FORT LEAVENWORTH RAILROAD COMPANY v. LOWE.

IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OE THE STATE OP KANSAS.

Argued April 9, 10, 1885.

Decided May 4, 1885.

When the United States acquire lands within the limits of a State by purchase, with the consent of the Legislature of the State, for the erection of forts,- magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings, the Constitution confers upon them exclusive jurisdiction of the tract so acquired ; but when they acquire such lands in any other way than by purchase with the consent of the Legislature, their exclusive jurisdiction is confined to the erections, buildings and land used for the public purposes of the Federal Government.

A State may, for such purposes cede to the United States exclusive jurisdiction over a tract of land within its limits in a manner not provided for in the Constitution of the United States ; and may prescribe conditions to the ■ cession, if they are not inconsistent with the effective use of the property for the purposes intended.-

If a State thus ceding to the United States exclusive jurisdiction over a tract within its limits, reserves to itself the right to tax private property therein, and the United States do not dissent, their acceptance of the grant, with the reservation will be presumed.

In the act admitting Kansas as a State, there was no reservation of Federal jurisdiction over the Fort Leavenworth Military Reservation. The State of Kansas subsequently ceded to the United States exclusive jurisdiction over the same, “ saving further to said State the right to tax railroad, bridge, or other corporations, their franchises and property on said reservation.” Held, 'that the property and franchises of a railroad company within the reservation was liable to pay taxes in the State of Kansas, imposed according to its laws.

This was a suit at law brought by the plaintiff in error as plaintiff below in a District Court of the State of Kansas to recover taxes imposed upon it and paid, on its property within the Fort Leavenworth Military Reservation. The defendant, sheriff' of the County of Leavenworth, demurred to the complaint. The demurrer was sustained by the District Court, and the judgment thereon was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. This writ of error was brought to review that judgment. The facts which raise the federal question are stated in the opinion of the court.

*526Mr. E. E. Cook {Mr. Thomas F. Withrow and Mr. M. A. Low were with him on.the brief) for plaintiff in error.

Mr. W. Mallett Phillips for defendant in error.

Mt?.. Justice Field

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff, a corporation organized under the laws of Nansas, was in 1880, and has ever since been, the owner of a railroad in the reservation of the United States in that State, known as the Fort Leavenworth Military Reservation. In that year its track, right of way, franchises, road-bed, telegraph line land instruments connected therewith on the Reservation, were assessed by the board of assessors of the State, and a tax of $394.40 levied thereon, which was paid by the railroad company under protest, in order to prevent a sale of the property. The present action is brought to recover back the money thus paid, on the ground that the property, being-entirely within the Reservation, was exempt from assessment and taxation by the. State.

The land constituting the Reservation was part of the territory acquired in. 1803 by cession from Fran'ce, and, until the formation of the State of Kansas,.and 'her admission into the Union, the United States possessed the rights of a proprietor, and had political dominion and sovereignty over it. For many years before that admission it had been reserved from sale by the proper authorities of the United States for military purposes, and occupied by them as a military post. The jurisdiction of the United States over it during this time was necessarily paramount. But in 1861 Kansas was admitted into the Union upon an equal footing with the original States, that is, Avith the same rights of political dominion and sovereignty,' subject like them only to the Constitution of the United States. Congress might undoubtedly, upon such admission, have stipulated for retention of the political authority, dominion and legislative power of the United States over.the Reservation, so long as it should be used for military purposes by the government; that is, it could have excepted the place-from the jurisdiction of Kansas, as one needed for the uses of the general *527government. But from some cause, inadvertence perhaps, or over-confidence that a recession of such jurisdiction could be had whenever desired, no such stipulation or exception was made. The United States, therefore, retained, after the admission of the State, only the rights of an ordinary proprietor; except as an instrument for the execution of the powers,of the general government, that part of the tract, which was actually used for a fort or military post,, was beyond such control of the State, by taxation or otherwise, as would defeat its use for those purposes. So far as the land constituting the-Reserva-ti'on was not used for military purposes, the possession of the United States was only that of an individual proprietor. The State could have exercised, with reference to it, the same authority and jurisdiction which she could have exercised oyer similar property held by private parties. This defect in the jurisdiction of the United States was called to the attention of the government in 1872. In April of that year the Secretary of War addressed a communication to the Attorney-General, enclosing- papers touching the Reservation, and submitting for his official- opinion the questions, whether, under the Constitution, the reservation of the land for a site as a military post and for public buildings took it out of the operation of the law of March 8, 1859, 11 Stat. 430, and, ii so, what action'would be required on the part of the Executive or Congress to restore the land to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. The ' Attorney-General replied that the act admitting Kansas as a State into the Union had the effect to withdraw from federal jurisdiction all the territory within the boundaries of the new State, excepting only that of the Indians having treaties with the United States, which provided that without their consent such territory should not be subject to State jurisdiction, and the Reservation was not within this exception; and that to restore the federal jurisdiction over the land included in the. Reservation, it would be necessary to obtain from the State of Kansas a cession of jurisdiction, which he had no doubt would upon application be readily granted by the State Legislature. 14 Opin. Attorneys General, 33. It does not appear from the record before us that such application .Was ever made; but, on *528the 22d of February, 1875, the Legislature of the State passed an act entitled ‘Í An Act to cede jurisdiction to the United States over the territory of the Fort Leavenworth Military Reservation,” the first section of which is as follows :

“ That exclusive jurisdiction be, and the same is hereby ceded to the United States over and within all the territory owned by the United States, and included within the limits of the United States military reservation known as the Fort Leavenworth Reservation in said State, as declared from time to time by the President of the United States, saving, however, to the said State the right to serve civil or criminal process within said Reservation, in suits or prosecutions for or on' account of rights acquired, obligations' incurred, or crimes committed in said State, but outside of sai&cession and Reservation; and saving further to said State the right to tax railroad, bridge, and other corporations, their franchises and property, on said Reservation.’” Laws of Kansas, 1875, p. 95.

The question as to the right of the plaintiff to recover back the taxes paid depends upon the validity and effect of the last saving clause in this act. As we have said, there is no evidence before us that any application was made by the United States for this legislation, but, as it conferred a benefit, the acceptance of the act is to be presumed in the absence of any dissent on their part. The contention of the plaintiff is that the act of cession operated under the Constitution to vest in the United States exclusive jurisdiction over the Reservation, and that the last saving clause, being inconsistent with that result, is to be rejected. The Constitution provides that “ Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district, (not exceeding ten miles square,) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like 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.” Art. 1, sec. 8.

The necessity of complete jurisdiction over the place which should be selected as the seat of government was obvious to *529tbe framers of the Constitution. Unless it were conferred the deliberations of Congress might in times of excitement be exposed to interruptions without adequate means of protection; its members, and the officers of the government, be subjected to insult and intimidation, and the public archives be in danger of destruction. The Federalist, in support of this clause in the Constitution, in addition to these reasons, urged that “ a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the confederacy.” No. 43.

The necessity of supreme legislative authority over the seat of government was forcibly impressed upon the members of the constitutional convention by occurrences which took place near the close of the Revolutionary War. At that time, while Congress was in session in Philadelphia, it was surrounded and insulted by a body of mutineers of the Continental. Army. In giving an account of this proceeding, Mr. Rawltey, in his Treatise on the Constitution, says of the action of Congress: “ It applied to the executive authority of Pennsylvania, for defence; but, under the ill-conceived constitution' of the State at that time, the executive power was vested in a council,, consisting of thirteen members, and they possessed or exhibited so little energy, and such apparent intimidation, that the Congress indignantly removed to New Jersey, whose inhabitants, welcomed it with promises of defending it. It remained for' some time at Princeton without being again insulted, till, for-the sake of greater convenience, it adjourned to Annapolis.. The general dissatisfaction with the proceedings of the executive authority of Pennsylvania, and the degrading spectacle of' a fugitive Congress, suggested the remedial provisions now-under consideration.” Rawle, Constitution of theUnited States,. 113. Of this proceeding Mr. Justice Story remarks: “ If'such a lesson could have been lost upon the people, it would have-been as humiliating to their intelligence as it would have been offensive to their honor.” 2 Story Constitution, § 1219.

*530Upon the second part of the clause in question, giving power to “ exercise like authority,” that is, of 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 needful buildings,” the Federalist observes that the necessity of this authority is not less evident. “ The public money expended on such places,” it adds, “ and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend to be in any degree dependent on a-particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned in every such establishment.” “ The power,” says Mr. Justice Story, repeating the substance of Mr. Madison’s language, “ is wholly unexceptionable, since it can only be exercised at the will of the State, and therefore it is placed beyond all reasonable scruple.”

This power of exclusive legislation is to be exercised, as thus seen, over places purchased, by consent of the Legislatures of the States in which they are situated, for the specific purposes enumerated. It would seem to have been the opinion of the framers of the Constitution that, without the consent of the States, the new government would not be able to acquire lands within them; and therefore it was provided that when it might require such lands for the erection of forts and other buildings for the defence of the country, br thé discharge of other duties devolving upon it, and the consent of the States in which they were situatéd was obtained for their acquisition, such consent should carry with it political dominion and legislative authority over them. Purchase with such consent was the only mode then thought of for the acquisition by the general government of title to lands in the States. Since the adoption of the Constitution this view has not generally prevailed. Such consent has not always been obtained, nor supposed necessary, for the purchase by the general government of lands within the States. If any doubt has ever existed as to its power thus to acquire lands within the States, it has not had sufficient strength to *531create any effective dissent from the general opinion. The consent of the States to the purchase of lands within them for the special purposes named is, however, essential, under the Constitution, to the transfer to the general government, with the .title, of political jurisdiction and dominion. Where lands are acquired without such, consent, the possession of the United States, unless political jurisdiction be ceded to them in some other way, is simply that of an ordinary proprietor. The property in that case, unless used as a means to carry out the purposes of the government, is subject to the legislative authority and control of the States equally with the property of private individuals.

