United States v. Penn
| Decision Date | 01 July 1880 |
| Citation | 48 F. 669 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. PENN. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
L. L. Lewis, for the United States.
Charles E. Stuart, for defendant.
The eighth section of the first article of the constitution of the United States, in the seventeenth clause, gives the right of exclusive legislation to the United States, to exercise authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings. The purchase of lands for the United States, for public purposes, does not of itself oust the jurisdiction of such state over the lands purchased. U.S. v. Cornell, 2 Mason, 60. The constitution prescribes the only mode by which they can acquire land as a sovereign power; and therefore they hold only as an individual when they obtain it in any other manner. Com. v. Young, Brightly, N.P. 303; People v. Godfrey, 17 Johns. 225; U.S. v. Travers, 2 Wheeler, Crim.Cas. 490; People v. Lent, Id. 548. If there be no cession by a state, the state jurisdiction still remains. Com. v. Young, 1 Hall, Law J. 47; 1 Kent Comm. 403, 404; and Story, Const. Sec. 1127, where Judge Story says:
'If there has been no cession by the state of the place, although it has been constantly occupied and used, under purchase or otherwise, by the United States, for a fort, arsenal, or other constitutional purpose, the state jurisdiction still remains complete and perfect.'
It seems too plain for doubt, much as we may regret the fact in this particular case, that this court has no jurisdiction in the premises; and the demurrer accordingly must be overruled, and the plea sustained.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Bin Laden
...land as a sovereign power; and therefore they hold only as an individual when they obtain it in any other manner." United States v. Penn, 48 F. 669, 670 (C.C.E.D.Va.1880) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Tierney, 28 F.Cas. 159, 160 (C.C.S.D.Ohio 1864) (stating that consent of the......
-
Thompson v. Van Lear
...a temporary purpose. 56 F. 630; 71 F. 550; 37 Wis. 379; 53 Wis. 65; 19 N.W. 782; 54 F. 604; Fed. Cas. No. 16,373; Id. No. 6312; 4 Dil. 380; 48 F. 669; F. 616; 34 F. 86; Id. 729. (6) Because the law applies only to citizens within the State. 92 U.S. 220. OPINION RIDDICK, J. This is an appeal......
-
Ii v. State Of Okla.
...dock-yards, and “other needful [b]uildings.” 7 State v. Cline, 1958 OK CR 21, ¶¶ 7-10, 322 P.2d 208, 212-13; United States v. Penn, 48 F. 669, 670 (C.C.E.D.Va.1880). The right of exclusive legislation is the same as exclusive jurisdiction. Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647, 652, 50 ......
-
United States v. Kempf
...means of a criminal statute, has ever been doubted. During the argument great reliance was placed by defendant's counsel upon United States v. Penn (C.C.) 48 F. 669; but the facts are so different that the authority is not point. There the cemetery was originally the property of the state o......
-
A Revisionist History of Indian Country
...535 (1938). [3]Id. (quoting People v. Godfrey, 17 Johns. 225, 233 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1819)). [4]Id. (quoting United States v. Pennsylvania, 48 F. 669, 670 (E.D. Va. 1880)). [5]Id. [6]See United States v. McGowan, 302 U.S. 535 (1938). [7]See id. at 538-39. [8]See id. at 539-40. [9]Id. at 539. [1......