The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1895-12-10
FOR AND AGAINST CALVARY
The New Cemetery Was Before
the Council
A DASTARDLY DISSERTATION
The McDermott Grave Invaded by
GhouIs
Annexation Receives Another Setback, and
Other Petitions VIII Have to Be
Presented-Liquor Dealers Roar

Whether or not New Calvary has been
legally established as cemetery was
argued pro and con for nearly two hours
before the city council yesterday. and an
adjournment at the lunch hour left the
problem in about the same stage that it
was when first taken up. The matter
came I'D upon the following report from
the city attorney:
To the Honorable Council of Los Angeles !:
Gentlemen-You have referred to me
the petition of VIM. G. Murray and others
with reference to the establishment of a
cemetery in Boyle Heights. This petition
after setting up various facts with refer
ence to the proposed cemetery. closes as
follows: ''And we pray and demand of
your honorable body that you take i'm
mediate legal steps to prohibit any more
burials in said locality by said socalled
New Calvary Cemetery Association or
corporation unless by authority of said
council a cemetery is legally established
in said locality"
/ have made a careful examination of
the law relating to these matters, and am
of the opinion that the city has general
power to regulate burials within its limits
in any cemetery, when the same has be-
come prejudicial to health.
Beyond any power that the city may
have, find a state law which it appears to
me applies to the cemetery referred to in
the petition, and which will be sufficient,
in my opinion, for the necessities arising
in that case, SO far as the city is concerned.
The section reads as follows:
"Every person who shall bury or inter,
or cause to be buried or inferred, the dead
body of any human being, or any human
remains, in any place within the corporate
limits of any city or town in this state, or
within the corporate limits of the city and
county OF San francisco, except in ceme-
terry or place of burial now existing under
the laws of this state. and in which inter-
ments have been made, or that is now or
may hereafter he established or organized
by the board OF supervisors of the county,
or city and county, in which such city or
town, or city and county, is situate, shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor."
You have also instructed me in connec-
ton with this matter to prepare and pre-
sent an ordinance prohibiting the establish
ment of any cemeteries in the city and pro-
hibiting burials in any cemetery in Boyle
Heights, excepting the Evergreen and Odd
fellows cemeteries. The Oddfellows ceme-
terry is outside the city limits, as l am in
formed, and the law would not, in my opin-
ion, permit lis to discriminate against any
cemetery or number of cemeteries fully
established, unless it should be shown that
the one Disseminated against was for some
special reason obnoxious. Believing, how
ever, that sthe section of the code above
quoted is sufficient to meet your immediate
wishes, ask further time in which to pre-
pare an ordinance upon the subject, should
you think it necessary"
Ex-Counclman Michael Collins was on
hand to argue for the cemetery, and in
formed the council that he alone had
originally been responsible for the pro-
posed location of the new burying ground
on Boyle Heights, his interest in the mat
ter being an ambition to have an electric
road through the heights for subsidy to
he contributed by the various interests
congregated in the immediate neighbour
hood of his, Collins, residence on Stephen
son avenue. Collins, in quiverng voice,
told the council that some time during
Friday and Saturday nights, the grave of
JAS. McDermott, in the new cemetery, had
been desecrated and trampled. and the
tombstone had been broken. The state
ment Mortified all who heard it.
The ex-councilman accused Councilman
E. L. Blanchard of not having treated the
advocates of the cemetery with fairness,
but upon the suggestion of President iced,
he Immediately withdrew the statement.
Collins made hard plea for his side of
the controversy. during which he took
several back-handed raps at a certain al
legged politico-reiigious organization. The
speaker begged the council not to relin-
quish the authority which he believed the
city had over all its cemeteries, and was
followed by DR.. Steddom, the health officer,
u
permit for the refinement of the remains
of Jas. McDermott.
DR.. Steddom retired to the lobby, and
then President iced, who, while he took
strong and forcible grounds against the
ghoulish work of the miscreants who had
taken the law into their own hands in the
dissertation of the McDermott grave, en-
pressed himself with equal force against
what he considered the method which had
been employed in the establishment of the
new burying ground. which he claimed had
been done in a very surreptitious and Sc
cret manner. This charge Michael Collins
denied. After speeches by Councilman
Blanchard and Jerry Conroy the matter
was re-referred to the city attorney for
further information.
The city attorney yesterday gave annex
alton setback by the filing with the coun-
Gil of the following:
I'm the matter of the petition of w. G.
Cochran and others. asking that an cleo
ton be called for the purpose of submit
ting the question Of anneXing to the city
certain territory therein described: The
land sought to be annexed is described in
said petition and consists of two separate
parcels or tracts of land. one of which adj
joins the city on the south boundary
thereof, and the other adjons the city on
the west boundary, and these separate
tracts are not contiguous to each other, but
are several hundred feet apart at the near
est point. 1t. Is claimed on the part of
those objecting to the annexation that
these separate parcels of land cannot be
annexed in one proceeding, because they
do not together constitute one territory
within the meaning of the law, and that,
should an election be held, one parcel
might be forced into the city against the
will of majority of its inhabitants by
reason OF preponderance of votes in favor
OF annexation being cast III the other terri
tory.
II have examined a great many author
tiles on the subject of anneXing territory
To Incorporated cities, but i'll most of tho
states the provisions of the statutes upon
this subject are entirely different from our
own, and III one case only that / have
found has the question arisen. In the
state of Washington the law on this SUBJ
ject is identical with our own, and in a
case which went to the supreme court in
that state one of the objections made to
tile proposed annexation was that the ter
rltory consisted of two widely separated
tracts. The supreme court of that state
held the proceedings void on other grounds,
and did not pass upon this question, but in
referring to 1t tile court said that the OBJ
lection raised 10 the effect that the territory
consisted Of two widely separated tracts
was an objection which would furnish mat
ter for serious discussion had it been neces-
sary to pass upon that point
I'm order that territory may be annexed
1t Is necessary that a ma ority of the votes
cast in such territory shall be in favor of
annexation. In the event an election is
had, and one of these separate tracts
should vote in favor of and one against