Texas Attorney General Opinion: WW-354 Page: 4 of 8
8 p.View a full description of this text.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Honorable Coke R. Stevenson, Jr., Page 4 (WW-354).
therein. It is also our opinion that dependents of such person-
nel and civilian employees of the military installations, above
defined, constitute "military personnel" within the meaning of
the term as used in this statute. Texas National Guardsmen and
reservists in the United States Armed Forces not on active duty
are not "military personnel" within the contemplation of this
term, but reservists may become such when called to active duty
for training purposes.
The answers to your last three questions involve the
law applicable to cession of police jurisdiction by the State to
the Federal Government in the case of military installations.
In order that our answers may be fully understood, we will dis-
cuss the law of cession of jurisdiction, together with a short
summary of the State's right to tax sales and issue perrits on
such installations. The Federal Government acquires exclusive
urisdiction over military "installations" in two manners:
1) It may purchase or condemn the area involved with the pe .-
mission of the State wherein the area is located. Under the
terms of the Federal Constitution the Federal Government then
acquires the right to exclusive jurisdiction over the area.
(2) The Federal Government may purchase or condemn property with-
in a state for a valid governmental purpose and then acquire
exclusive jurisdiction over the area through an act of cession of
such jurisdiction by the state, In making such act of cession
the state may make such reservations as it deems proper, usually
for purposes of taxation and service of process. If the Federal
Government fails to acquire jurisdiction in one of the above two
manners, its jurisdiction over the enclave is still exclusive to
the extent that the state cannot enforce its laws therein so as
to interfere with the valid governmental purposes for which the
property was acquired, In other words, state laws still apply
in the area insofar as they are not inconsistent with the per-
formance of the purpose for which the property was purchased.
91 C.J.S, United States, 7, p. 14, et seq.
We think it apparent that the provisions of the Texas
Liquor Control Act requiring permits or licenses from all persons
who deal with alcoholic beverages are regulatory, and that the
permit fees which are imposed are regulatory fees as opposed to
revenue collections0 Therefore, in those cases where the State
of Texas has ceded police jurisdiction to the United States,
the Texas Liquor Control Board is without power to issue or re-
quire the purchase of permits or licenses, since such permits or
licenses are imposed under the State's police power to control
the alcoholic beverage business. Collins v. Yosemite Park &
Curry Co., 304 U.S. 518s Attorney General's Opinion O-3216 (1941).
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: WW-354, text, January 31, 1958; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth266966/m1/4/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.