Case Information
*1 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:
n I 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?
If I 3. 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 *2 IIon, Wllliu ,Ko HensleJ - ?yr 2
purpose omthorlzad herein,. it rhill be law- ,uam*:and IQ ful fop the Oo+flsreor;' ln.th4 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 for that )tirpoL~,, Wh,lOh rpplioitlo~~, him tak4n plaor; md sw~t~~oonditlon rhall ba ln- sorted In 8tmh inrtmmsnt of 0418Ion~" (Em- a&lo&) phasir ,,,
W4 quote ttib. fotiiowlng f&m Curry v. Strta (Crime Appo),~ &2,S,,W. (26) 796; "Title ,T9f',oS the 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 or maoh ff owaerrhlp, rrueh belag nwsgwrj only to a transf4r cif 4xolualv~~' urlrdiotldn, ?4oplo V. ~~trmphmy, mti. s 71, 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 *3 Ron, Wflllam N, Hanaley 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 In other words, complete con- 374 and 375. sent of the state, which carries with It over such land as exclusive .jurfsdlctlon 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 BPOWB v. 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. 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 4
purpose, such summary'court-maptial shall have power to 8ummon witnesses and examine them upon oath or affirmation: He shall promptly transmit to the post OF other @omna,ndep a 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. oar4fully examln4l various "D44d.s ‘We Mv4
*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 ceded, 00 far, that all or orlmfnal, issuln'$ under p~oasia, oivll 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 of thm rov1e.d rtrtutrr of Toxrr of 19 5, z and in aooordanoa thrmilth the Utalts~ State! of AmertoL 8hail b4 8aoure in their po88488lon ma enjopmnt 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." *5 Hon. William If. Rensley
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 For your Information, we an ln- of 188ulng prooe88. 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 Articles 5242, 5247 and 5248, V.C.S., 10 U.S.C.A., Seotion 1585.
Yours very truly ATTORREY GERERAL OF ‘PWAS JR:djmnjt
APPROVED : 5z.L Q%Ae ATTORRBY 0-L