134 
THE MODERN CEMETERY. 
‘‘2. The use of a very light, soft wood coffin, for the reason 
that it will decay quickly; or else of the wicker coffins, which 
have found favor in England and are now manufactured in this 
country. 
“3. Abandonment of the custom, once prevalent and even now 
not infrequent, of building brick and stone inclosures for coffins 
with in giaves. 
“4. That the rectors and vestries of churches should loan the 
use of some suitable places for mortuaries in connection with 
said churches, to which remains could be removed as quickly as 
possible after death. 
“5. That so far as possible the clergy should make known 
the fact that the churches and not the homes are the proper 
places for the conduct of burial services and that they offer the 
entirely free use of said churches for funerals. 
The report closes with the following statement 
of the methods which may be used to reduce ma- 
terially the cost of burials as pertaining to New 
York: ' 
“For a coffin, with plate, hearse, one coach, Newtown permit 
and ferriage for hearse and coach from house the sum of $25, 
extra, from church fi.50. A shroud if necessary, $2, a box, f4, 
or a top cover for coffin, $1, the cost of preserving the remains 
on ice, $8. These prices would be for Long island cemeteries; 
near by, and for funerals below looth street, and for more 
northern localities, up to Harlem bridge, say, $i extra for the 
vehicles. For $15 a plain coffin will be furnished and remains 
be conveved to St. Michael’s cemetery from points south of 
looth street.” 
The clergy seem to be quite alive to the necess- 
ity of a change from the practices of by gone days 
in the light of our present civilization, and their act- 
ive co-operation will most assuredly hasten the con- 
summation of this much needed reform. 
Validity of Ordinance Relating to places of Burial. 
Several questions of interest to cemetery associ- 
ations are discussed and decided by the supreme 
court of Texas in the recent case of the city of Aus- 
tin V. Austin City Cemetery Association. 
It holds that a city ordinance providing, under 
penalty, that it shall be unlawful for any person to 
bury, or cause to be buried, or to in any manner 
aid or assist in the burial of a dead body, of any 
human being, within the corporate limits of the 
city, except in three specified cemeteries, if void, 
and though the city is not immediately seeking to 
enforce it, and there might exist a legal remedy 
against its enforcement, an injunction will lie on the 
petition of a cemetery association to restrain its ex- 
ecution, and to declare the ordinance void, especial- 
ly when it is shown that the right and privilege of 
using its property for cemetery purposes is destroy- 
ed or impaired by virtue of the existence of the 
ordinance, as no one in the control of dead bodies 
is willing that they should be buried or interred 
there for fear of violating the ordinance in question. 
On the other hand, the court holds that a pro- 
vision in its charter, empowering a city “to regulate 
the burial of the dead and to prohibit public funer- 
als in cases of death from contagious or infectious 
disease; to purchase, establish, and regulate one or 
more cemeteries within or without the city limits” 
authorizes the passage by the city council of such 
an ordinance as the above. 
Moreover, such a charter provision as this one, the 
court does not think can be construed to be intend- 
ed by the legislature to confer power upon the city 
council either to prohibit the burial of the dead 
within the limits of the city, or to unreasonably re- 
strict the right of its citizens to provide places for 
the purpose within such limits. In a case like this, 
whether the ordinance be reasonable or not, it says, 
must depend upon the circumstances of the particu- 
lar restriction as affecting the people who are to be 
subjected to its control. 
An ordinance of this nature, it is further held, 
is presumably valid, and cannot be declared void 
upon the mere fact that it designates only three 
cemeteries in which the dead bodies of people can 
be buried, within a portion of the city which em- 
braces 4, 500 acres, part of which is thickly, and 
part thinly settled, in the absence of a showing that 
there are no other localities outside such limits ac- 
cessible and suitable for such purposes. 
Finally it is held that when an ordinance like 
the one in question is attacked upon the ground 
that it is unreasonable, and therefore void, it is in- 
cumbent upon the party who alleges its invalidity 
to aver and prove the facts which make it so. If 
the facts be controverted, they must be determined 
by the jury; but whether the facts relied upon show 
the ordinance to be unreasonable or not is a ques- 
tion for the court. 
Sleepy Hollow Cemetery, Concord, Mass. 
In no place of equal size in the country is there 
a cemetery so universally admired for its natural 
beauties and situation, as Sleepy Hollow, in the 
historic town of Concord, Mass. 
Visited each year by thousands of tourists, it 
has become noted the world over, from the fact that 
so many famous men and women are buried there. 
The new portion which has the greatest interest, 
was purchased by the town in 1855 and covers 
about twenty-five acres. In the same year a re- 
ceiving vault was built, and the cemetery opened 
with suitable ceremonies. Up to the present time 
about one thousand interments have been made, 
and in the old portion twelve hundred and fifty. 
At the main entrance on Bedford Road are the 
iron gates presented to the town by one of its well 
known men, Wm. M. Pritchard. These gates which 
were erected in 1891 at a cost of three thousand dol- 