' But' not only by direct purchase have the United States been able to acquire lands they needed without the consent of the States-, but it has been held that they possess the right of eminent domain within the States, using those terms, not as expressing the ultimate dominion or title to property, but as indicating the right to take private property for public uses when needed to execute the powers conferred by the Constitution ; and that the general government is not dependent upon the caprice of individuals • or the will of State Legislatures in the acquisition of such lands as may be required for the full and effective exercise of its powers. This doctrine was authoritatively declared in Kohl v. United States, 91 U. S. 367. All the judges of the court agreed in the possession by the general government of this right, although there was a difference of opinion whether provision for the exercise of the right had been made in that case.: The court, after observing that lands in the States are needed for forts, -armories, and arsenals, for navy-yards and light-houses, for custom-houses and courthouses, and for other public uses, said : “ If the right to acquire property for such uses may be made a barren right by the unwillingness of property-holders to sell, or by the action of a State prohibiting a sale to the federal government, the constitutional grants of power may be rendered nugatory, and the government is, dependent .for its practical existence upon the will of a State, or even upon that of a private citizen.” The right to acquire property in this way, by condemnation, may *532be exerted either through tribunals expressly designated by Congress, or by resort to tribunals of the State in which the property is situated, with her consent for that purpose. Such consent will always be presumed in the absence of express prohibition. United States v. Jones, 109 U. S. 513, 519; Matter of Petition of United States, 96 N. Y. 227.

Besides these modes of acquisition, the United States possessed, on the adoption of the Constitution, an immense domain lying north and west of the Ohio River, acquired as the result of the Revolutionary War from Great Britain, or by cessions from Yirginia, Massachusetts and Connecticut; and, since the adoption of the Constitution, they have by cession from foreign countries, come into the ownership of a territory still larger, lying between the Mississippi River and the Pacific Ocean, and out of these territories several States have been formed and admitted into the Union. The proprietorship of the United States in large tracts of land within these States has remained after their admission. There has been, therefore, no necessity for them to purchase or to condemn lands within those States, for forts, arsenals, and other public buildings, unless they had disposed of what they afterwards needed. Having the title, they have usually reserved certain portions of their lands from sale or other disposition, for the uses of the government.

This brief statement as to the different modes in which the United States- have acquired title to lands upon which public buildings have been erected will serve to explain the nature of their jurisdiction over such places, and the consistency with each other of decisions on the subject by Federal and State tribunals, and of opinions of the Attorneys General.

When the title is acquired by purchase by consent of the -Legislatures of the States, the federal jurisdiction is exclusive of all State authority. This follows from the declaration of the Constitution that Congress shall have “like authority” over such places as it has over the district which is the seat of government; that is, the power of “ exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever.” Broader or clearer language could not be used to exclude all other authority.than that of Congress; and *533that no other authority can be exercised over them has been the uniform opinion of Federal and State tribunals, and of the Attorneys General.

The reservation which has usually accompanied the consent of the States that civil and criminal process of the State courts may be served in the places purchased, is not considered as interfering in any respect with the supremacy of the United States over them; but is admitted to prevent them from becoming an asylum for fugitives from justice. And Congress, by statute passed in 1795, declared that cessions from the States of the jurisdiction of places where light-houses, beacons, buoys, or public piers were or might be erected, with such reservations, should be deemed sufficient for the support and erection of such structures, and if no such reservation had been made, or in future cessions for those purposes should be omitted, civil and criminal process issued under the authority of the State pr of the United States might be served and executed within them. 1 Stat. 426, ch. 40.

Thus, in United States v. Cornell, 2 Mason, 60, it. was held by Mr. Justice Story, that the purchase of land by the United States for public purposes, within the limits of a State, did not of itself oust the jurisdiction or sovereignty of the State over the lands purchased; but that the purchase must be by consent of the Legislature of the State, and then the jurisdiction of the United States under the Constitution became exclusive. In that case the defendant was indicted for murder committed in Fort Adams, in Newport Harbor, Rhode Island. The place had been purchased by the United States with the consent of the State, to which was added the reservation mentioned, as to the service of civil and criminal process- within it. The main questions presented for decision were, whether the sole and exclusive jurisdiction over the place vested in the United States without a formal act of cession, and whether the reservation as to service of process made the jurisdiction concurrent with that of the State. The first question was answered, as above, that the purchase by consent gave the exclusive jurisdiction; and, as to the second question, the court said: “ In its terms, it certainly does not contain any reservation of concurrent jurisdic-*534tioñ or legislation. It provides only that civil and criminal process issued under the authority of the State, which must, of course, be for acts done within and cognizable by the State, may be executed within the ceded lands, notwithstanding the cession. Not a word is said from which we can infer that it was intended that the State should have a right to punish for acts done within the ceded lands. The whole apparent object is answered by considering the clause as meant to prevent these lands from becoming a sanctuary for fugitives from justice for acts done within the acknowledged jurisdiction of the State. Now, there is nothing incompatible with the exclusive sovereignty or jurisdiction of one State that it should permit another State in such cases to execute its process within its limits. And a cession of exclusive jurisdiction may well be made with a reservation of a right of this nature, which then operates only as a condition annexed to the cession, and as an agreement of the new sovereign to permit its free exercise as quoad, hoe his own process. This is the light in which clauses of this nature (which are very frequent in grants made by the States to the United States) have been received by this court on various occasions on which the subject has been heretofore brought before it for consideration, and it is the same light in which it has also been received by a very learned State court.. In our judgment it comports entirely with the apparent intention of the parties, and gives effect to acts which might otherwise, perhaps, be construed entirely nugatory. For it may well be doubted whether Congress is, by the terms of the Constitution, at liberty to purchase lands for forts, dock-yards, &c., with the consent of the State Legislature, where such consent is so qualified, that it will not justify the exclusive legislation of Congress there. It may well be doubted if such consent be not utterly void. _ JJt res magis valeat quam jpereat, we are bound to give the present act a different construction if it may reasonably be done; and wé have not the least hesitation in .declaring that the true interpretation of the present proviso leaves the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of Fort Adams in the United States.”

The case referred to in which the subject was considered by a learned State court, is that of Commonwealth v. Clary, 8 *535Mass. 72. There the Supreme Court of Massachusetts nekl that the courts of the Commonwealth could not take cognizance of offences committed upon lands in the town of Springfield purchased with the consent of the Commonwealth. by the United States for the purpose of erecting arsenals upon them. That was the case of a prosecution against the defendant for selling spirituous liquors on the land without a license, contrary to a statute of the State. But the court held that the law had no operation within the lands mentioned. “ The territory,” it said, “ on which the offence charged is agreed to have been committed is the territory of the United States, over which the Congress have exclusive power of legislation.” It added, that “ the assent of the Commonwealth to the purchase of this territory by the United States had this condition annexed to it, that civil and criminal process might be served therein by the officers of the Commonwealth. This condition was made with a view to prevent the territory'from becoming a sanctuary for debtors and criminals; and from the.subsequent assent of the United States to the said condition, evidenced by their making the purchase, it results that the officers of the-Commonwealth, in executing such process, act under the authority of the United States. No offences committed within that territory are committed against the laws of this Commonwealth, nor can such offences be punishable by the courts of the Commonwealth unless the Congress of the United States should give to the said courts jurisdiction thereof.” In Mitchell v. Tibbitts, 17 Pick. 298, before the same court, years afterwards, it was held that a vessel employed in transporting stone from Maine to the navy-yard in Charlestown, Mass., a place purchased by the United States with the consent of the State, was not employed in transporting stone within the Commonwealth, and therefor^ committed no offence in disregarding a statute making certain requirements of vessels thus employed. The court said that to bring a vessel within the description of the statute, she must be employed in landing stone at, or taking stone from, some place in the Commonwealth, and that the law of Massachusetts did not extend to and operate within the. territory ceded, adopting the principle of its previous decision in 8 Mass.

*536In March, 1841, the House of Representatives of Massachusetts requested of the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court of that State their opinion whether persons residing on lands in that State purchased by or ceded to the United States for navy-yards, arsenals, dock-yards, forts, light-houses, hospitals and armories, were entitled to the benefits of the State common schools for their children in the towns where such lands were located; and the Justices replied that, “where the general consent Of the Commonwealth is given to the purchase of territory by the United States for forts and dockyards, and where there is no other condition or reservation in the act granting such consent, but that of a concurrent jurisdiction of the State for the service of civil process and criminal process against persons charged with crimes committed out of such territory, the government of the United States has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction over such territory for all purposes of legislation and jurisprudence with the single exception expressed; and consequently that no persons are amenable to the laws of the Commonwealth for crimes and 'offences committed within said territory; and that persons residing within the same do not acquire the civil and political privileges, nor do they become subject to the civil duties and obligations, of inhabitants of the towns within which such territory is situated.” And accordingly they were of opinion that persons . residing on such lands were not entitled to the benefits of the common schools for their children in the towns in which such lands were situated. 1 Met. 580.

