|
<br />30
<br />
<br />DECC5IONS PERTIN,ENT TO PROPOSED WATER RIGHTS Ar:I:
<br />
<br />DECISIONS PE'RTINENT TO PROPOSED WATER R1GH'l'S Ar:I:
<br />
<br />31
<br />
<br />There is no douht that COlll-:r<'SS may valirtly nclopt 3. criminal codo for c:lch
<br />Fccl~rnl enclave. It cerl:-lillly mn)' do so \1"" dl'll.fting !lew hm:.s or b,Y copying; laws
<br />defillin).!; tILe r.riminnl olrel\~(,S in force t.hrollgllollt the Stale ill which the cnclrwe
<br />is 8itllnted. :\5 n pr:lcti(':ll In:l.Ucr, it h:1S tn procr:cd l:l.rgdy on a wholes:l.lc h:1Sis.
<br />Its rcnson for :uloptillJ?: local hms is not 50 much because. Cong;ress hZIS examllwd
<br />them indi\"idullllv fiS it is IJi~c:lllse the lu.\\s arc already iI1 force thruughout the
<br />State in which t.ilC enclave is 8itllatccl.~ The basic I(~gislntivc decision made by
<br />'COlll!rCSS is its decision to conform the laws in the enclaves to t,he locall:l.\\'5 fiS to
<br />all olfcll~ws 110t punishahle by allY en:.Lctll1?lI~ of Co 11 !}:n.;s!:;. Whether Conp;ress
<br />.sets forth the ass.imilated 1;\w8 in fILII or :ls~llllllates them hy refer(;nce, the result
<br />is as definite and as nscert:\inahle as urc the State bw~ themsel\'es.. .
<br />llll.....inp; t.he power to n!>~iTllil:ltc the St.:tte ht\\:s, ~ollgre!:;~ o\)vlOusly has Ii~e
<br />power to renew sllch u~sill1ibtion annually or ullll}" 1lI order to keeJl the law~ lD
<br />the cncla.ns cnrrcnt with t.hose in the StlLtes. That heing; so, we conclude that
<br />C;:ongrc:;s is within its constitutional.powers and lel:\"isla~ivc discretion wl~cn,.nf~cr
<br />123 years of exp~rience wit.h the pollcy of conformlt....., It ell~l.C(S t.hat poll~y Wits
<br />most complete ;lnd :l.CCllr;lIC form. R:ltl.}C': th;lll I.lelll/.!; :l. dclc.~atl.on by Co.ngress
<br />-of its legislath"c authority to th~ States, It lS a dl'hber;tH: co:ltm\lll\~ ~rioptlOn by
<br />Congr('ss for Federal cncla\'es of sHch unprcemptcd olft~nses 11ml pllllisllll1t:nls as
<br />shalf have been already put in clTect by thc re8pe~t.ive St~tes for their own go\"~r1~-
<br />ment. Congress rctaills power to excluue a !l;,l,rtlCWlI.r Stn.te lD.w fr<;)lll the :lSSllTI1-
<br />lati\"e effect of the act. This procedure is a pr3.cticul accommodatIOn of the me-
<br />ch3.nics of the lcg:i::;lative functions of Shl.te and Nation in the ~eld of police power
<br />'where it is esped3.l1y appropriate to mnke the Fcd~r!\l regulatIOn of local conduct
<br />-eonforni to that alrL'ady ('stablished by the State. (eL Stewart &; Co. \". Sadra.
<br />kula 300 U, S, 04, 10()-1O\.) " .,
<br />Example::; of U:3C5 made h.\' Cong-ress of future state IC!;ls13tl\'e action III connec-
<br />tion with the eXI~rci!;'e of Ferlet;\l l(!~i~l:l.ti\'e power are numerous. The Webb-
<br />Kenyon Ad of :\I:l.rch 1, 1913 (37 St.:lt. GO~, iOO, 27 U. S. C. i 122 ... ... *);
<br />Federal Black Hass Act, fiS amended (61 Stat. 517, 66 St!tt. 730. 16 U. S. c.
<br />~ 852) " ". '" Johnson Act (64 Stat. 1134, 15 U. S. C. S 1172) >I< ... * Fedcrnl
<br />lort Claims Act (28 U. S. C. i 1340 (b)) + .. * Social Security Act, fl.S amended
<br />(il Stat. 510, 42 U. S. C. A. (1057, Cum. Ann. Pocket Pt.) 2416 (h) (1) * . ..
<br />Bankruptcy Act (52 Stn.t. 84i, 11 U. S. C. g 2.1) >I< * *.
<br />UndL'r 03 Stn.t. ~5, 50 U. S. C. App. ~ 1804 (i) (1) and (2).. SUtes WCrt~ author-
<br />ized to free ccrbin local areas from Fedcr:tl rent control eIther by p:l.sslI1g local
<br />rent controllc1.!:islation of their own, or by determining that Federal rent control
<br />was no longer ncce~~:1r.v .. . *, .. .
