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 SanAntonio, 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 :

‘Wehave 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:

nI1 Does a Justice of the Peace have autiiorlty to oonduct an inquest on Qovernment Reservations? 11 ‘2

. Does It makeany difference whether the individual upon whomthe inquest la conduoted be olvlllan or military personnel? If I3. AmI 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 oomewithin 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 anyIIon, Wllliu ,KoHensleJ - ?yr 2 v-380

purpose 

### omthorlzadherein,. it rhill be lawful fop the Oo+flsreor;'ln.th4 ,uam*:and 

### IQ behalfofthi State, 

### toa@s to'theUnitad 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 8tmhinrtmmsnt of 0418Ion~" (Emphasir a&lo&)

,,, W4 quote ttib.

fotiiowlngf&m Curry v. Strta **(Crime** 

### Appo),~

&2,S,,W.(26)796; "Title,T9f',oS

the 11)95it@tute whloh oootataa 

### theartiolor 

### abovo~ontlonodderlm with t&mrubjM$ ~f'orrrio,n Ofjurlidiotlon 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.rInff ovorn18rtura wannot naoqrrapy ai a,praoodbnt or maoh owaerrhlp, rruehbelag 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 fannfBa only the question of cession of jurfmdlotfo5 In ,th4snaotment of the artlclar In question, aa,legislation on the quesrtlon of owaepstilp of l&i& In TexrsRon, Wflllam N, Hanaley - Page 3 V-380

by the United States was useless andwholly 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 

### ofconcurrent 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 w4think Is olear from reading the entlpe enaotment upon the subject under donslderatlon, Rather, wethink the Leglalature intended to give Its consent to the cession of jurlsdlotlon to become operative only whenthe 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 

### oversuch 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, makesa transfer of same. Our reasoning In this regard Is supported by the Circuit Ciziupt~ofAppeals, Fifth Circuit, In the case of BPOWB

v. United States, 257F. 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: "Whenat 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 commandingofficer will designate and direct a summary court-martial to Investigate the clrcumstances attending the death; and, for this ++.i

Hoan,Wfllfar AOHensley - Page 4 v-380

purpose, such summary'court-maptial shall have power to 8ummon witnesses and examine themupon oath or affirmation: Heshall promptly transmit to the post OFother @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 ,ogArt1014 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 “Deedof 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 

### 80ceded, 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 efilOOPIof the State uponany parson ummble to the damewithin the llmlts 

### of the land so oedod, in like mnner and lib 

### efieot a8ff no,woh oerulon 

### MeItaken plao6. 

### "This tgrd of o*r~rlon 18udr~ in oompllano4 with Art16148 5242, 5217, ml z249 

### 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 uameare held, owned, u8sd anl ooouplsd by the United Stat88 

### of,Amerlcr ror Armypurposes and not otherwise."

### Hon.William If. Rensley - Page 5 v-380

0-4707: Wequote the following f ’romour 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 lnquerrtmat 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 OSthe 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, wean lnforued by the Seoretary of State that oopie8 of the

“Deed8 OSCe88ion” 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.

AJtmtloe of the Peace doea not hhve the authority to oondduotan 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

GERERALOF‘PWAS

JR:djmnjt APPROVED :
5z.L Q%Ae ATTORRBY

0-L