In Sinks v. Beese, 19 Ohio St. 306, the question came before the Supreme Court of Ohio, as to the effect of a proviso in the act of that State, ceding to the United States its jurisdiction over lands within her limits for the purposes of a National Asylum for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers,, which was, that nothing in the act'should be construed to prevent the officers, employees and inmates of the asylum, who were qualified voters of the State, from exercising the right of suffrage at all township, county, and State elections in the township in Avhich the National Asylum should be located. And it was held that, upon the purchase of the territory by the United *537States, with the consent of. the Legislature of the State, the general government became invested with exclusive jurisdiction over it and its appurtenances in all cases whatsoever; and that the inmates of such asylum resident within the territory, being within such exclusive jurisdiction, were not residents of the State so as to entitle them to vote, within the meaning of the Constitution, which conferred the elective franchise upon its residents alone.

To the same effect have been the opinions of the Attorneys General, when called for by the head of one of the Departments. Thus, in the case of the armory at Harper’s Ferry, in Virginia, the question arose whether officers of the army, or other persons, residing in the limits of the armory, the lands composing which had been purchased by consent of the State, were liable to taxation by her. The consent had been accompanied by a cession of jurisdiction, with a declaration that the State retained concurrent jurisdiction with the United States over the place, so far as it could consistently with the acts giving consent to the purchase and ceding jurisdiction; and that its courts, magistrates, and officers might take such cognizance, execute such processes, and discharge such other legal functions within it as might not be incompatible with the true intent and meaning of those acts. The question having been submitted to the Attorney-General, he replied that the sole object and effect of the reservation was to prevent the place from becoming a sanctuary for fugitives from justice, for acts done within the acknowledged jurisdiction of the State, and that in all other respects the exterritoriality of the armory 'at Harper’s Ferry was complete, in so far as regards the State; that the persons in the employment of the United States, actually residing in the limits of the armory, did not possess the civil and political rights of citizens of the State, nor were they subject to the tax and other obligations of such citizens. 6 Opins. Attorneys General, 577. See also'the case of The New York Post Office Site, 10 Opins. Attorneys General, 35.

These authorities are sufficient to. support the proposition which foliows "naturally from the language of the Constitution, that no other legislative power than that of Congress can be *538exercised over lands within a State purchased by the United States with her consent for one of the purposes designated; and that such consent under the Constitution operates to exclude all other legislative authority.

But with reference to lands owned by the United States, acquired bjr purchase without the consent of the State, or by cessions from other governments, the case is different. Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, 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 or arsenal, or other constitutional purpose, the State jurisdiction still remains complete and perfect; ” and in support of this statement he refers to People v. Godfrey, 17 Johns. 225. In that case the land on which Fort Niagara was erected, in New York, never having been ceded by the State to the United States, it was adjudged that the courts of the State had jurisdiction of crimes or offences against the laws of the State committed within the fort or its precincts, although it had been garrisoned by the troops of the United States and held by them since its surrender by Great Britain pursuant to the treaties of 1783 and 1791. In deciding the case, the court said that the possession of the post by the United States must be considered as a possession for the State, not in derogation of her rights, observing that it regarded it as a fundamental principle that the rights of sovereignty were not to be taken away by implication. “ If the United States,” the court added, “ had the right of exclusive legislation over the Fortress of Niagara they would have also exclusive jurisdiction; but we are of opinion that the right of exclusive legislation within the territorial limits of any State can be acquired by the United States only in the mode pointed out in the Constitution, by purchase, by consent of the Legislature of the State m which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings. The essence of that provision is that the State shall freely cede the particular place to the United States for one of the specific and enumerated objects. This jurisdiction cannot be acquired tor-tiously or by disseisin of the State; much less can it be acquired *539by mere occupancy, with the implied or tacit consent of the State, when' such occupancy is for the purpose of protection.”

Where, therefore, lands are .acquired in any other way by the United States within the limits of a State than by purchase with her consent, they will hold the lands subject to this qualification: that if upon them forts, arsenals, or other’ public buildings are erected for the uses of the general government, such buildings, with their appurtenances, ‘ as instrumentalities for the execution of its powers, will be free from any such interference and jurisdiction of the State as Avould destroy or impair their, effective use for the purposes designed. Such is the law with reference to all instrumentalities created by the general government. Their exemption from State control is essential to the independence and sovereign authority of the United States within the sphere of their delegated powers. But, Avhen not used as such instrumentalities, the legislative power of the State over the places acquired will be as full and complete as over any other places within her limits.

As already stated, the land constituting the Fort Leavenworth Military Reservation was not purchased, but was owned by the United States by cession from France many years before Kansas became a State; and whatever political sovereignty and dominion the United States had over the place comes from the cession of the State since her admission into the Union. It not being a case where exclusive legislative authority is vested by the Constitution of the United States, that cession could be accompanied with such conditions as the State might see fit to annex not inconsistent Avith the free and effective use of the fort as a military post.

In the recent case of the Fort Porter Military Reservation, the opinion of the Attorney General was in conformity with this view of the law. On the 28th of February, 1842, the Legislature of New York authorized the commissioners of its land office to cede to the United States the title to certain land belonging to the State within her limits, “ for military purposes, reserving a free and uninterrupted use and control in the canal commissioners of all that may be necessary for canal and harbor purposes.” Under this act the title was comreyed to the United States. *540The act also ced ,d to them jurisdiction over the land. In 1880; the superintendent of public works in New York, upon whom the duties of canal commissioner were devolved, informed the Secretary of "War that the interests of the State required that the land, or a portion of it, should be occupied by her for canal purposes, claiming the right to thus occupy it under the reservation in the act of cession. The opinion of the Attorney General was, therefore, requested as to the authority of the Secretary of Whir to permit the State, under these considerations, to use so much of the land as would not interfere with its use for military purposes. The Attorney General replied that the United States, under the grant, held the land for military purposes, and that the reservation in favor of the State could be deemed valid only so far as it was not repugnant to the grant; that, hence, the right of the State to occupy and use the premises for canal or harbor purposes must be regarded as limited or restricted by the purposes of the grant; that, when such use and occupation would defeat or interfere with those purposes, the right of the State did not exist; but, when they would not interfere with those purposes, the State was entitled to use so much of the land as might be necessary for her canal and harbor purposes. 16 Opin. Attorneys General, 592.

We are here met with the objection .that the Legislature of a State has no power to cede away her jurisdiction and legislative power over any portion of her territory, except as such cession follows under the Constitution from her consent to a purchase by the United States for some one of the purposes mentioned. If this were so, it would not aid the railroad company; the jurisdiction of the State would then remain as it previously existed. But aside'from this consideration, it is undoubtedly true that the State, whether represented by her Legislature, or through a convention specially called for that purpose, is incompetent to cede her political jurisdiction and legislative authority over any part of her territory to a foreign country, without the concurrence of the general government. The jurisdiction of the United States extends over all the territory within the States, and,' therefore, their authority must be obtained, as well as that of the State within which the territory *541is situated, before any cession of sovereignty or political jurisdiction can be made to a foréign country. And so when questions arose as to the northeastern boundary, in .Maine, between .Great Britain and the United States, and negotiations were in progress for a treaty to settle the boundary, it was deemed necessary on the part of our government to secure the co-operation and concurrence of Maine, so far as such settlement might involve a cession of her sovereignty and jurisdiction as well as title to territory claimed by her, and of Massachusetts, so far as it might involve a cession of title to lands held by her. Both Maine and Massachusetts appointed commissioners to act with the Secretary of State, and after much negotiation the claims of the two States were adjusted, and the disputed questions of boundary settled. The commissioners of Maine Avere appointed by her Legislature; and those of Massachusetts by her Governor under authority of an act of her Legislature. It was not deemed necessary to call a convention of the people in either of them to give to the commissioners the requisite authority to act effectively for their respective States. 5 Webster’s Works, 99; 6 Ib. 273.

In their relation to the general government, the States of the Union stand in a very different position from that which they hold to foreign governments. Though the jurisdiction and authority of the general government are essentially different from those of the State, they are not those of a different country ; and the two, the State and general government, may deal with each other in any way they may deem best to carry out the purposes of the Constitution. It is for the protection and interests of the States, their people and property, as well as for the protection and interests of the people generally of the United States, that forts, arsenals, and other buildings for public uses are constructed Avithin the States. As instrumentalities for the execution of the powers of the general government, they are, as already said, exempt from such control of the States as would defeat or impair their use for those purposes; and if, to their more effective use, a cession of legislative authority and political jurisdiction by the State Avould be desirable, we do not perceive any objection to its *542grant by the Legislature of the .State. Such cession is really as much for the benefit of the State as it is for the benefit of the United States. It is necessarily temporary, to be exercised only so long as the places continue to be used for the public purposes for which the property was acquired or reserved from sale. When they cease to bé thus used, the jurisdiction reverts to the State.

The Military Reservation of Fort Leavenworth was not, as already said, acquired by purchase with the consent of Kansas. And her cession of jurisdiction is not of exclusive legislative authority over the land, except so far as that may be necessary for its use as* a military post; and it is not contended that the saving clause in the act of cession interferes with such use. There is, therefore, no constitutional prohibition against the enforcement of that clause. The right of the State to subject the railroad property to taxation exists as before the cession. The invalidity of the tax levied not being asserted on any other ground than the supposed exclusive jurisdiction of the United States over the reservation notwithstanding the saving clause, the judgment of the court below must be

Affirmed.

LIGHT v. UNITED STATES.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE DISTRICT OP COLORADO.

No. 360.

Argued February 27, 28, 1911.

Decided May 1, 1911.

United States v. Grimaud, ante, p. 506, followed to effect that Congress may authorize an executive officer to make rules and regulations as to the use, occupancy and preservation of forests and that such authority so granted is not unconstitutional as a delegation of legislative power.

At common law the owner was responsible for damage done by his live stock on land of third parties, but the United States has tacitly suffered its public domain to be used for cattle so long as such tacit consent was not cancelled, but no vested rights have been conferred on any person,'nor has the United States been deprived of the power of recalling such implied license.

