The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1912-12-06
THE FARMFR: DECEMBER 6, 1e12
an assault upon another 1t iss a. crime
 against the state.''

efS o11I1I MIG SIdtC
 INITIATING A CONSTITUTION.- Recently in Indiana the Legislature attempted to formulate 8 new constt- tution and submit it to the people for their adoption at general election. Suit was brought by 8 taxpayer to enjoin the election officers from proceeding with the election on the ground that the Legislature had exceeded it's power in the premises, regardless Of whether the constitution then submitted was of the old. The adherents of the act of the Legislature contended that b. section 1. article 4. of the Constftu- ton, declaring that '-the legislative au- thority of the state shall be vested in the General Assembly, the Legisla- ture obtained its power to initiate, fe sotitP3on sa sP5t to for the ts1e ss proval; but the Supreme Court of the State held that 1egis- lative power or authority was not was an authority under and by the Constitution of the state giving tl1t Legislature power to attend to the de tails Of government in the enactment of all appropriate statutes for the we'll being of the people not in conflict with the federal and state Constitutiotls thority as would permit the initiation Of changes in the Constitution, but that the power to conduct such pro- ceedings rests in the people alone, who
 
 convention or otherwise. EllinghanF vs. Dsre. ss Northeastern Reporter. l.
 NO RELIEF FOR DESIGNATING GRAVES.-Woo oodbridge vs. Smith. 147 Southwestern Reporter, 1o1s, is an ac- ton to en3oin the disturbance of 8 cendants of certain deceased persons who are buried on a tract of ground now owned by defendant. who ptr- chased through descendants of the de- ceased hHkixfz without reservation as to the burial ground. The petition charges that the graves on this ground have been in- closed with fences during ali the time since the burial of the bodies. but that now defendants have removed the fences and turned the burial ground defendant as. g. hog lot Plaintiffs state that if they are not permitted to erect wall or fence fnciosing the graves and the defendant Is allowed to remove the fences, the graves will be unprotected and exposed to the ra1 wa ges and dissertation of hogs and other live stock The Supreme Court of Missouri very reluctantly refuses an Injunction, placing their decision on the ground that the evidence is insuf- f1cient to show that the burying as 8 public graveyard, and that no prescriptive right is shown in plain tifrs to use the land as a blErying g ground. The court concludes. ''Tqae bill in this case ayers that defendant has denied plaintiffs all rights, ex- cept the right to remove the bodies. Of this right they had better avail themselves. To them it may seem harsh that they cannot be permitted to tnofose the graves Of their fore- fathers. to the end that their dust might rest in peace. So it seems harsh to us; but the harsY1ness Is not of OUT making. Defendant ts stand ing upon the cold law and that we must give him if he asks and tnsfete. It Is not the humane idea which ad- 5udicates the rights here involved, but es1e cold law as demanded by defen- dant. Under tine law we See no rerr1- edy for plaintiffs and with regrets we say so. Judgment for defendant is affirmed