Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1138435
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 00:40:49+00:00

Document:
53 Congress, no officer of the United States has power to give any court jurisdiction of a suit against the United States."221 Moreover, a proceeding "against property in which the United States has an interest is a suit against the United States."222 Accordingly, an officer of the Government cannot submit its property to suit.223 Nor may the conduct of officers who have no authority to dispose of government property "cause the Government to lose its valuable rights by their acquiescence, laches, or failure to act."224 And its properties are not subject to state or local taxes or public assessments.225 Also important here is the question of jurisdiction. As to public-domain lands within a state, Congress has:226 the power to control their occupancy and use, to protect them from trespass and injury and to prescribe the con- ditions upon which others may obtain rights in them, even though this may involve the exercise in some meas- ure of what commonly is known as the police power. Over such lands the state has civil and criminal jurisdiction for many purposes, but such jurisdiction cannot be exercised in any way inconsistent with the rights of the United States.227 In the case of lands purchased by the United States with consent of the state, the jurisdiction theretofore residing in the state passes to the United States, "thereby making the juris- diction of the latter the sole jurisdiction."228 But the United States may share a divided jurisdiction with the state. Thus, where a state cedes land to the United States, but reserves the right to exercise its taxing jurisdiction, such reservation must be respected by the United States.229 Without an appropriate 221 Minnesota v. United States, 305 U. S. 382, 388-389 (1939) ; Stanley v. Schivalop, 162 U. S. 255, 270 (1896). *" Minnesota v. United States, 305 U. S. 382, 386 (1939). 221 Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U. S. 255, 270 (1896). ** United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19, 40 (1947), decree expanded, 332 U. S. 804 (1947). ""Van BrockUn v. Tennessee, 117 U. S. 151 (1886) ; Mullen Benevolent Corp. v. United States, 290 U. S. 89, 94 (1933). 226 Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U. S. 389, 405 (1917). 227 243 U. S. at 404. 228 Surplus Trading Co. y. Cook, 281U. S. 647,652 (1930). See U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 17. mColUns v. Tosemite Park d Curry Co., 304 U. S. 518, 530 (1938).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 8
 v.