While the full scope of § 3, Art. IV, of the Constitution has never been definitely settled it is primarily a grant of power to the United States of control over its property, Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 89; this control is exercised by Congress to the same extent that an individual can control his property.

*524It is for Congress and not for the courts to determine how. the public lands shall be administered.

Congress has power to set apart portions of the public domain and establish them as forest reserves and to prohibit the grazing of cattle thereon or to permit it subject to rules and regulations.

Fence laws may condone trespasses by straying cattle where the laws have not been complied with, but they do not authorize wanton or willful trespass, nor do they afford immunity to those willfully turning cattle loose under circumstances showing that they were intended to graze upon the lands of another.

Where cattle are turned loose under circumstances showing that the owner expects and intends that they shall go upon a reserve to graze thereon, for which he has no permit and he declines to apply for one, and threatens to resist efforts to have the cattle removed and contends that he has a right to have his cattle go on the reservation, equity has jurisdiction, and such owner can be enjoined at the instance of the Government, whether the land has been fenced or not.

Quaere, and not decided, whether the United States is required to fence property under laws of the State in which the property is located.

This court will, so far as it can, decide cases before it without reference to questions arising under the Federal Constitution. Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 213 U. S. 175.

The Holy Cross Forest Reserve was established under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1891. By that and subsequent statutes the Secretary of Agriculture was authorized to make provisions for the protection against destruction by fire and depredations of the public forest and forest reservations and "to make such rules and regulations and establish such service as would insure the objects of such reservation, namely, to regulate their occupancy and use, and to preserve the forests thereon from destruction.” 26 Stat. 1103, c. 563; 30 Stat. 35, c. 2; act of Congress February 1, 1905; 7 Fed. Stat. Ann. 310, 312, and Supp. for 1909, p. 663. In pursuance of these statutes regulations were adopted establishing grazing, districts on which only a limited number of cattle' were allowed. The regulations provided that a few head of cattle of prospectors, campers and not more than ten *525belonging , to a settler residing near the forest might be admitted without permit, but saving these exceptions the general rule was that "all persons must secure permits before grazing any stock in a national forest.”

On April 7, 1908, the United States, through the district attorney, filed a bill in the Circuit Court for the District of Colorado reciting the matters above outlined, and alleging that the defendant Fred Light owned a herd of about 500 cattle and a ranch of 540 acres, located two and a half miles to the east and five miles to the north of the reservation. This herd was turned out to range during the spring and summer, and the ranch then used as a place on which to raise hay for their sustenance.

That between the ranch and the reservation, was other public and unoccupied land of the United States; but, owing to the fact that only a limited number of cattle were allowed on the reservation, the grazing there was better than on this public land. For this reason, and because of the superior water facilities and the tendency of the cattle to follow the trails and stream leading from the ranch to the reservation, they naturally went direct to the reservation. The bill charged that the defendant when turning them loose knew and expected that they would go upon the reservation, and took no action to prevent them from trespassing. That by thus knowingly and wrongfully permitting them to enter on the reservation he intentionally caused his cattle to make a trespass, in breach of the United States property and administrative rights, and has openly and privately stated his purpose to disregard the regulations, and without permit to allow and, in the manner stated, to cause his cattle to enter, feed and graze thereon.

The bill prayed for an injunction. The defendant’s general demurrer was overruled.

His answer- denied that the topography of the country around his ranch or the water and grazing conditions were *526such as to cause his cattle to go on the reservation; he denied that many of them did go thereon, though admitting that some had grazed on the reservation. He admitted that he had liberated his cattle without having secured or intending to apply for a permit, but denied, that he willfully or intentionally caused them to go on the reservation, submitting that he was not required to obtain any such permit. He admits that it is his intention hereafter, as heretofore, to turn his cattle out on the unreserved public land of the United States adjoining his ranch to the northeast thereof, without securing or applying for any permit for the cattle to graze upon, the so-called Holy Cross Reserve; denies that any damage will be done if they do go upon the reserve; and contends that, if because of their straying proclivities, they shall go on the reserve, the complainant is without remedy against the defendant at law or in equity so long as complainant fails to fence the reserve as required by the laws of Colorado. He claims the benefit of the Colorado statute requiring the owner of land to erect and maintain a fence of given height and strength, in default of which the owner is not entitled to recover for damage occasioned by cattle or other animals going thereon.

Evidence was taken, and after hearing, the Circuit Court found for the Government and entered a decree enjoining the defendant from in any manner causing, or permitting, his stock to go, stray upon or remain within the said forest or any portion thereof.

The defendant appealed and assigned that the decree against him was erroneous; that the public lands are held in trust for the people of the several States, and the proclamation creating the reserve without the consent of the State of Colorado is contrary to and in violation of said trust; that the decree is void because it in effect holds that the United States is exempt from the municipal laws of the State of Colorado relating to fences; that the statute *527conferring upon the said Secretary of Agriculture the power to make rules and regulations was an unconstitutional delegation of authority to him and the rules and regulations therefore void; and that the rules mentioned in the bill are unreasonable, do not tend to insure the object of forest reservation and constitute an unconstitutional interference by the Government of the United States with fence and other statutes of the State of Colorado, enacted through the exercise of the police power of the State.

Mr. James H. Teller, with whom Mr. John T. Barnett, Attorney General of Colorado, Mr. Henry M. Teller, Mr. C. S. Thomas, Mr. E. C. Stimson, Mr. Milton Smith, Mr. H. A. Hicks and Mr. Ralph McCrillis were on the brief, for appellant:

The jurisdiction of a State extends over all the territory within its boundaries. New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714; Van Brocklin v. Anderson, 117 U. S. 158; Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 93.

One who asserts the existence of any exemption from this jurisdiction must point out the act of cession, or the constitutional provision from which it arises. The Government holds title to public lands, not as a sovereign, but as a proprietor merely. This, of course, applies only to public lands properly so called, and not to lands used for governmental purposes. Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Woodruff v. N. Bloomfield G. M. Co., 18 Fed. Rep. 772; People v. Scherer, 30 California, 658; Camp v. Smith, 2 Minnesota, 131; Hendricks v. Johnson, 6 Porter (Ala.), 472; United States v. Bridge Co., 6 McLean, 517; United States v. Chicago, 7 How. 185; United States v. Cornell, 2 Mason, 60.

Sovereignty is not to be taken away by implication. People v. Godfrey, 17 Johns. 225. Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, which gives the United States ex-*528elusive jurisdiction 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, dockyards, and other needful buildings, means that these are to be purchased with the consent of the legislature. Story on Const., 5th ed., § 1227; Ft. Leavenworth Ry. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U. S. 525; Mobile v. Eslava, 16 Pet. 277; People v. Godfrey, 17 Johns. 225.

A forest reserve, however beneficial, is not in fact an instrument of government and necessary to the exercise of national sovereignty.

Even in those cases in which there is a cession of jurisdiction by the State subsequent to the adoption of a fence law, the law prevails on such lands until repealed by the General Government. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. McGlinn, 114 U. S. 542.

If the fence law would thus apply on territory of which the jurisdiction had been ceded by a State, it certainly is not ousted by the mere act of reserving public lands for forestry purposes.

The ownership by the General Government of land within- a State does not carry with it general rights of sovereignty over such lands.

If the Federal Government has jurisdiction over these reservations to the extent necessary to support this decree, the State is deprived of its police power over a large portion of its territory. The police power of a State extends over all of its territory and is exclusive. Prigg v. Commonwealth, 16 Pet. 639; The Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 63; In re Rahrer, 140 U. S. 554; United States v. Knight, 156 U. S. 11; L’Hote v. New Orleans, 177 U. S. 597.

The court bases the right to prevent the fencing of public lands upon the fact that such fencing would retard the settlement of the lands, which is the purpose for which the Government holds them as a trustee.

The result of this decree, as before stated, is, that *529state laws passed in the exercise of the police power are not operative on the public domain. See Shannon v. United States, 88 C. C. A. 52. That case, however, is not authority to the effect claimed.

Fences and the trespasses of live stock is a proper subject of- legislation under the police power of the State. Bacon v. Walker, 204 U. S. 317; Rideout v. Knox, 148 Massachusetts, 368. This decree is contrary not only to the statutes of the State concerning fencing and live stock, but to the law as laid down by the state Supreme Court prior to the adoption of these laws. Morris v. Fraker, 5 Colorado, 425; Richards v. Sanderson, 39 Colorado, 278; Buford v. Houtz, 133 U. S. 320.

In 1885 a fence law was enacted, but it did no more than express in statutory form what was already the law of the State. See Session Laws, 1885, p. 220, §§ 2987 et seq-., Rev. Stat. Colo., 1908. The.gist of the statute is that damages from trespass by animals are not recoverable unless the premises on which such trespass occurs are enclosed by a lawful fence as therein prescribed.

To limit the jurisdiction of States containing forest reserves is to deny to them that equality with other States to which they are entitled. Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U. S. 678; Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U. S. 504. This court will take judicial notice of the proclamations of the President which have set aside as forest reserves within the State of Colorado an area of 21,309 square miles, more than one-fifth of the area of the State; but see Kansas v. Colorado, to effect that the National Government cannot enter the territory of one of the newer States and legislate in respect to. improving by irrigation or otherwise lands within their borders, unless it has the same power in the older States.

An act of Congress cannot restrict the sovereignty of a State except under express constitutional authority therefor. Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84. The equality *530of the States under the Federal Constitution is fundamental — a part of the very structure of our system of government. It is guaranteed by statute and exists without statute. Ward v. Race Horse, supra.

