CALIFORNIA. 



117 



administrator could maintain an action at com- 

 mon law for the personal mutilation of a 

 corpse placed upon a railroad track and run 

 over by a train, whether such mutilation was 

 accidental or intentional ; but in nearly every 

 State the common law has been abrogated or 

 supplemented by statutes, making it both a 

 civil and criminal offense to mutilate the body 

 or disturb the dust of a dead person. It is 

 worthy of remark that, while the law has in 

 many instances recognized the right of indi- 

 vidual?, by will or by contract during life, to 

 dispose of their bodies after death, it has never 

 yet recognized any right of the heir or the ex- 

 ecutor to dispose of the cadaver for any pur- 

 pose except that of burial for example, nei- 

 ther the heir nor the executor has the right to 

 sell the dead body to a medical college for dis- 

 section. 



The duty of burial lies primarily upon the 

 executor or administrator, but the rule in- 

 volves only so much of the idea .of property 

 in the remains as is necessary to enable him 

 to do his duty ; and, when the burial is over, 

 the right of the executor ceases, except in case 

 of an improper interference with the cadaver, 

 the grave, the coffin, or the grave-clothes. In 

 the absence of any testamentary provision, the 

 husband has the right to designate the place 

 of burial of his deceased wife ; but, after the 

 body has been once buried, any further dis- 

 position of the remains belongs to the next of 

 kin. A similar right to control the burial- 

 place of a deceased husband rests with the 

 wife; and it has even been held that a widow 

 who had ordered the funeral of her husband 

 was liable for the cost thereof, although she 

 was an infant at the time, the expense being 

 deemed necessary. Either wife or husband 

 can be compelled to perform the duty of burial 

 or adopt the alternative of renouncing the 

 right; but the method and place of burial are 



in their discretion if they choose, subject only 

 to such considerations of public policy as would 

 prevent indecency, impropriety, or danger t'> 

 the living. The children of a deceased \> 

 possess, next in order, according to the prior- 

 ity of their ages, the right to bury their parent, 

 together with the additional right to remove 

 or protect the remains. If there be no chil- 

 dren, then the next of kin possess the right; 

 but, if the next of kin be of an equal degree 

 of relationship to the deceased, but divided in 

 opinion, the courts may determine, by evidence 

 of the wishes and mode of life of the deceased, 

 the method and proper place of burial. In 

 case the deceased dies away from home and 

 friends, the stranger in whose house the body 

 is may cause it to be buried, and pay the ex- 

 pense out of the effects of the deceased, or 

 Lave a primary claim upon the decedent's 

 estate. And, in case the relatives are unable 

 or unwilling to bury the dead body, the pub- 

 lic authorities must perform the interment. 



As has been previously mentioned, there i* 

 no property in a corpse ; it can not be retained 

 by creditors, nor attached for non-payment of 

 debts ; it is not an export nor an import, and 

 can not be taxed as such. Yet the common 

 law is not without remedies to protect graves. 

 A suit for trespass can be maintained by the 

 owner of the land or person having charge or 

 custody of it against any person disturbing a 

 grave; the party who has caused the burial, 

 or the next of kin, can bring an action for any 

 injury done to the monument, the coffin, or 

 the grave-clothes, and equity may be invoked 

 to protect a grave from desecration. But, 

 while these are the common-law remedies, the 

 statutes of nearly all the States of the Union 

 have created additional protections and reme- 

 dies, making the disturbance of the dead a 

 criminal offense, and severely punishing the 

 desecration of graves. 



C 



CALIFORNIA. State Government The follow- 

 ing were the State officers at the beginning of 

 the year : Governor, R. W. Waterman, Repub- 

 lican, elected Lieutenant-Governor, but acting 

 as Governor since the death of Governor Bart- 

 lett in 1887 ; Secretary of State. W. C. Hen- 

 dricks, Democrat ; Treasurer, Adam Herold, 

 Democrat; Comptroller, J. P. Dunn, Demo- 

 crat ; Attorney-General, G. A. Johnson Demo- 

 crat : Surveyor -General, Theodore Reichert, 

 Republican; Superintendent of Public Instruc- 

 tion. Ira G. Hoitt, Republican ; State Engineer, 

 William H, Hall. Democrat ; Railroad Commis- 

 sioners. A. Abbott, P. J. White, J. W. Rea ; 

 Chief -Justice of the Supreme Court, iSiles 

 Pearls; Associate Justices. E. W. McKinstry, 

 J. D. Thornton. J. R. Sharpstein, Jackson Tem- 

 ple, T. B. McFarland, A. Van R. Patterson. 



Valuations. For 1887 the total assumed valua- 

 tion of the State was $908,119,480, and for 

 1888, before revision by the State Board of 

 Equalization, 1,083,333,328. an increase in one 

 year of $175,213,848. Fresno County leads 

 with an increase of $21,649,564, followed by 

 San Francisco with $20.074.905; San Diego, 

 819.127.914; Santa Clara, $15,428.412 : 

 Angeles, $12.678.218; and Tulare, $9.3r, 

 The total valuation of San Francisco Count v is 

 $272,711,006. 



Derision*. On April 30 the Supreme Court 

 of the United States rendered a tinal decision 

 adverse to the State in the celebrated tax suits 

 brought to recover State and county taxes as- 

 sessed upon the principal railroads within its 

 jurisdiction. The defenses set up by the de- 

 fendant companies were, first, alleged discrimi- 



