Virginia free press. (Charlestown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1832-1916, 1854-08-03

OsDsAxcE orrrcr,
WAsnrsoTox, July 20, 1854
Major w H. BeLl. HarPers-Ferry Arnlory-
Sls coloa-l iIager having submitted 10 this Once
while siationeaat HarpeEs Ferry. and one on an en-
listed man there wv G. BroNnl with his
against the right Of the Sheriff 30 10 levy and
claiming the Interference Of the Government, re-
the Attorney Genefal-
The Attorney Generals opinion, which appears 70
Nv the Secretary TO this Once for files, but il i
snt in the way that papers are sent when no further
action IS expected froin me- think i proper, how
ever to enclose herewith full copy Of that opinion
for your iuflrluation and for the 0acc files u ,hc
Harpers- Ferry Arlnory.
am. sir. respectfully, your obedient servant.
Colonel Of Ordnance.
IcorY.1
ArrcsxEY GEsERAL's oFFIcE.
June a, 1554.
4 Srn: Your communication Of the Ioth Of March,
enclosng letters from Colonel Craig olthe Ordnance
and also from Colonel Huger the 0fcer Of Ordinance
in charge OF the Arnory at HarpersFer presents
the question: whether officers Of the Army or other
persons, residing lands of that establishment, BE-
longing the Government, liable TO taxation by
the State Il Virginia.
This question Is wholly independent Of that decided
in the case of the United States Weiss which was
Of the legality of State tax imposed the property
Of the United Stats at Carlisle Barracks.
In that the CiFcut Court very properly dccid-
ed that the property Of the United States was not sub
ject Be taxed by the authorities Of the State. Xxi
Penns. L. Journal D. -, National lntellgencer,
July 10Th, lS50lI This decision Is in conformity
with die doctrine Of the Supreme Court in the case f
Mccullough vs.. the State u Maryland. Iiv Wheat
on, D. 3l6l and in that of Weston the city Of
Charleston. iii Peters, p. AS
The present question Is not Of the property Of tile
United States but Of the persons and property II an
Officer, employee OF the United States, residing on
land OF which the property and jurisdiction have
been coded 70 the United States.
..fI I,r kf,,fr,
the United States, in virtue of legislative Of tile
State Of Virginia u the 9Th Of November 1874. The
validity ofthis act and the consequent Jurisdiction u
the Unied States have since been fully recognised
by the State fylrginia. Use Rev'd Code Of lo491
tit. I, oh. ?, page -.
Upon thsse acts u the State Of Virginia. the land
in question became subject the following clause IF
the Constitution, nauely
Con sress shall have power to exercise exclusive
Legislation, in al cases whatso, =, sc, over all
places purchased by the censent of the State ia
which the same shall be- for the erection Of Fort$,
Magazines, Arsenals Dock Yards, and other need
/ fal buildings" Art. i, Sec. 5, No. l6.l
Exclusive legislation signifies exclusive j,risdse
fion and this follows although the Legislature
of the State in lis act asserting to the purchase have
expressly ceded such jurisdiction Il vests in the
! United States by virtue Of the Constitution. ESef
\ geant's Const. L., D. $50.
The constitutional conditions be il observed, are
two purchase by the United States, and consent If
the Legislature Of the State. By that consent tic
Safe voluntarily and knowingly parts with its juris
diction 1t not lost in the fact Of ownership
/ Johnson's Repts., p. Commonwealth vs.. Young
Bright's Rcpt. 302, G. Halls Journal p. AN
Both conditions exist in the4cas Of the Armory at
Harpers- Ferry.
There is in the acts Of the State of Virginia, re-
| seryation, as follows
sit is hereby.decared that this State retains COM
curre.t jurisdiction with the United States said
places far lawfully can, consistently with the
acts bsfore mentioned and its Courts, Magistrates
and Officers may take such cognizance, execute
such process, aud dischage such other legal FUNGI
n a h Nat
with the true inttnt and meaning VI said acts. 7
! tUbi supra
similar reservation Is common in the correspon+
dent acts Of other States, aud sometimes in abb
solutc Language tiaa that employed By the State u
! Virginia.
But Is WILL settled that tic sole object and only
legal effect Of such reservation by the States is to pref
vent these places from bece in sanctuary for lus
gitiyes from justice for acts done within the cknow
edged jurisdiction OF the State. United States vs.
Cornell, ii Mason 60--Untcd States vs. Davis, '
Nason, p. $50.
