Yellowstone Park Transp. Co. v. Gallatin County
Decision Date | 22 April 1929 |
Docket Number | No. 5573.,5573. |
Parties | YELLOWSTONE PARK TRANSP. CO. v. GALLATIN COUNTY et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
T. B. Weir and Harry P. Bennett, both of Helena, Mont., for appellant.
E. F. Bunker, of Bozeman, Mont., for appellees.
Before GILBERT, RUDKIN and DIETRICH, Circuit Judges.
The principal question for decision on the present appeal is this: May the taxing officers of the county of Gallatin, in the state of Montana, impose taxes on personal property owned by a Delaware corporation and having its situs in that portion of the Yellowstone National Park within the territorial limits of that county, in view of the act of the Montana Legislature, approved February 14, 1891 (Laws 1891, p. 262), which ceded to the United States exclusive jurisdiction over and with respect to all lands within the state which were or might be embraced within the Yellowstone National Park, together with such other lands as were then or might thereafter be occupied and held by the United States for military purposes, reserving only concurrent jurisdiction for the execution of process, civil and criminal, lawfully issued by the courts of the state. This question must be answered in the negative. Cessions of exclusive jurisdiction, such as that made by the Legislature of Montana, have been very common in the history of this country, and their effect is well settled. We need only refer to a recent case. In 1903 the Legislature of the state of Arkansas (Acts 1903, p. 52) ceded to the United States exclusive jurisdiction over certain territory surrounding the Hot Springs in that state, reserving only the right to execute civil and criminal process and the right to tax, and in Arlington Hotel Co. v. Fant, 176 Ark. 613, 4 S.W.(2d) 7, it was held that a statute enacted by the state Legislature after the date of cession, restricting the liability of innkeepers, was inoperative within the ceded territory. The judgment of the Supreme Court of the state was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Arlington Hotel Co. v. Fant, 49 S. Ct. 227, 73 L. Ed. ___, decided February 18, 1929. In other words, after the date of cession, the ceded territory was as much without the jurisdiction of the state making the cession as was any other foreign territory, except in so far as jurisdiction was expressly reserved. For this reason, the taxing laws of the state of Montana are wholly inoperative in that portion of the Yellowstone National Park within the territorial limits of the state.
But the appellee contends that the act is unconstitutional, because the subject of the act is not clearly expressed in the title, as required by section 23 of article 5 of the state Constitution. The title of the act is "An act ceding to the United States jurisdiction over certain lands." Such a title satisfies the constitutional requirement.
Public Service Co. v. Rechtenwald, 290 Ill. 314, 125 N. E. 271, 8 A. L. R. 466.
"The generality of a title is therefore no objection to it, so long as it is not made a cover to legisla...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The Texas Company v. Siefried
... ... APPEAL ... from District Court, Laramie County; SAM M. THOMPSON, Judge ... Action ... by the ... constructing highways in Yellowstone National Park. From a ... judgment for plaintiff, ... Yellowstone Park ... Transp. Co. v. Gallatin County, 31 F.2d 644; City of ... ...
-
Adams v. Londeree
...of jurisdiction by one sovereignty to another requires an acceptance in order to render it effective (Yellowstone Park Transp. Co. v. Gallatin County, [9 Cir.] 31 F.2d 644); such acceptance will be presumed in the absence of a contrary intent ([Silas] Masson Co. v. Tax Comm'n, supra). No su......
-
Defenders of Wildlife v. Everson
...209–10 (4th Cir. 1940) (jurisdiction ceded via "the Act of the North Carolina Legislature of 1915"); Yellowstone Park Transp. Co. v. Gallatin County , 31 F.2d 644, 645 (9th Cir. 1929) (jurisdiction ceded via an "act of the Montana Legislature"). These cited cases are but the tip of the iceb......
-
United States v. Hollingsworth
...of the U.S. Courts, A Guide to the Legislative History of the Federal Magistrate Judges System 2 (1995); Yellowstone Park Transp. Co. v. Gallatin Cnty., 31 F.2d 644, 645 (C.C.A.9 1929) ; Collins, 304 U.S. at 529–30, 58 S.Ct. 1009. It is also important to note that the Act of October 9, 1940......