa the artiolor abovo ~ontlonod derlm
with t&m rubjM$ ~f'orrrio,n Of jurlidiotlon
by this rtate. Thor0 lo meithol!.oonstltu-
tlorml nor rtatutow inhibitlen rg&lmt own-
arrhlp of Iand by the Vnitrd Strtor ovorn-
mant InT’ixacr. ooareqt or 1t.r In 18 rtura
wan not naoqrrapy ai a, praoodbnt ffor maoh
owaerrhlp, rrueh belag nwsgwrj only to a
transf4r cif 4xolualv``' urlrdiotldn, ?4oplo
V. ``trmphmy, 23 mti. s71, 9,h ,RoP.94.
Ths pfgbt to withhold oonient 8Itogether
oarrfer with It n444erarll;r'the right to
annex suoh eondltlon# an lt~ kies ilt to the
giving of such aonsont, SvPfdentlj th4 Log-
1slatu.m had fan nfBa only the question of
cession of jurfmdlotfo5 In ,th4 snaotment of
the artlclar In question, aa, legislation on
the quesrtlon of owaepstilp of l&i& In Texrs
Ron, Wflllam N, Hanaley - Page 3 V-380
by the United States was useless and whol-
ly unnecessary- If It Intended that ces-
sion of ,jurlsdlctlon~by tipllcatlon should
pass under artloU 361,'R.S. 1895, then
the addition of articles.374 and 375, (now
5247) granting to the Governor the right
to hede same, was futile and useless. If
jurisdiction passed by lmplicatlon under
the first-mentioned artlale, It did so un-
lncumbered by the conditions of concurrent
jurisdiction to serve criminal and civil
Ef;ot;i~s 8s expressed ln article 375 of said
e That suoh was not the Intent of the
Legislature w4 think Is olear from reading
the entlpe enaotment upon the subject under
donslderatlon, Rather, we think the Legla-
lature intended to give Its consent to the
cession of jurlsdlotlon to become operative
only when the Oovernor legally ceded sam4
upon the aondltlons mentioned In articles
374 and 375. In other words, complete con-
sent of the state, which carries with It
exclusive .jurfsdlctlon over such land as
above stated, has bean withheld unless an4
until the ffovenaor of this stat4 under the
terms of articles 374 and 375, R.S. 1895,
makes a transfer of same. Our reasoning
In this regard Is supported by the Circuit
Ciziupt~of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, In the
case of BPOWBv. United States, 257 F. 46,
fn which the said articles of the Texas
statute received consideration and dlscus-
aion."
In~vlew of the foregoing, tha State of Texas
can only transfer Qurladictlon to the United States up-
on the oondftfon contslued In Article 5247.
10 U.S.CoA., p0 329, Section 1585, provides:
"When at any post, fort, camp, or
other place garrlson4d by the military
forcea of the United States and under the
exeluslve ~urlsdlctlon of the United
States, any pemon shall have bean found
dead under circumstances whleh appear to
require lnvestlgatlon, the commanding of-
ficer will designate and direct a summary
court-martial to Investigate the clrcum- ++.
stances attending the death; and, for this
i
Hoan, Wfllfar AO Hensley - Page 4 v-380
purpose, such summary'court-maptial shall
have power to 8ummonwitnesses and examine
them upon oath or affirmation: He shall
promptly transmit to the post OF other
@omna,ndepa report of his lnvertlgatlon
and of hla findings as to the cause of
the death,"
IB'vl*v of the provlslw~s ,og Art1014 5247,
v,c.s.; it Is our oplrilon that the.words "ad under
the excluafv4 jur~lsdlctlon of the Uulted States' as
used in Section 1585 of V617~114 10 of U.S,C.A*, when
applied to milftary res4rvationr in Tbxab, 18 ~roant
that jurlsdiation which tha Unite4 bt8t4s 4oqulro~
through "Dee&# of Cedsloa" ex4out4l uu@er the pmvl-
slons of Artioles 5242, 5247 had 5248, v.03.
‘We Mv4 oar4fully examln4l various "D44d.s
*I Cassfon" executed by the Oovern'er of Texas to th4
United States for military purpo808, copies of which
ara on file In th4 Secretary of State's office, and
find in each “Deed of Cibsslo~! the followlug pravl-
slen:
"Suoh~cession, hopvsr; 18 aa4 upon
th* expr*8s'o4aAftlon that th6 State.of
Toxm shall rotaln 6om&trro8t jurl8llatien
with the Tnlte& S~atrr over every pa&Ion
of thb land 80 ceded, 00 far, that all
p~oasia, oivll or orlmfnal, issuln'$under
th4 authority of the State 4f Texas or any
of th8 ooupt8 or jtiloial,ofti04r8 ef,Oail
State my be 4xooutra by th4 'proper efil-
OOPI of the State upon any parson ummble
to the dame within the llmlts of the land
so oedod, in like mnner and lib efieot
a8 ff no, woh oerulon MeI taken plao6.
"This tgrd of o*r~rlon 18 udr~ in oom-
pllano4 with Art16148 5242, 5217, ml 249
of thm rtrtutrr
rov1e.d of Toxrr of 19 z 5,
and in aooordanoa thrmilth the Utalts~
State! of AmertoL 8hail b4 8aoure in their
po88488lon ma enjopmnt of rll raid land,
and said land and all Improvement8 thereon
shall be exempt from any taxation undrr
the authority of the Stat4 of Texcr 80 long
a8 thr uame are held, owned, u8sd anl oo-
ouplsd by the United Stat88 of,Amerlcr ror
Army purposes and not otherwise."
Hon. William If. Rensley - Page 5 v-380
We quote the following f’rom our Opinion lo.
0 -4707 :
“In answer to the question submitted,
it is our oplalon that justloen of the peace
are not suthorited nor la it their duty to
hold lnquerrtm at say port, fort, oamp, or
other plaoe garrifsoned by the ~milltary for-
008 o? the United Staten and under.the ex-
olunlve jurlsdlotlon o? the United St.&err.’
Therefore, it Is our opinion that a Juatloe
OS the Peace does not have the authority nor i8 It his
duty to hold en inquest qn’any military reservation
where the’United States has acquired exolusive jurls-
dlotloa over ruoh landa for any purposes exoept that
of 188ulng prooe88. For your Information, we an ln-
forued by the Seoretary of State that oopie8 of the
“Deed8 OS Ce88ion” exeouted by the ffovemor to the
United State8 are on file In the oounty olerk’8 of-
,floe of the county in whloh the land Is situated.
A Jtmtloe of the Peace doea not hhve
the authority to oondduot an lnqumt on a
Federal Military Reservation where the United
State8 haa aoqulred “exoluaive juriadlotlon”
through “Deeds of Cemion” executed under
the provision8 of Articles 5242, 5247 and
5248, V.C.S., 10 U.S.C.A., Seotion 1585.
Yours very truly
ATTORREYGERERAL OF ‘PWAS
JR:djmnjt
APPROVED
:
5z.L Q%Ae
ATTORRBY0-L