ers to walk upright and prevents them 
from pulling apart when they approach the 
grave. 
Hooks may be attached underneath the 
top board of the frame on which to fas- 
ten the grave lining. The frame should he 
painted green or some other appropriate 
color and is not at all unsightly ; in fact, 
those who have seen it in use say that it 
looks better than when the lowering device 
is set on the ground. 
The Ohio Association of Cemetery Su- 
perintendents and Officials will hold its 
annual meeting at St. Marys, Ohio, June 
'20 and 21. 
Sessions will be held in the chapel of 
Elm Grove Cemetery, and a very interest- 
ing program has been arranged. 
Following is an outline of the program : 
Wednesday, June 20 — Meeting called to 
order, 1 p. m.. Cemetery Chapel, Elm 
Grove Cemetery. 
Prayer, Rev. F. H. Rupnow, St. Paul's 
Church. 
PARK AND CEMETERY. 
It may be noted in our illustration that 
the frame is not any wider than the device 
and stands 18 inches high to the webbing. 
The bearers are therefore not obliged 
to lower or raise the casket. The dimen- 
sions of the frame will of course depend 
on the lowering device used. Mr. Wen- 
dorph will be glad to give any further in- 
formation regarding the construction or 
use of the frame. 
.“Address of welcome, J. L. Sullivan, St. 
Mark's. 
Response to welcome, J. C. Cline, Dayton. 
President's address, L. L. Cline, Dayton. 
Reading of secretary's report; communi- 
cations: payment of dues. 
Paper, “Cemetery Roads,” S. J. Parrott, 
Ferncliff Cemetery, Springfield. 
Discussion. 
4 p. m, — Take automobile ride, closing 
at the Country Club where supper will be 
served. 
.After supper — Paper on Perpetual Care, 
79 
while seated at the table, H. A. Church, 
Urbana. 
Discussion of same; appointments of 
committees. 
Thursday, June 21 — Meeting called to 
order <) a. m. at Cemetery Chapel. 
Paper, “Treating and Trimming of 
Trees," George Glass, Westside Cemetery, 
Middletown. 
Discussion. 
Paper, “Community Mausoleum,’ David 
Grinton, Oakgrove Cemetery, Delaware. 
Discussion. 
Paper, “What I Have Learned by At- 
tending the State Conventions,’’ O. C. 
Kennedy, Van Wert. 
Adjournment for lunch. 
Thursday afternoon — Meeting called to 
order 1 p. m. 
Talk on Road Building of Tarvia by a 
representative of The Barrett Company of 
Cleveland. 
Discussion; question bo.x ; election of 
officers; new business; reports of com- 
mittees ; thoughts for the good of the Asso- 
ciation; adjournment and good-byes. 
E. A. Sloan, of Marion, is secretary- 
treasurer of the association. 
Ohio Cemetery Association Convention 
Problems of Park and Cemetery Law 
A department of Legal Advice and Discussion on problems that confront 
parks and cemeteries. You are invited to ask questions which will be an- 
swered by an attorney without charge. A L. H. Street, Consulting Attorney 
Widow's Right to Disinter Re- 
mains 
“Never the grave gives back what it has 
won.’’ — Schiller. 
^ ^ 
From Pennsylvania comes the inquiry : 
“On the death of her husband, Mrs. A. 
purchases a lot, pays for it, and obtains a 
deed giving her, her heirs and family the 
right of burial therein, subject to rules and 
regulations. His remains are interred in 
the lot. He leaves one married son and 
two daughters. Subsequently the son dies, 
leaving a widow and two children, and is 
buried in the lot mentioned. Mrs. B., 
widow of this son, now desires to ootain 
another lot and transfer the remains of 
her husband to it. Who, under the law of 
this state, or a statute of the United States, 
has the legal authority over the body of 
the husband of Mrs. B., buried in his 
mother's lot? Can the management of the 
cemetery, upon receiving authority from 
Mrs. B., enter upon the lot of Mrs. A. 
and disinter the remains of B., and reinter 
them in his widow's lot, without his 
mother’s consent?" — J. P., Pa. 
Under the court decisions bearing on the 
subject, T am of the opinion that the re- 
interment cannot be made without the 
mother’s consent, unless it appears that 
the interment in her lot was understood 
by all persons concerned as being merely 
temporary. 
Mrs. B., as widow of her husband, had 
the right to designate the place for his 
Inirial in the first instance, but, having e.x- 
ercised that right by consenting to burial 
in his mother’s lot, she cannot now change 
her mind, and cause reinterment to the 
grief of her husband's relatives. 
The decision of a Pennsylvania court 
in a very similar case is a leading judicial 
authority on this question — Fox vs. Gor- 
don, 1() Philadelphia Reports, 185. The 
only difference between that case and this 
lies in the fact that there a husband sought 
to remove the remains of his wife and 
daughter from his father-in-law's lot, 
where they had been interred with the 
husband’s consent, whereas here it is a 
wife who desires to remove her husband’s 
remains from his mother's lot — a differ- 
ence in facts which obviously makes no 
difference in legal principle. Denying the 
husband’s right to disinter the remains over 
the protest of his wife’s relatives, the court 
said : 
“His right to fix the spot where the re- 
mains of his wife and child should rest 
has been ( nee exercised, and cannot, after 
the lapse of three years, be recalled or 
altered, when its effect would be to har- 
row up the feelings of others and to dis- 
turb unnecessarily the bodies which should 
be left to repose in the graves to which 
they were consigned with the solemnities 
and religious rites which attend the burial 
of the dead.” 
Another pertinent decision is that of the 
Iowa Supreme Court in the case of 
Thompson vs. Deeds, Cl Northwestern Re- 
porter, 842. There a second wife consent- 
ed to interment of her husband’s remains 
in a lot owned by his daughter by a first 
wife, pursuant to his expressed desire, but 
afterwards sought a removal. Denying 
her right to disinter, the Iowa court said; 
“If the title [to the lot] was held by a 
stranger, there might be reason for remov- 
-ing the remains of the deceased to a lot, 
the title to which was in some member of 
the family. Especially so if he was buried 
in a lot under the mistaken belief that he 
or some member of his family owned it, 
when, in fact, it belonged to someone else. 
As it is, the owner of the lot being his 
daughter, we do not see that there is any 
reason for disturbing his remains. He 
knew who held the title to this lot, and 
more than once, during his lifetime, ex- 
pressed a wish that when he died he might 
be interred therein, beside the remains of 
his first wife. This wish was properly car- 
ried out by his last wife, and that ought 
to end the matter. A proper appreciation 
of the duty we owe to the dead, and a due 
regard for the feelings of their friends 
who survive, and the promotion of the 
public health and welfare all require that 
the bodies of the dead should not be ex- 
humed, e.xcept under circumstances of ex- 
treme exigency. No emergency e.xists in 
this case.”— A. L. H. S. 
Drainage of Cemetery Lands 
"Is it against the law in Iowa to tile 
a cemetery if the outlet empties into an 
open ditch on the adjoining farm, but not 
in a flowing stream?” writes an Iowa sub- 