In ali other respects the exterritoriaty Of the Ar.
mory, at Harpers Ferry. and other Ike places, i
lie. Isee Cohens the State Of Virginia. vi whea-
ton, 424 to 429-Story the Constitution PIG and
SeQq.--i kcnt's Conn, p 49, Raw lie the Cons.
This extcrritorality has been recognized -bv Judi
cial decisions in the.States.
Thus in Massachusetts, it has been d cded that tho
Comm9nw a'th cannot take cognzance OF an offence
COMMITTED thin the liutsoi Arnlory at Spring
held Il omin lnwealth vs. Cary, viii Massachusetts
! Reports P. ~.
So n tn same State, it has been adiudced that a
el trans sorting stone from the State u Maine ii
the Navy ard Charlestown is not subject TO ihe
law of the State regulating such vessels the Navy
Yard NOT beng ,cn The STATE in thc sense oil lis la
| tMitciell vs.. Tibbetts, xvii Pick. Is r. 29s,
j Tic doctrine Of these covers the whole cues
tionnow before me. In the Of the Common
wealth vs. Ciary, the Supreme Court Of Masssachu-
sets say:
''An objection occurred to the minds Of some mem
bers Of the Court, that ii the laws of the Common
wealth have no force within this territory, the inha
bants thereof cannot exercise any civil political
privileges, under the laws d Massachusetts, within
the town of Springfield We agreed that such
consequence necessarily follows; aud wethink that
no hardship is thereby imposed these inlabiiant.
because they interested in any elcc titas
nade within the State, held to pa any fin
posed by it, authority, nor bsuud by any gifts law.
Aud It might b. very announcement to the United
States to have their laborors, artifccrs, officers and
other persons employed IN their service, subjected
70 the services rcqniredby the Commonwealth Of
Il the inhabitants Of til. several towns.
Il will be noticed that, in this decision. make
distinction between persons who actually dwell
within the territory owi cd by the United States and
the laborcrs and artilcers employed therein who
have their dwellings elsewhere" Tviii Mass Repts.
4 p. III
All the incidental views Of the Court, in this case
are IN elect adopted and rearined by the Supreme
Court OF Massachusetts in the Of Mitchell vs..
! Tibbetts.
The same opinion, as to the disabilities and the ex-
emptiOns Of perssns residing III such places,
pressed in the above cited from Pennsy Of
the Commonwealth Us. Young.
Subsequently to the decision in the State Of Massa-
chusctts above cited, the Legislature, under general
authority conferred by the Constitution Of that State
called on tile Supreme Courtof the State for its opn
ion on the following questions, namely;
al. Are persons residing ON lands purchased by,
or added 70, the United Safes for Navy Yards, Ar
senals, Dock Yaids, Forts, and Arinories, in this
Commonwcath, entitled 70 the benefits Of the State
Common Schools, for their children, in the towns
| where such lands are located?
"2.- Docs such residence exenFDtAuch persons from
being assessed for their polls estate. the
in which places are located.
ga. viii such residence, for the requisite length
II time, give such persons their children legal
nhabitancy in sue towns or in the Commonwealth,
-. Are persons 80 residing entitled to the elective
franchise In such toNfns -
The Supreme Court II Massachusetts,. aware that
these questions though geners Ia scope, yet had in
their intention special application 10 the Navy Yard
at Charlcst5wn and the Ar1nory at Springfield, con-
siered the subject carefully entered into exposition
Of the force and effect Of the pr0s ison Of the C0nstitu
ton Of the United States in the sense herein before
expressed BIZ me- cuned and adopted the Of the
| Commonwealth rs. Clary and Of Mtehell-vz. Tib-
belts and stated their grnernl opinion in the follow
eve arr Of opinion that when the rene-
raj con-cnt Of the Commonwealth Il given 20 the
purchase Of Territory BY the United States for Forts
and Dock Yards, and when there is no other condi-
ton reservation in the act granting such CONSENT
but that Of jurisdiction u the State for
the service Of civil process and criminal process
against pers charged with crirnei Committed ont
Or such ferrit3rcs-tie Government Of the United
States have the sole and exclusive jurisdiction over
such territory for all purposes OF Legislation and
independence, with the sin lie exceptions
and, consequently, that no persons are af,ler,ahe h
the laws Of the Csliin0nNsah for crimes and an
icnces committed within said territory and thar
persons residing within the same do not ACQUIRE tie
civil and political privileges, do they be- ONE
subj TO the civil duties and obligations az the in
habitants Of the towns within WIKI such territory
Is situated
Proceeding . some eascs in which The State, in