E18 » V FEDERAL REPORTER. z ~
E — state is necessary, such state mayalways, in pursuit of its own interests,
. refuse its consent, and thus thwart the-plain objects and purposes of the
. constitution. One argument for the position is thatuno part of the ter-
ritory of one sovereign can bevacquired by another except by conquest
or cession; and therefore, in a case like the present, where conquest is
out ofthe question, it can only be acquired by cession; and this conclu-
sion. is supposed to be aiiirmedand provided for in our federal system
by the seventeenth paragraph of section 8, art. 1, Const., which gives to
congress power to exercise exclusive legislation "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 need-
ful buildings." It is argued thatthis is the only constitutional method
\by which the United States government can obtairr the possession and
. I use of lands within a state, especially·of lands belonging to the state.
Thaargument, however, is directed_to· the acquisition of territory,
with exclusive jurisdiction over the same, and is entirely sound inthat
regard. But it does not touch the question as to the power of the United
States to acquire the mere use of land without exclusive jurisdiction
therein. Nearly all the powers of government areexercised over terri-
` tory in which the United States and the several states-have concurrent
jurisdiction. It is only in exceptional cases that the United States de-
sires to have exclusive jurisdiction, and a consequent cession of territory.
' ° It is very true that the consent of the state legislature is required in or-
der to give the United States this exclusive jurisdiction. But that is all.
' It is not required when exclusive jurisdiction is not sought. On the con-
trary, the government, if it sees nt, may condemn land for its purposes
without the consent of the state. Thus it was decided by the supreme
courtin the case of Kohl v. U. S., 91 U. S. 367 , that the-government of the
_ United States may exercise the right of eminent domain within a state,
for the purpose of condemning land for the use of a post-oiiice building,
and -may,.for this purpose, resort to its own courts. In such a case,
there cannot be a. doubt that the post-ofHce building could be erected
and used by the government without asking the consent of the state leg-
islature. Such consent would, indeed, be necessary to vest in the United
_ States exclusive jurisdiction over thepost-oiiice building and grounds;
4 I but it would not be necessary to enable the governmentto use the prop-
erty for the purposes for which it was acquired. And so of any other
e property wanted for a public purpose; the consent of the legislature is
` not necessaxyto its acquisition, or to its use; but only to the exclusion
of state jurisdiction over the place. That jurisdiction, if allowed to re-
· main, will extend to the punishment of · crimes committed against state
laws therein, and to the service of·state~ process, but,»of course,_cannot
“ hinterfere withthe execution of the United States laws, nor with the per-
formance, —by·United States otncers and agents, of .the;duties devolved
uponthem. - it I j » .
In short, cession by a state is only necessary to extinguish its juris-
diction, in whole or in part, and is not necessary to the use of land by
the United States for public purposes,-subject, like all lands within