Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1872-02-28

State ir which the same shall be, TO-
the erection of forts, magazines, ar
senals, dockyards and other needfui
buildings III -.ssr -.
The section does not and cannot
apply to the case under consideration
for the reason that the United States
never purchased and never owned the
territory upon which the Home Is
situated. This is a sufficient answer
to the whole argument. But even II
YOU waive this and coneede that the
Soldiers Home is among the needful
buildings mentioned in the first arti-
Gle of the constitution (which is very
doubtful, even then the doctrine is
not sustained. The Government does
not obtain jurisdiction without the
consent of the State where the lands
! lie-all depends upon the consent.
Here we are driven back again to
! inquire whether the State ever gave
/ consecutive are compelled TO look at
the terms of the consent we 60 back
the law of April 18th, 1867, and we
/ find that the only shadow of consent
ever given, is that which expressly
/ declares thatthe veteran soldiers shall
| be citizens and voters of the State of
Ohio. Upon no other terms did Ohio
ever consent to any sale or occupancy
of these lands.
You shall not mutilate the law by
which YOU claim to have obtained jur-
isdietion. If you strike out these
reservations and conditions, then in
/ Justice YOU must strike out the bal
ance of the act ls ---
If it is claimed that Congress can
not accept a limited, qualified Jurisdic-
ton. that il must take the Yhole or
nothing. then I affirm that II lever
received ANYTHING. I am proceeding
now upon the supposition that the
! Soldiers Home is among the neediuI
buildings contemplated by the tirst
article Of the National Constitution.
7 shall endeavor to show before l
close. ifI do not forget il, that such is
not the case. and that no part oil TINS
section is applicable TO the subject
now before us. The position now
take Is. that if there are among the
needful buildings over which Con-
gress has exclusive jurisdiction at
taches the State must have given
sbsoIute and unconditional consent.
If the State attaches a condition, or
qualification to its consent inconsis-
tent with the exclusive power of leg
islation contemplated by the article
named then the General Government
must treat IL as no consent, and reject
IL sltopether. II cannot, for the pur-
pose of getting such exclsive jurisdie
tion. change the manifest intention of
the Legislature. Ia the. case before
us it cannot strike out the proviso
contained in the act of cession-lt can
simply refuse to receive the territory
uDOn the terms which We Propose-
L come now to an examination OF
the adiudicatiOns upon the subject.
and I think it will be seen that the
positions here taken are fully borne
out by the authorities. first cite
those relied upon by the sitting
member.
The first of these is reported in the
eighth volume of Massachusetts Re
ports-CommOnwealth V. Clary. In
that case the Legislature OF Msssa-
ehusetts, in giving its consent TO the
purchase of the ground for an arsenal
at Springfield, attached the proviso that
all criminal and civil process of the
State should deserved upon the arsenal
grounds. ..-
There was no reservation In regard |
to voting. The Supreme Court of that /
State properly held that q crime COM I,
mitted on the arsenal grounds was
not punishable under the laws of Z
and that the United 1
States States had Jurisdiction over
these grounds.
1t did not, however, as some claim. !
ignore the prOviso inserted by the
Massachusetts Legislature, but on the I
contrary gave 1t full force and effect i
and construed it to mean that the I
officers of the State might go upon the /
arsenal grounds to serve both civil
and criminal process, and that this
right 30 secured by the State was both 4
valuable and proper inasmnch as it
prevented the grounds from becoming
the rendezvous of criminals who
might go upon them to avoid capture
and punishment.
Another case came before the Uni
ted States Circuit Court in the First
district reported in Mason: In
that the State of Rhode Island had
to the purchase of the
ground for national purposes at New
port, and had attached TO the terms of
It's consent a provisO in substantially
the words as found in the law of Il
The Court held upon Z
il the same as in the first case men
TONED. 1t did not attempt to ignore
he provision, but on the contrary re-
eOgnized the right and propriety of
Rhode Island in making it. Idesire
% call attention to the following ex-
ract from the opinion of Justice
Story:
"NOw, there is nothing incompati-
Die with the exclusive sovereignty
,r jurisdiction of any State that it
'hOuld permit another State. in Aueh
;ases, to execute its processes within ,
Is limits. And a cessiOn of exclusive
may well be made with a
eservatiOn of right of this nature,
which then operates only as q con
iition annexed to the cessiOn, and as /.
IN agreement of the new sovereign
o permit its free'exercise as 'quadhOo'
N his SwT. process. This is the light
n which clauses of this nature (Which :
Ire very FREQ uenti in States) have been !
received by this Court on various |
occasions on which the subject has
leen heretofore brought before it for {
and it is the same {
light in which it has also been reeeiv- l
ii by 4 very learned State Court. In ]
)ur Judgment it comports entirely {
with the apparent intention of the 6
parties, and gives fact to acts which 8
night otherwise, perhaps. be, con- :
.trued entirely nugatoTy. For Il may {
,e doubted 5Chether Congress is. By the q
erns Of the Constitution, at liberty to |
purchase lands for forts, dOckyords,
&C., with the consent of State Legis-
ature, where such consent is so quail. I
led that il will not justify the ex- /
;Iusive legislation of Congress there. {
IF may sCeH be doubted If such consent {
,e not utterly UOid. Thus it will be G
zen that this decision fully recognizes /
he right of State to make con- '
litions TO its terms of consent. There 1
5 no pretense that the courts can q
gnore these, whatever may be their I
character: but il they should be {
with the Jurisdiction s
by the first article of the i
National Constitution, then the whole Y
aw pretending TO give consent is a q
utility and no consent whatever is t
,iven. And no consent being given, V
he Government, of course, obtains b
10 Jurisdiction and the State lost C
zone. This authority is decidedly in b
avor of the claims which we make {
n behalf of the contestant in this
ase. d
J "