The authority of Congress to dispose of and protect public lands is so limited as not to deprive one State of an attribute of sovereignty which is conceded to other States.

The lands described in the President’s proclamation as constituting the Holy Cross Forest Reserve have not been legally set apart as permanent disposition thereof for the purposes in said proclamation mentioned.

The Government holds public land in trust for the people, to be disposed of so as to promote the settlement and ultimate prosperity of the States in which they are situated. This contradicts the withdrawal of lands for such purposes. Newhall v. Sanger, 92 U. S. 761; Bardon v. N. P. R. R. Co., 145 U. S. 535; Dobbins v. Commissionrers, 17 Pet. 435; Weber v. Commonwealth, 18 Wall. 57; United States v. Beebee, 127 U. S. 348; Shively v. Bowlby, 132 U. S. 49; United States v. Trinidad Coal Co., 137 U. S. 160; Pollard’s Lessee v. Hogan, supra.

While .national authority to reclaim arid lands may be sustained, on the broad ground that their reclamation is an aid in disposing of them, reservations, on the contrary, are in effect an abandonment of the purpose of disposing of the iands included therein. Although the power to establish these reserves may be highly desirable, and may be more effectually exercised by the Federal Government than by the States, that affords no ground for asserting the existence of the power.

The system of national forest reserves violates the trust concerning public land, and denies to the States in which such reserves are established the equality with other States to which they are entitled. Report of House Judiciary Committee, 60th Congress, 1541, denying the right of the *531Government to purchase land for forest reserves; and see 30 Stat. 34.

This subject is not within the scope of the general welfare clause of the Constitution. Story on the Const.., §§ 907, 908; Tucker’s Const, of United States, § 222. If the power does exist it cannot be exercised without the consent of the States directly affected.

Mr. Ernest Knaebel for the United States:

Appellant has no standing to attack the reservation or the forest-reserve policy. He does not claim any right or interest in any of the lands reserved.

Before the reservation he doubtless enjoyed a license of pasturage there. This was a mere privilege, existing, which the Government could take away. Shannon v. United States, 160 Fed. Rep. 870, 873; Frisbie v. Whitney, 9 Wall. 187; Yosemite Valley Case, 15 Wall. 77. The constitutionality of the reservation is attacked solely upon the ground of its supposed invasion of the rights and prerogatives of the State. But the State is not here objecting, and its supposed injury is no concern of the appellant. Bacon v. Walker, 204 U. S. 311, 315; Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 152, 160; Budzisz v. Illinois Steel Co., 170 U. S. 41; Supervisors v. Stanley, 105 U. S. 305, 311; Clark v. Kansas City, 176 U. S. 114, 118; Lampasas v. Bell, 180 U. S. 276, 283, 284; Cronin v. Adams, 192 U. S, 108, 114.’

The state fence law was not intended to apply to the United States. It confers no right whatever upon the cattle owner. It gives him no permission to place his cattle upon the land of another, whether fenced or unfenced. It merely vouchsafes him a reasonable assurance of immunity from what, under the common law, would, be legal consequences of their trespassing, provided this *532shall have resulted from their straying and not directly from any act and purpose of his own. Buford v. Houtz, 133 U. S. 320; Lazarus v. Phelps, 152 U. S. 81; Sabine &c. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 65 Texas, 389, 393; Delaney v. Errickson, 11 Nebraska, 533, 534; Otis v. Morgan, 61 Iowa, 712; Moore v. Cannon, 24 Montana, 316, 324; St. Louis Cattle Co. v. Vaught, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 388; Larkin v. Taylor, 5 Kansas, 433, 446; Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Rollins, 5 Kansas, 167, 176.

It has been held by the highest court in Colorado that the willful and deliberate driving of cattle upon the premises of another is actionable. Nuckolls v. Gaut, 12 Colorado, 361; Norton v. Young, 6 Colo. App. 187; Fugate v. Smith, 4 Colorado, 201; Sweetman v. Cooper, 20 Colorado, 5; Richards v. Sanderson, 39 Colorado, 278.

Even if the United States as a property owner is subject to the same control by the State as individuals are, to the mind of the state legislature the character and functions of the Nation are not lost in the general conception of ownership.

The regulations were a valid exercise of constitutional power. It was the duty of the individual to obey them and of the courts to enforce them without regard to state laws. The State has no beneficial right whatsoever in the land; there is neither community of ownership, nor relation of trustee and cestui que trust. While these lands are held by the United States in trust, the people of the United States — not particular States nor the people of particular States — are the beneficiaries. United States v. Trinidad Coal Co., 137 U. S. 160; United States v. Gratiot, 1 McLean, 454; S. C., 26 Fed. Cas. 15,249; Turner v. American Baptist Union, 5 McLean, 344; Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U. S. 151, 159; Treat’s National Land System (N. Y., Treat & Co., 1910). Like all other States carved out of the public domain, with very few exceptions, 117 U. S. 160, Colorado solemnly agreed never to tax or *533lay claim to any of the lands of the United States:. See 18 Stat. 474, § 5; 1 Mills’ Ann. Stat. Colo., 111; 1S| Stat. 665.

The ordinance, however, was not necessary to protect the United States from all claim of state interest in the lands. Hartman v. Tresise, 36 Colorado, 146. The Constitution, by Art. IV, §3, cl. 2, provides that Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United States, and the power being given without limitation, is absolute and exclusive of all state interference. Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 498, 517; United States v. Gratiot, 14 Pet. 526; Jourdan v. Barrett, 4 How. 168, 184; Irvine v. Marshall, 20 How. 558; Gibson v. Chouteau, 13 Wall. 92, 99; McCarthy v. Mann, 19 Wall. 20; United States v. Insley, 130 U. S. 263; Redfield v. Parks, 132 U. S. 239; C.amfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 518, 525; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 50, 52; Mann v. Tacoma Land Co., 153 U. S. 273, 283; United States v. Rio Grande Dam Co., 174 U. S. 690, 703; Gutierres v. Land & Irrigation Co., 188 U. S. 545, 555; Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 89; United States v. Cleveland & Colorado Cattle Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 323; and see also Shannon v. United States, 160 Fed. Rep. 870.

See also decisions of other courts to the same effect. United States v. Gratiot, 1 McLean, 454; S. C., 26 Fed. Cas. 15,249; Turner v. Am. Baptist Union (1852), 5 McLean, 344; S. C., 24 Fed. Cas. 14,251; Seymour v. Sanders, 3 Dillon, 437; S. C., 21 Fed. Cas. 12,690; Union Mill & M. Co. v. Ferris, 2 Sawyer, 176; United States v. Cleveland Cattle Col, 33 Fed. Rep. 323, 330; Carroll v. Price, 81 Fed. Rep. 137; Heckman v. Sutter, 119 Fed. Rep. 83; S. C., 128 Fed. Rep. 393; Shannon v. United States, 160 Fed. Rep. 870; People v. Folsom, 5 California, 373, 378; Doran v. Central Pacific, 24 California, 246, 257; Miller v. Little, 47 California, 348; Vansickle v. Haines, 7 Nevada, 249, 262; *534Fee v. Brown, 17 Colorado, 510, 519; S. C., 162 U. S. 602; Waters v. Bush, 42 Iowa, 255; David v. Rackabaugh, 32 Iowa, 540; Sorrels v. Self, 43 Arkansas, 451, 452.

The real object of the clause was to make plain beyond a doubt that in respect of all the Federal property Congress is omnipotent. Fee v. Brown, 17 Colorado, 510, 519; Wilcox v. Jackson, supra.

As to the meaning of the words “dispose of” and what is within the power of Congress as to disposition other than sale, see United States v. Gratiot, 14 Pet. 526; 20 Stat. 88; 26 Stat. 1093; Northern Pacific v. Lewis, 162 U. S. 366; United States v. United Verde Copper Co., 196 U. S. 207; Kohl v. United States, 91 U. S. 367; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 26; Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84; United States v. Bridge Company, 6 McLean, 517; United States v. Chicago, 7 How. 185.

The Nation cannot be subjected in its rights or remedies to the control of state laws.

The conservation and uses contemplated by the forest policy are natural, reasonable, and beneficent to the people of the entire country. Lands so held and administered are among the inviolable instrumentalities of the Government. Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U. S. 177.

Mr. Justice Lamar,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant was enjoined from pasturing his cattle on the Holy Cross Forest Reserve, because he had refused to comply with the regulations adopted by the Secretary of Agriculture, under the authority conferred by the act of June 4, 1897, (30 Stat. 35), to make rules and regulations as to the use, occupancy and preservation of forests. The validity of the rule is attacked on the ground that Congress could not delegate to the Secretary legislative power. We need not discuss that question in view of the opinion in United States v. Grimaud, just decided, ante, p. 506.

*535The bill alleged, and there was evidence to support the finding, that the defendant, with the expectation and intention that they would do so, turned his cattle out at a time and place which made it certain that they would leave the open public lands and go at once to the Reserve, where there was good water and fine pasturage. When notified to remove the cattle, he declined to do so and threatened to resist if they should be driven off by a forest officer. He justified this position on the ground that the statute of Colorado provided that a landowner could not recover damages for trespass by animals unless the property was enclosed with a fence of designated size and material. Regardless of any conflict in the testimony, the defendant claims that unless the Government put a fence around the Reserve it had no remedy, either at law or in equity, nor could he be required to prevent his cattle straying upon the Reserve from the open public land on which he had a right to turn them loose.