<br />This Court 0.1,,0 hus held that Congress m:lY delegate to loeallcglslH.tl ve bO~les
<br />broad jnri~diction over Territories nn.d ceded nrea.s provided Congre.~9 :etal.ns,
<br />a~ it does here, am pic power to rensc, n.lter and revoke the local, le~ls.1atlOn
<br />(Di~lrict vf Columbia.\'. Thompson Co., 3.10 U. S. 100, lOu, 100-110; ChnsltalLson
<br />v. Kin'Js COlmly, 23~ u. S. 3Guj lfornr,ucJ;le \., Toomb8, 18 \Vall, 0-1S, (;55).
<br />The applic:l.tiol1 of tlw :\s..,imil:lti\"c Crimt'~ Act .to 8ubscqllClntly 1ldol?ted State
<br />lcg:ishtion, lllH.lcr the limitation...; here prc:;:L:nhcd, I;:! a reasollable exerCI:-.e of con~
<br />gres"ional legi:sl:1.ti \"C power nnd discretion '" ... ...
<br />Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart (253 U. S. 149 (1920)), an article
<br />III of the Constitution CllSe, \Vas disposed of in a footnote thus:
<br />In f\ nirkerborker lee Co. v. SI~UJart, !iuprn, this Court voide(~ a. stutut~ ~.hi.ch
<br />aitelllp(('c! to Il\:lkc Stat.l~ workmen's cO~Il.l)ens:.~t.i(~ll .l:l\.\..'j aJlr;~lcab[e ~o lllJunes
<br />within the Fcdl'r:d :\tllllimlt \' and m:trlllllle Jlln<;dlcLIOII. I Il(~ ba:;ls of thfl.t
<br />holdill~ whieh we do !lot 1l0\\. reCX;lIl1illC, w:tS th:tt "the COll~titlltion not only
<br />(,ollt(:mpbted but .:.1.ctu;llly e~tahli:,hed" n. "h:l.rmony and uniformity" of. bw
<br />throll,!."!:hout the admiralty juri..:;dictioll. Id., nt 164. That :;tlLtute v.:as ~.Olded
<br />hec:\use it WItS designed to "de::;troy" what W:\:,1 considered to be a. cons~ltlltlO.nally
<br />r~quired uniformity. Ibid. III contrast, the statute now before liS J!:l deSigned
<br />to effectuate a loug-stnnding congressional policy of conformity with local law.
<br />. \\'6 do not now p:\5,,'l upon th(l l.IITdCt of the As.:Ilmlli\tI\.o Crime'S Act whero an a.Qslmlll1wd St3te In.... con.
<br />ftlcls Wllh a speclae Federal CTlmlna.l.F~otllte. cr. William. v. UniUd SlaW (32'7 U. S: 7[1), or ....l~h 11 Fod-
<br />~re.1 polley. Ct. John.on v. ytllr>~ Cab Co. (321 U. 8.383); .Sul#Q.rl.t Co. v. Sadrakula (::sog U.S..'~4.). H..u.nt T.
<br />Vniltd Stair. (118 U. 8, (6); Air T"minal &nlur, InC. v. Rtnt:d (81 F. Supp. 011); O.tlahoma CillI v, Sand".,
<br />(Q.!. F, 2d 3Z3).
<br />
<br />.TlI:=-ltice DouglllS, dis:=-lcmting with tho concurrence of Jllst..icc Black,
<br />snid: .
<br />
<br />Of COllr~C CGllgn~ss C:ln adopt ns Federal l:tws Lhc laws of a St.'lte. and it has
<br />-oft.en done so *' . ..... Hut... *' * under t.he scheme now approv~d:1. State makes
<br />'Such Fcder:l! law, applicable to the elll.:lave, ns it likc51, and th:l.t law becomes
<br />Fectr.:r:tllaw, for the violatioll of '....hich the citizen b sent to prison.
<br />Here it i~ f~ ~ex crime*' '" *'. Tomorrow it may he!l. mllc Law, a law g:ovl.'rning
<br />usury, or e\-en n. law requiring segregation of the r;\ces on !)Ilse;; find in restallr~l.lILs.
<br />It Illay be :t bw that could never comm:Uld a lllajority ill the Cungress or t.hat in
<br />no sell~C n::nectcd its will. 1t is no answer to SaV thnt the cit.izen wOllld have 3.
<br />defensc: under the fifth and sixth amendments to .unconstitutional nppli(;utiollS of
<br />these Ferlcral law.:; or the procedures under them. lIe is ent.itled to the cou-
<br />sidcre::d judgment of Con:;;ress whether the law applied to him fits the Federal
<br />policy, That is what Feacrallawmaking is. It is that policy which has led t.be
<br />Court heretofore to limit these Assimilative Crimes Act:-; to those Stn.te laws in
<br />force at the time or enactment of the Federal Aet (United Stales v, Paul, 6 Pet.
<br />141). And ,ee Franklin v. United Slales (216 U. S. 559, 568-5(0).
<br />
|