The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-12-19
,a.,s Are Indicted for Felony, They
viii Certainly Be Arrested.
RI cENEDA, M,KIppIM
~. commander of the Department of Texas
|u. w., Has Assumed an Untenabe Position.
4 ~ IN Of Assistant Attorney General.

may take such action In the premises as
he may deem advisable
The opinion OF the assistant attorney
general OF the State is herewith enclosed
and for 1t I ask your careful considera-
! tion.
with sentiments Of high personal regard,
| l am, Yours very truly.
Joseph n. Savers,
Governor OF Texas.
| To General Chambers McKibbin, Com
nanding Department. San Antonio. Texas.
Hon. Joseph D. Sayers, Governor of Texas.
Capitol
Attorney Generals Office. State Of Texas.
December 14.--Dear Sir: have duly con-
| sidered the two kilograms OF date Novem-
| Der Il and December IL. 1899. respectively,
addressed to you by General McKibbin,
| commanding general United States forces
| in Texas, relative to the recent occur
rences at Fort Ringgod, Texas. and also
4 the conversation had in reference thereto.
l assume that Fort Ringgold has been
ceded by the State OF Texas to the United
States government for military reserva-
| tion in accordance with the laws of the
| State of Texas. See title XVI r. S. of
| Texas, and particularly articles 3Ii and
! 375. The latter article provides that
! no cession of jurisdiction shall ever be
made, except upon the express condition
! that the State of Texas shall retain con-
current jurisdiction with the United States
over the iand so ceuea. ana every portion
thereoI, SO iar tnat an process, vinu ".
criminal. issuing under the authority of
this State, or any of the courts or judicial
officers thereof, may be executed by the
proper officers of this State upon any
person amenable TO the same, with'n the
limits OF the iana so ceueu, III ihe ila"
ner and win IKE erect as II no S"u"
cession mad taken place. ana such coiiui-
non shail always De inserted III any W.
strument OF cesslon uhder the pioSls , H
of this tile. rms law was passeu III
1872 1t VIII De observed that the GUY
reservation made III this cess'on tne
right to execute process, clv'l anu ellln
inal, IN the Same manner ana 10 ,us sal n,'
extent as no such essslon hau ~ .sn
made rms reservation goes hot stNe ~
State concurrent jurisdiction win the
United States over the territory ceueu'
but only the right to execute process IN
the coded erritory' | am OF .he ppinlo o
that the process OF the state eau oe exc
cuted upon the cehed territory upon any
one found thereon put lts crlihihei pro-
cess can not be executed thereon lor an
offense actually committeh on LUIS Guy.
territory. See Mitchell VS.. iipnelts' -
Pick, S01; U. ). VS.. Cofneii, Masop y,
C.. 90; Sec los bishop ne" o''i"'n''
Law. van.
i am of the opinion that the uhI.e"
ton over all crimes ana ohei'ses coil','i,'
ted on any military reservation cedeGops
the State IN ACCORDANCE WIN NV, 10y
the state court mas no Jurisuictlon W .ls
any person Tor an onebse ',us Io'i,iii ~,
upon the ceded territoTs' ai.l.'e =, 80
s. Const. " D, provides hat cons e9o
shall have the consent OF oHe ieSls, u ~
of the State in which the same shaii oe'
for the erection OF forts, magazines ar
eenals, dock yards ana other o mee H1on
buildings. AS iar oach as apr, 1o, 80"
congress passed laws LOT the pu,'le'li'su /.
OF criminal acts commltteu III tne auo'e
places. See X. >: OF the ons.yu 9'a' -
Sec. 1888 ct seq Ihat the ?urisu'ction y.
the United states is exclusive OF tual VI
the state over such places mas peen es
tablished by decisions OF poth ene wa
tlonai and state courts.
See Vol Bishops New criminal Law
Sec. 159; United States VS.. cornell, MA
son, So; Mitchell VS.. Ilbpetts' ~ w.
29S; Benson VS.. United States. lao u o.
$50; Fort Leavenwortn II. IL, 70 Ve'
lowe. ia U. s.. go; chicago; ~ =,
Ry Co. VS.. McGilnn, IA y. D, 81
have peeh informed tha' $500 Ia W
: persons, while actually upon the iahu "
territory known as fort hingsoiu oa anu
which as above stated was ceded py 'nis
e State to the United states government ~.
the purposes OF toru hreu UPON an n.
wounded citizens OF Iexas VINO were No.
Il tHeu upoh thc hi'''Na.' 80. -,
fort---the shots being nred lrom we ~. !.
: If this be true, then the question ar's ,l
n was the criminal act committed upon ths
reservation, or was the same coiiiihi.. t,a
in the State of Texas ana cohseHuSn'i.
Il within the jurisdiction OF Iexas II
criminal act, in contemplation oil law .he
e criminal act was committed In Texas ,ne
= State court has jurisdiction ana NJ ln'
United States court In section Do VOL, =
q Bishops Grim. Pro-, 1t Is SAID; ine iaM
!. deems that "A crime Is committed IN tnt
= place where the criminal act taxes e'
e. Hence, in many circumstances one be-
comes liable TO punishment In a particuia,
!, jurisdiction while his personal presence y
: elsewhere. Even in this way nc may
5 commit an offense against state or coun'
: try upon whose soil ne never SET m,s LOO.
I, If man stands upon shore WITHIN
Q county. and by discharsing hrearms, Kiii'
another upon the high seas, "ithou, "
7, county, he is triablc for the muruer ~
n the admiralty which has jurisdiction ove'
= the locality where the bail TOOK emect
and not over The place wnere ne sloo' y
If perpetrate the crime. And one who p,.s
u ons another by the neip OF an nn a.,s,,
II agent is guilty of murder in the county
| he pnisnuinp tOOk place,