At common law the owner was required to confine his live stock, or else was held liable for any damage done by titem upon the land of third persons. That law was not adapted to the situation of those States where there were great plains and vast tracts of unenclosed land, suitable for pasture. And so, without passing a statute, or taking any affirmative action on the subject, the United States suffered its public domain to be used for such purposes. There thus grew up a sort of implied license that these lands, thus left open, might be used so long as the Government did not cancel its tacit consent. Buford v. Houtz, 133 U. S. 326. Its failure to object, however, did not confer any vested right on the complainant, nor did it deprive the United States of the power of recalling any implied license under which the land had been used for private purposes. Steele v. United States, 113 U. S. 130; Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 513.

It is contended, however, that Congress cannot constitu*536tionally withdraw large bodies of land from settlement without the consent of the State where it is located; and it is then argued that the act of 1891 providing for the establishment of reservations was void, so that what is nominally a Reserve is, in law, to be treated as open and unenclosed land, as to which there still exists the implied license that it may be. used for grazing purposes. But * ‘ the Nation is an owner, and has made Congress the principal ágeht to dispose pf its property.” ..." Congress is the body to which is given the power to determine the conditions upon which the public lands shall be disposed of.” Butte City Water Co. v. Baker, 196 U. S. 126.. “The Government has with respect to its own land the rights of an ordinary proprietor to maintain its possession and prosecute trespassers. It may deal with such landp precisely as an ordinary individual may deal with his farming property. It may sell or withhold them from sale.” Camfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 524. And if it may withhold from sale and settlement it may also as an owner object to its property being Used for grazing purposes, for “the Government is charged with the duty and clothed with thé power to protect the public domain from trespass and unláwful appropriation.” United States v. Beebee, 127 U. S. 342.

The United States can prohibit absolutely or fix the terms-on which its property may be used. As it can withhold ór reserve the land it can do so indefinitely, Stearns v. Minnesota, 179 U. S. 243. It is true that the “United States do not and cannot hold property as a monarch may for private or personal purposes.” Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U. S. 158. But that does not lead to the conclusion that it is without the rights incident to ownership, for the Constitution declares,'§ 3, Art. IV, that “Congress shall have power'to dispose of and'make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or the property belonging to the United States.” “The full scope of this *537paragraph has never been definitely settled. Primarily, at least, it is a grant of power to the United States of control over its property.” Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 89.

“All the public lands of the nation are held in trust for the people of the whole country.” United States v. Trinidad Coal Co., 137 U. S. 160. And it is not for the courts to say how that trust shall be administered.' That is for Congress to determine.' The courts cannot compel it to set aside the lands for settlement; or to suffer them to be used for agricultural or grazing purposes; nor interfere when, in the exercise of its discretion, Congress establishes a forest reserve for what it decides to be national and public purposes. In the same way and in the exercise of the same trust it may disestablish a reserve, and devote the property to some other national and public purpose. These are rights incident to proprietorship, to say nothing of the power of the United States as a sovereign over the property belonging to it. Even a private owner would be entitled to protection against willful trespasses, and statutes providing that damage done by animals cannot be recovered, unless the land had been enclosed with a felice of the size and material required, do not give permission to the owner of cattle to use his neighbor’s land as a pasture. They are intended to condone trespasses by straying cattle; they have no application to cases where they are driven upon unfenced land in order that they may feed there. Lazarus v. Phelps, 152 U. S. 81; Monroe v. Cannon, 24 Montana, 316; St. Louis Cattle Co. v. Vaught, 1 Tex. App. 388; The Union Pacific v. Rollins, 5 Kansas, 165, 176.

Fence laws do not authorize wanton and willful trespass, nor do they afford immunity to those who, in disregard of property rights, turn loose their cattle under circumstances showing that they were intended to graze upon the lands of another.

This the defendant did, under circumstances equivalent to driving his cattle upon the forest reserve. He could *538have obtained a permit for reasonable pasturage. He not only declined to apply for such license, but there is evidence that he threatened to resist efforts to have his cattle removed from the Reserve, and in his answer he declares that he will continue to turn out his cattle, and contends that if they go upon the Reserve the Government has no remedy at law or in equity. This claim answers itself.

It appears that the defendant turned out his cattle under circumstances which showed that he expected and intended that they would go upon the Reserve to graze thereon. Under the facts the court properly granted an injunction. The judgment was right on the merits, wholly regardless of the question as to whether the Government had enclosed its property.

This makes it unnecessary to consider how far the United States is required to fence its property, or the other constitutional questions involved.. For, as said, in Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R. R., 213 U. S, 175 “where cases in this court can be decided without reference to ques-. tions arising under the Federal Constitution that course is usually pursued, and is not departed from without important reasons.” The decree is therefore

Affirmed.

KLEPPE, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR v. NEW MEXICO et al.

No. 74-1488.

Argued March 23, 1976

Decided June 17, 1976

*530MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Deputy Solicitor General Randolph argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Bork, Assistant Attorney General Taft, Edmund B. Clark, and Dirk D. Snel.

George T. Harris, Jr., Special Assistant Attorney General of New Mexico, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellees.*

*

Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Murdaugh Stuart Madden for the Humane Society of the United States; by Paul A. Lenzini for the International Association of Game, Fish, *531and Conservation Commissioners; and by Thomas H. Wakefield for Hope Ryden.

Ronald A. Zumbrun and John H. Findley filed a brief for the Pacific Legal Foundation as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

Briefs of amici curiae were filed by 7. Frank Mendicino, Attorney General, and Sterling A. Case, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Wyoming et al.; by Robert List, Attorney General, for the Nevada State Board of Agriculture; by Jack E. Hull and John C. Miller for the Central Committee of Nevada State Grazing Boards et al.; and by David R. Belding and William I. Althen for Wild Horse Organized Assistance, Inc.

*531Mr. Justice Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

At issue in this case is whether Congress exceeded its powers under the Constitution in enacting the Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act.

I

The Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act, 85 Stat. 649, 16 U. S. C. §§ 1331-1340 (1970 ed., Supp. IV), was enacted in 1971 to protect “all unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros on public lands of the United States,” § 2 (b) of the Act, 16 U. S. C. § 1332 (b) (1970 ed., Supp. IV), from “capture, branding, harassment, or death.” §1, 16 U. S. C. § 1331 (1970 ed., Supp. IV). The Act provides that all such horses and burros on the public lands administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or by the Secretary of Agriculture through the Forest Service are committed to the jurisdiction of the respective Secretaries, who are “directed to protect and manage [the animals] as components of the public lands ... in a manner that is designed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands.” § 3 (a), 16 U. S. C. § 1333 (a) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). If protected horses or burros *532“stray from public lands onto privately owned land, the owners of such land may inform the nearest federal marshal or agent of the Secretary, who shall arrange to have the animals removed.” 1 § 4, 16 U. S. C. § 1334 (1970 ed., Supp. IV).

Section 6, 16 U. S. C. § 1336 (1970 ed., Supp. IV), authorizes the Secretaries to promulgate regulations, see 36 CFR § 231.11 (1975) (Agriculture); 43 CFR pt. 4710 (1975) (Interior), and to enter into cooperative agreements with other landowners and with state and local governmental agencies in furtherance of the Act’s purposes. On August 7, 1973, the Secretaries executed such an agreement with the New Mexico Livestock Board, the agency charged with enforcing the New Mexico Estray Law, N. M. Stat. Ann. § 47-14-1 et seq. (1966).2 The agreement acknowledged the authority of the Secretaries to manage and protect the wild free-roaming horses and burros on the public lands of the United States within the State and established a procedure for evaluating the claims of private parties to ownership of such animals.

*533The Livestock Board terminated the agreement three months later. Asserting that the Federal Government lacked power to control wild horses and burros on the public lands of the United States unless the animals were moving in interstate commerce or damaging the public lands and that neither of these bases of regulation was available here, the Board notified the Secretaries of its intent

“to exercise all regulatory, impoundment and sale powers which it derives from the New Mexico Estray Law, over all estray horses, mules or asses found running at large upon public or private lands within New Mexico .... This includes the right to go upon Federal or State lands to take possession of said horses or burros, should the Livestock Board so desire.” App. 67, 72.

The differences between the Livestock Board and the Secretaries came to a head in February 1974. On February 1, 1974, a New Mexico rancher, Kelley Stephenson, was informed by the BLM that several unbranded burros had been seen near Taylor Well, where Stephenson watered his cattle. Taylor Well is on federal property, and Stephenson had access to it and some 8,000 surrounding acres only through a grazing permit issued pursuant to § 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act, 48 Stat. 1270, as amended, 43 U. S. C. § 315b. After the BLM made it clear to Stephenson that it would not remove the burros and after he personally inspected the Taylor Well area, Stephenson complained to the Livestock Board that the burros were interfering with his livestock operation by molesting his cattle and eating their feed.

Thereupon the Board rounded up and removed 19 unbranded and unclaimed burros pursuant to the New Mexico Estray Law. Each burro was seized on the pub-*534lie lands of the United States3 and, as the director of the Board conceded, each burro fit the definition of a wild free-roaming burro under § 2 (b) of the Act. App. 43. On February 18, 1974, the Livestock Board, pursuant to its usual practice, sold the burros at a public auction. After the sale, the BLM asserted jurisdiction under the Act and demanded that the Board recover the animals and return them to the public lands.

On March 4, 1974, appellees 4 filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico seeking a declaratory judgment that the Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act is unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement. A three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2282.

Following an evidentiary hearing, the District Court held the Act unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) from enforcing its provisions.5 The court found that the Act “conflicts with . . . the traditional doctrines concerning wild animals,” New Mexico v. Morton, 406 F. Supp. 1237, 1238 (1975), and is in excess of Congress’ power under the Property Clause of the Constitution, Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. That Clause, the court found, enables Congress to regulate wild animals found on the public land only for the “protection of the public lands from damage of some kind.” 406 F. Supp., at 1239 (emphasis in original). Accordingly, this power was exceeded in this *535case because “[t]he statute is aimed at protecting the wild horses and burros, not at protecting the land they live on.” Ibid.6 We noted probable jurisdiction, 423 U. S. 818 (1975), and we now reverse.

