Petersen v. United States, 12694.

• Decision Date: 26 November 1951
• Docket Number: No. 12694.,12694.
• Citation: 191 F.2d 154
• Parties: PETERSEN et al. v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

191 F.2d 154 (1951)

PETERSEN et al. v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12694.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

August 2, 1951.

Writ of Certiorari Denied November 26, 1951.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., of California, Bayard Rhone, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellant State of California.

George, Winkler & Gibbs, Fresno, Cal., for appellants Petersen and others.

Ernest A. Tolin, U. S. Atty., Walter S. Binns, Chief Asst. U. S. Atty., Clyde C. Downing and Max F. Deutz, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and GOODMAN and BYRNE, District Judges.

Writ of Certiorari Denied November 26, 1951. See 72 S.Ct. 174.

GOODMAN, District Judge.

The question presented on this appeal is whether or not the federal government has exclusive police jurisdiction over certain privately owned land situated entirely within the boundaries of Kings Canyon National Park.

In 1940, the Congress dedicated and set apart as a public park (Kings Canyon National Park) certain tracts of land within the boundaries of Tulare County, in the State of California. 16 U.S.C.A. § 80. In 1943, California ceded to the United States exclusive jurisdiction over all the territory included in the tracts of land set aside and dedicated by the United States. California Statutes 1943, Chapter 96, Sec. 2. California Government Code Section 119. Thereafter, in 1945, the Secretary of the Interior of the United States accepted the cession and assumed police jurisdiction. 40 U.S.C.A. § 255.

Within the park limits and entirely surrounded by the park acreage were some privately owned tracts of land known as Wilsonia Village in which a number of persons owned private homes and in which appellants Petersen et al. owned and operated a tavern. The private owners were successors or grantees of one Daniel M. Perry, to whom, in 1891, the United States patented these tracts.

In November of 1947, appellants Petersen et al. applied to the Department of the Interior for a permit to sell intoxicating liquor in their establishment pursuant to the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior. 13 Fed. Register 498-599. In March of 1948 the permit was denied. The following month appellants Petersen et al. applied to the California State Board of Equalization for a permit to sell intoxicating liquor on said premises pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverages Control Act of the State of California. Thereafter a season's license was issued by the California State Board of Equalization to appellants Petersen et al.

Thereafter the Department of the Interior notified appellants Petersen et al. that the Federal Government did not recognize the authority of the California State Board of Equalization to grant such liquor license. Thereafter the United States filed this action below for a declaratory judgment adjudging that the Federal Government has exclusive police jurisdiction and for a writ of injunction restraining the sale of liquor by appellants Petersen et al. without a Federal permit.

The lower court granted a declaratory judgment in favor of the United States as prayed but denied the writ of injunction placing its denial of the latter upon the ground that adequate criminal remedies existed.

Appellants have vigorously contended upon the appeal that the language of the State statute¹ ceding jurisdiction to the United States does not warrant the conclusion that jurisdiction over the privately owned areas was transferred. The basis of this contention is that the language "over and within all of the territory which is now or may hereafter be included in those several tracts of land in the State of California set aside and dedicated for park purposes * * *." does not, either explicitly or implicitly, describe or include the privately owned areas.

In effect, appellant's contention is that the cession of jurisdiction over all of the territory "included in" the dedicated areas means that California was ceding jurisdiction only over the already dedicated surrounding areas. We construe the words "territory * * * included in" to mean the state lands "confined" or "shut up" or "enclosed" or "embraced" within the surrounding already dedicated areas. See Webster, New International Dictionary, 2nd Ed. 1947.

Both California and the United States were intending by the statutes of cession and acceptance to accomplish unified policing of privately owned and public lands within the park boundaries for the public good in administering the National Park. Hence we agree with the district Judge² that such was the intention of both California and the United States.

It was also strongly urged upon the appeal that California was powerless to surrender its jurisdiction to the United States over privately owned lands on the ground that the power to surrender existed only as to federally owned property. But no authority has been submitted nor does independent research reveal any basis for concluding that the sovereign state may not, as a part of its power of sovereignty, cede part of its jurisdiction over privately owned property to its paramount sovereign in cases like the instant one. To the contrary, it is clear that such cessions of jurisdiction, motivated by the...