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 Reservation where the clroumatances Of 

the death oome within the terma of Article 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 lawful 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~~oonditlon rhall ba lnsorted In 8tmh inrtmmsnt of 0418Ion~" (Emphasir a&lo&) 

,,, 

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!.oonstltutlorml nor rtatutow inhibitlen rg&lmt ownarrhlp of Iand by the Vnitrd Strtor 

mant InT’ixacr. ooareqt or 1t.r In 

ff 

ovorn18 rtura 

wan not naoqrrapy ai a, praoodbnt or maoh 

owaerrhlp, rrueh belag nwsgwrj only to a 

transf4r cif 4xolualv~~' urlrdiotldn, 

V. ~~trmphmy, 23 mti. s 

?4oplo 

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 Log1slatu.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 wholly unnecessary- If It Intended that cession 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 unlncumbered 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 Leglalature 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 consent 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 BPOWB v. United States, 257 F. 46, 

fn which the said articles of the Texas 

statute received consideration and dlscusaion." 

In~vlew of the foregoing, tha State of Texas 

can only transfer Qurladictlon to the United States upon 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 officer will designate and direct a summary 

court-martial to Investigate the clrcumstances attending the death; and, for this ++. 
i 

Hoan, Wfllfar AO Hensley - Page 4 v-380 

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," 

v,c.s.; 

IB'vl*v of the provlslw~s ,og Art1014 5247, 

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 pmvlslons 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 pravlslen: 

"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 efilOOPI 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 oompllano4 with Art16148 5242, 5217, ml 

z 

249 

of thm rov1e.d rtrtutrr of Toxrr of 19 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 ooouplsd by the United Stat88 of,Amerlcr ror 

Army purposes and not otherwise." 
Hon. William If. Rensley - Page 5 v-380 

0 -4707 : 

We quote the following f’rom our Opinion lo. 

“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 for008 o? the United Staten and under.the exolunlve 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 jurlsdlotloa over ruoh landa for any purposes exoept that 

of 188ulng prooe88. For your Information, we an lnforued 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 

ATTORREY GERERAL OF ‘PWAS 

JR:djmnjt 

APPROVED : 

5z.L Q%Ae 

ATTORRBY 0-L