II

The Property Clause of the Constitution provides that “Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” U. S. Const., Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. In passing the Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act, Congress deemed the regulated animals “an integral part of the natural system of the public lands” of the United States, § 1, 16 U. S. C, § 1331 (1970 ed., Supp. IV), and found that their management was necessary “for achievement of an ecological balance on the public lands.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 92-681, p. 5 (1971). According to Congress, these animals, if preserved in their native habitats, “contribute to the diversity of life forms within the Nation and enrich the lives of the American people.” § 1, 16 U. S. C. § 1331 (1970 ed., Supp. IV). See Hearing on Protection of Wild Horses and Burros on Public Lands before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., 69, 122, 128, 138, 169, 183 (1971). Indeed, Congress concluded, the wild free-roaming horses and burros “are living symbols of the historic *536and pioneer spirit of the West.” § 1, 16 U. S. C. § 1331 (1970 ed., Supp. IV). Despite their importance, the Senate committee found:

“[These animals] have been cruelly captured and slain and their carcasses used in the production of pet food and fertilizer. They have been used for target practice and harassed for ‘sport’ and profit. In spite of public outrage, this bloody traffic continues unabated, and it is the firm belief of the committee that this senseless slaughter must be brought to an end.” S. Rep. No. 92-242, pp. 1-2 (1971).

For these reasons, Congress determined to preserve and protect the wild free-roaming horses and burros on the public lands of the United States. The question under the Property Clause is whether this determination can be sustained as a “needful” regulation “respecting” the public lands. In answering this question, we must remain mindful that, while courts must eventually pass upon them, determinations under the Property Clause are entrusted primarily to the judgment of Congress. United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 29-30 (1940); Light v. United States, 220 U. S. 523, 537 (1911) United States v. Gratiot, 14 Pet. 526, 537-538 (1840).

Appellees argue that the Act cannot be supported by the Property Clause. They contend that the Clause grants Congress essentially two kinds of power: (1) the power to dispose of and make incidental rules regarding the use of federal property; and (2) the power to protect federal property. According to appellees, the first power is not broad enough to support legislation protecting wild animals that live on federal property; and the second power is not implicated since the Act is designed to protect the animals, which are not them*537selves federal property, and not the public lands. As an initial matter, it is far from clear that the Act was not passed in part to protect the public lands of the United States7 or that Congress cannot assert a property interest in the regulated horses and burros superior to that of the State.8 But we need not consider whether the Act can be upheld on either of these grounds, for we reject appellees’ narrow reading of the Property Clause.

Appellees ground their argument on a number of cases that, upon analysis, provide no support for their position. Like the District Court, appellees cite Hunt v. United States, 278 U. S. 96 (1928), for the proposition that the Property Clause gives Congress only the limited power to regulate wild animals in order to protect the public lands from damage. But Hunt, which upheld the Government’s right to kill deer that were damaging foliage in the national forests, only holds that damage to the land is a sufficient basis for regulation; it contains no suggestion that it is a necessary one.

Next, appellees refer to Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 89 (1907). The referenced passage in that case states that the Property Clause “clearly . . . does not grant to Congress any legislative control over the States, and must, so far as they are concerned, be limited to authority over the property belonging to the United States within their limits.” But this does no more than articulate the obvious: The Property Clause is a *538grant of power only over federal property. It gives no indication of the kind of “authority” the Clause gives Congress over its property.

Camfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 518 (1897), is of even less help to appellees. Appellees rely upon the following language from Camfield:

“While we do not undertake to say that Congress has the unlimited power to legislate against nuisances within a State, which it would have within a Territory, we do not think the admission of a Territory as a State deprives it of the power of legislating for the protection of the public lands, though it may thereby involve the exercise of what is ordinarily known as the police power, so long as such power is directed solely to its own protection.” Id., at 525-526 (emphasis added).

Appellees mistakenly read this language to limit Congress’ power to regulate activity on the public lands; in fact, the quoted passage refers to the scope of congressional power to regulate conduct on private land that affects the public lands. And Camfield holds that the Property Clause is broad enough to permit federal regulation of fences built on private land adjoining public land when the regulation is for the protection of the federal property. Camfield contains no suggestion of any limitation on Congress’ power over conduct on its own property; its sole message is that the power granted by the Property Clause is broad enough to reach beyond territorial limits.

Lastly, appellees point to dicta in two cases to the effect that, unless the State has agreed to the exercise of federal jurisdiction, Congress’ rights in its land are “only the rights of an ordinary proprietor . . . .” Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U. S. 525, 527 (1885). *539See also Paul v. United States, 371 U. S. 245, 264 (1963). In neither case was the power of Congress under the Property Clause at issue or considered and, as we shall see, these dicta fail to account for the raft of cases in which the Clause has been given a broader construction.9

In brief, beyond the Fort Leavenworth and Paul dicta, appellees have presented no support for their position that the Clause grants Congress only the power to dispose of, to make incidental rules regarding the use of, and to protect federal property. This failure is hardly surprising, for the Clause, in broad terms, gives Congress the power to determine what are “needful” rules “respecting” the public lands. United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S., at 29-30; Light v. United States, 220 U. S., at 537; United States v. Gratiot, 14 Pet., at 537-538. And while the furthest reaches of the power granted by the Property Clause have not yet been definitively resolved, we have repeatedly observed that “[t]he power over the public land thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations.” United States v. San Francisco, supra, at 29. See Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. McCracken, 357 U. S. 275, 294-295 (1958); Alabama v. Texas, 347 U. S. 272, 273 (1954); FPC v. Idaho Power Co., 344 U. S. 17, 21 (1952); United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19, 27 (1947); Gibson v. Chouteau, 13 Wall. 92, 99 (1872); United States v. Gratiot, supra, at 537.

The decided cases have supported this expansive reading. It is the Property Clause, for instance, that pro*540vides the basis for governing the Territories of the United States. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U. S. 652, 673-674 (1945); Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U. S. 298, 305 (1922); Dorr v. United States, 195 U. S. 138, 149 (1904); United States v. Gratiot, supra, at 537; Sere v. Pitot, 6 Cranch 332, 336-337 (1810). See also Vermilya-Brown Co. v. Connell, 335 U. S. 377, 381 (1948). And even over public land within the States, “[t]he general Government doubtless has a power over its own property analogous to the police power of the several States, and the extent to which it may go in the exercise of such power is measured by the exigencies of the particular case.” Camfield v. United States, supra, at 525. We have noted, for example, that the Property Clause gives Congress the power over the public lands “to control their occupancy and use, to protect them from trespass and injury and to prescribe the conditions upon which others may obtain rights in them . . . .” Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U. S. 389, 405 (1917). And we have approved legislation respecting the public lands “[i]f it be found to be necessary for the protection of the public, or of intending settlers [on the public lands].” Cornfield v. United States, supra, at 525. In short, Congress exercises the powers both of a proprietor, and of a legislature over the public domain. Alabama v. Texas, supra, at 273; Sinclair v. United States, 279 U. S. 263, 297 (1929); United States v. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U. S. 459, 474 (1915). Although the Property Clause does not authorize “an exercise of a general control over public policy in a State,” it does permit “an exercise of the complete power which Congress has over particular public property entrusted to it.” United States v. San Francisco, supra, at 30 (footnote omitted). In our view, the “complete power” that *541Congress has over public lands necessarily includes the power to regulate and protect the wildlife living there.10

Ill

Appellees argue that if we approve the Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act as a valid exercise of Congress’ power under the Property Clause, then we have sanctioned an impermissible intrusion on the sovereignty, legislative authority, and police power of the State and have wrongly infringed upon the State’s traditional trustee powers over wild animals. The argument appears to be that Congress could obtain exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the public lands in the State only by state consent, and that in the absence of such consent Congress lacks the power to act contrary to state law. This argument is without merit.

Appellees’ claim confuses Congress’ derivative legis*542lative powers, which are not involved in this case, with its powers under the Property Clause. Congress may acquire derivative legislative power from a State pursuant to Art. I, § 8, cl, 17, of the Constitution by consensual acquisition of land, or by nonconsensual acquisition followed by the State's subsequent cession of legislative authority over the land. Paul v. United States, 371 U. S., at 264; Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U. S., at 541-542.11 In either case, the legislative jurisdiction acquired may range from exclusive federal jurisdiction with no residual state police power, e. g., Pacific Coast Dairy v. Dept. of Agriculture of Cal., 318 U. S. 285 (1943), to concurrent, or partial, federal legislative jurisdiction, which may allow the State to exercise certain authority. E. g., Paul v. United States, supra, at 265; Collins v. Yosemite Park Co., 304 U. S. 518, 528-530 (1938); James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134, 147-149 (1937).

But while Congress can acquire exclusive or partial jurisdiction over lands within a State by the State’s consent or cession, the presence or absence of such jurisdiction has nothing to do with Congress’ powers under the *543Property Clause. Absent consent or cession a State undoubtedly retains jurisdiction over federal lands within its territory, but Congress equally surely retains the power to enact legislation respecting those lands pursuant to the Property Clause. Mason Co. v. Tax Comm’n of Washington, 302 U. S. 186, 197 (1937); Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U. S., at 403-405; Ohio v. Thomas, 173 U. S. 276, 283 (1899). And when Congress so acts, the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause. U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. See Hunt v. United States, 278 U. S., at 100; McKelvey v. United States, 260 U. S. 353, 359 (1922). As we said in Camfield v. United States, 167 U. S., at 526, in response to a somewhat different claim: “A different rule would place the public domain of the United States completely at the mercy of state legislation.”

