THE MODERN CEMETERY. 
63 
liquors of all kinds — now such a thing is seldom, if 
ever, heard of. In place of liquors we have flowers 
— a wonderful transformation. 
“Flowers have a very appropriate place at 
funerals. Yet, it is possible to go to extremes, even 
in these beautiful expressions of love and sympa- 
thy. A single handful of flowers on a plain coffin 
is often more expressive of love and worth than 
wagon loads of floral display. The former may 
speak of undying love and remembrance, while the 
latter may be but the grand display of a well-filled 
pocketbook. Now, while I am a believer in, and 
favor the custom of carrying flowers to the funeral 
service of the friend, I would not have you wait 
until your friend is dead before you present the 
floral expression of your love and esteem. Send 
some to the sick room, with your card attached, if 
you cannot go in person. One rose bud for the 
living will exceed in value one thousand rose buds 
for the dead! I am an advocate of more express- 
ions of love and esteem for the living and not any 
less for the dead. 
“There is one and one-fourth more money e.x- 
pended annually for funerals in the United States 
than the government expends for public schools. 
We are slaves to the tyrant of custom. There is 
much need of reform and of the establishment of a 
proper public sentiment in the matter of reducing 
the expenses of burial. Cremation presents the 
most feasible measure for remedying the evils of 
costly funerals. 
“I consider it an evil to expose our dead in the 
churches for public gaze. Some are found in all 
the throngs that gaze upon the dead in public assem- 
blies who would not have dared to look the person, 
while living, in the face. Another evil is that of 
burying our dead on the Sabbath. This is an open 
violation of the fourth commandment, and also a 
violation of one of the rules of discipline of the 
Methodist Episcopal church. 
“I utter my protest against burying the dead on 
the Sabbath in behalf of the carriage-horses that 
need rest; in behalf of the drivers who should have 
one day in the week to themselves; in behalf of the 
grave-diggers; in behalf of the undertaker; in be- 
half of the ministers.” 
Title to Cemetery Lot Acquired by Adverse Possession. 
The title to a cemetery lot or other' land which 
can be acquired by merely using same for burial 
purposes is termed an easement, or right of use. 
Like the fee-simple title to land, an easement, or 
simple right of use, whether acquired by deed or by 
possession, may be lost by entry and continuous 
adverse possession for the statutory period by even 
a wrong-doer, and his title so acquired cannot be 
defeated by the owner of the soil, but will by de- 
scent pass to heirs at law. The question arises 
what is the nature and extent of the adverse posses- 
sion required in order to ultimately ripen into a 
title to an easement of a burial lot? It seems to us, 
say the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, in Hook v. 
Joyce (22 Southwestern Reporter 65 i ), burial of 
the dead body is the only possession, where claimed 
and known, necessary to ultimately create complete 
ownership of the easement, so as to render it in- 
heritable. And as long as it is inclosed as a burial 
place, or even without inclosure, as long as grave- 
stones stand marking the place as burial ground, 
the possession is, from the nature'*of the case, nec- 
essarily, and therefore in legal contemplation actual, 
adverse and notorious. Moreover, there cannot be 
an actual ouster of possession by an intruder, or 
running of the statute of limitations in his favor 
while such gravestones stand there, indicating by 
inscription the previous burial of another. And 
non-residence does not divest an heir at law of such 
easement; the gravestones of his parents being, as 
long as they stand, conclusive of his claim of owner- 
ship as well as right of entry. The case decided 
was in the nature of an action of ejectment brought 
by an heir to recover of a purchaser from the city of 
Paducah of a cemetery lot in which his parents and 
brother were buried. Nothwistanding that the city 
of Paducah purchased a tract of land, including the 
lot in question, and laid it out for burial purposes 
in 1847, and sold the lot in 1881 to the person 
against whom the action was brought, from the fact 
that it had been held adversely to all the world 
against all persons for fifteen years, the statutory 
time in that state to acquire title by prescription. 
For the reasons above given he was held to have 
acquired the easement claimed, and was given dam- 
ages for the removal of tombstones and desecration 
of the graves of his ancestors which, however, did 
not exceed $100. 
The Superintendents’ Convention. 
There is every prospect for a large and interest- 
ing gathering of cemetery officials at Minneapolis 
on the occasion of the seventh annual convention of 
the Association of American Cemetery Superin- 
tendents. An excellent program has been prepared 
and has already appeared in these columns, aside 
from the profitable discussion of the many papers 
that it contains and questions that have been sent 
in, much interest will center in the visits to Lake- 
wood, Oakland and the parks of Minneapolis and 
St. Paul and their subsequent discussion by John 
G. Barker and Timothy McCarthy. These gentle- 
men are superintendents of two of the finest ceme- 
teries in New Engdand, being in charge, respect- 
ively, of Forest Hills at Boston, and Swan Point at 
Providence, and eminently qualified to discuss from 
an artistic point of view the creations of their 
brethren in the Northwest. A pleasant and profit- 
able time may be anticipated and it is hoped that 
the membership of the association will be ma- 
terially increased from the cemeteries of Minnesota, 
Wisconsin and Iowa. 