Thus, appellees' assertion that “[ajbsent state consent by complete cession of jurisdiction of lands to the United States, exclusive jurisdiction does not accrue to the federal landowner with regard to federal lands within the borders of the State,” Brief for Appellees 24, is completely beside the point; and appellees’ fear that the Secretary’s position is that “the Property Clause totally exempts federal lands within state borders from state legislative powers, state police powers, and all rights and powers of local sovereignty and jurisdiction of the states,” id., at 16, is totally unfounded. The Federal Government does not assert exclusive jurisdiction over the public lands in New Mexico, and the State is free to enforce its criminal and civil laws on those lands. But where those state laws conflict with the Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act, or with other legislation passed pursuant to the Property Clause, the law is clear: The state laws must recede. McKelvey v. United States, supra, at 359.

*544Again, none of the cases relied upon by appellees are to the contrary. Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U. S. 647, 650 (1930), merely states the rule outlined above that, “without more,” federal ownership of lands within a State does not withdraw those lands from the jurisdiction of the State. Likewise, Wilson v. Cook, 327 U. S. 474, 487-488 (1946), holds only that, in the absence of consent or cession, the Federal Government did not acquire exclusive jurisdiction over certain federal forest reserve lands in Arkansas and the State retained legislative jurisdiction over those lands. No question was raised regarding Congress’ power to regulate the forest reserves under the Property Clause. And in Colorado v. Toll, 268 U. S. 228, 230-231 (1925), the Court found that Congress had not purported to assume jurisdiction over highways within the Rocky Mountain National Park, not that it lacked the power to do so under the Property Clause.12

*545In short, these cases do not support appellees’ claim that upholding the Act would sanction an impermissible intrusion upon state sovereignty. The Act does not establish exclusive federal jurisdiction over the public lands in New Mexico; it merely overrides the New Mexico Estray Law insofar as it attempts to regulate federally protected animals. And that is but the necessary consequence of valid legislation under the Property Clause.

Appellees’ contention that the Act violates traditional state power over wild animals stands on no different footing. Unquestionably the States have broad trustee and police powers over wild animals within their jurisdictions. Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U. S. 385, 402 (1948); Lacoste v. Department of Conservation, 263 U. S. 545, 549 (1924); Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519, 528 (1896). But, as Geer v. Connecticut cautions, those powers exist only “in so far as [their] exercise may be not incompatible with, or restrained by, the rights conveyed to the Federal government by the Constitution.” Ibid. “No doubt it is true that as between a State and its inhabitants the State may regulate the killing and sale of [wildlife], but it does not follow that its authority is exclusive of paramount powers.” Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416, 434 (1920). Thus, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, U. S. Const., Art. IV, § 2, cl. 1, precludes a State from imposing prohibitory licensing fees on nonresidents shrimping in its waters, Toomer v. Witsell, supra; the Treaty Clause, U. S. Const., Art. II, § 2, permits Congress to enter into and enforce a treaty to protect migratory birds despite state objections, Missouri v. Holland, supra; and the Property Clause gives Congress the power to thin overpopulated herds of deer on federal *546lands contrary to state law. Hunt v. United States, 278 U. S. 96 (1928). We hold today that the Property Clause also gives Congress the power to protect wildlife on the public lands, state law notwithstanding.

IV

In this case, the New Mexico Livestock Board entered upon the public lands of the United States and removed wild burros. These actions were contrary to the provisions of the Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act. We find that, as applied to this case, the Act is a constitutional exercise of congressional power under the Property Clause. We need not, and do not, decide whether the Property Clause would sustain the Act in all of its conceivable applications.

Appellees are concerned that the Act's extension of protection to wild free-roaming horses and burros that stray from public land onto private land, § 4, 16 U. S. C. § 1334 (1970 ed., Supp. IV), will be read to provide federal jurisdiction over every wild horse or burro that at any time sets foot upon federal land. While it is clear that regulations under the Property Clause may have some effect on private lands not otherwise under federal control, Camfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 518 (1897), we do not think it appropriate in this declaratory judgment proceeding to determine the extent, if any, to which the Property Clause empowers Congress to protect animals on private lands or the extent to which such regulation is attempted by the Act. We have often declined to decide important questions regarding “the scope and constitutionality of legislation in advance of its immediate adverse effect in the context of a concrete case,” Longshoremen v. Boyd, 347 U. S. 222, 224 (1954), or in the absence of “an adequate and full-bodied record.” Public Affairs Press v. Rickover, 369 U. S. 111, 113 (1962). Cf. Eccles v. Peoples Bank, 333 U. S. 426 *547(1948). We follow that course in this case and leave open the question of the permissible reach of the Act over private lands under the Property Clause.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

1

The landowner may elect to allow straying wild free-roaming horses and burros to remain on his property, in which case he must so notify the relevant Secretary. He may not destroy any such animals, however. § 4 of the Act, 16 U. S. C. § 1334 (1970 ed., Supp. IV).

2

Under the New Mexico law, an estray is defined as:

“Any bovine animal, horse, mule or ass, found running at large upon public or private lands, either fenced or unfenced, in the state of New Mexico, whose owner is unknown in the section where found, or which shall be fifty (50) miles or more from the limits of its usual range or pasture, or that is branded with a brand which is not on record in the office of the cattle sanitary board of New Mexico . . . .” N. M. Stat. Ann. §47-14-1 (1966).

It is not disputed that the animals regulated by the Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act are estrays within the meaning of this law.

3

The record is somewhat unclear on this point, but appellees conceded at oral argument that all the burros were seized on the public lands of the United States. Tr. of Oral Arg. 35.

4

Appellees are the State of New Mexico, the New Mexico Livestock Board, the Board’s director, and a purchaser of three of the burros seized at Taylor Well.

5

Since appellees did not file suit against the Secretary of Agriculture, the District Court’s injunction was limited to the Secretary of the Interior, who is the appellant in this Court.

6

The court also held that the Act could not be sustained under the Commerce Clause because “all the evidence establishes that the wild burros in question here do not migrate across state lines” and “Congress made no findings to indicate that it was in any way relying on the Commerce Clause in enacting this statute.” 406 F. Supp., at 1239. While the Secretary argues in this Court that the Act is sustainable under the Commerce Clause, we have no occasion to address this contention since we find the Act, as applied, to be a permissible exercise of congressional power under the Property Clause.

7

Congress expressly ordered that the animals were to be managed and protected in order “to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands.” § 3 (a), 16 U. 8. C. § 1333 (a) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). Cf. Hunt v. United States, 278 U. S. 96 (1928).

8

See infra, at 545-546. The Secretary makes no claim here, however, that the United States owns the wild free-roaming horses and burros found on public land.

9

Indeed, Hunt v. United States, supra, and Camfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 518 (1897), both relied upon by appellees, are inconsistent with the notion that the United States has only the rights of an ordinary proprietor with respect to its land. An ordinary proprietor may not, contrary to state law, kill game that is damaging his land, as the Government did in Hunt; nor may he prohibit the fencing in of his property without the assistance of state law, as the Government was able to do in Camfield.

10

Appellees ask us to declare that the Act is unconstitutional because the animals are not, as Congress found, “fast disappearing from the American scene.” § 1, 16 U. S. C. § 1331 (1970 ed., Supp. IV). At the outset, no reason suggests itself why Congress’ power under the Property Clause to enact legislation to protect wild free-roaming horses and burros “from capture, branding, harassment, or death,” ibid., must depend on a finding that the animals are decreasing in number. But responding directly to appellees’ contention, we note that the evidence before Congress on this question was conflicting and that Congress weighed the evidence and made a judgment. See Hearing on Protection of Wild Horses and Burros on Public Lands before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., 1-2, 7, 11-14, 17, 26-32, 80, 87-88, 101, 103, 134-136, 139-141 (1971). What appellees ask is that we reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of Congress. This we must decline to do. United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 29-30 (1940); Light v. United States, 220 U. S. 523, 537 (1911); United States v. Gratiot, 14 Pet. 526, 537-538 (1840). See also Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U. S. 583, 594 (1939). In any event, we note that Congress has provided for periodic review of the administration of the Act. § 10, 16 U. S. C. §1340 (1970 ed., Supp. IV).

11

Article I, § 8, cl. 17, of the Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power:

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like 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 Clause has been broadly construed, and the acquisition by consent or cession of exclusive or partial jurisdiction over properties for any legitimate governmental purpose beyond those itemized is permissible. Collins v. Yosemite Park Co., 304 U. S. 518, 528-530 (1938).

12

Referring to the Act creating the National Park, the Court said:

“There is no attempt to give exclusive jurisdiction to the United States, but on the contrary the rights of the State over the roads are left unaffected in terms. Apart from those terms the State denies the power of Congress to curtail its jurisdiction or rights without an act of cession from it and an acceptance by the national government. The statute establishing the park would not be construed to attempt such a result. As the [park superintendent] is undertaking to assert exclusive control and to establish a monopoly in, a matter as to which, if the allegations of the bill are maintained, the State has not surrendered its legislative power, a cause of action is disclosed if we do not look beyond the bill, and it was wrongly dismissed.” 268 U. S., at 231 (citations omitted).

While Colorado thus asserted that, absent cession, the Federal Government lacked power to regulate the highways within the park, and the Court held that the State was entitled to attempt to prove that it had not surrendered legislative jurisdiction to the United States, at most the case stands for the proposition that where *545Congress does not purport to override state power over public lands under the Property Clause and where there has been no cession, a federal official lacks power to regulate contrary to state law.