439 
PARK AND CEMETERY 
is shown by the opinion in the leading case of Pierce v. 
Swan Point Cemetery, that ‘the right of a person to provide 
by will for the disposition of his body has been generally 
recognized.’ 
“There appear to be few expressions of legal opinion 
which qualify or contradict the general rule and custom. 
•One English judge, in 1882, in the case of Williams v. Will- 
iams, expressed an opinion that a man cannot dispose of his 
body by will because there is no property in a dead body. 
This opinion was not, however, called for by the facts of the 
■case before him, and, as will be shown later, does not pre- 
vent the courts from carrying out the testator’s wishes, even 
in England. 
“This English opinion, although ably criticised in England 
{see 17 Law Journal, above referred to), was quoted with 
approval by the California court in the case of Enos v. Sny- 
der. But these opinions were based largely on an old com- 
mon law maxim that ‘there is no property in a dead body,’ 
the origin, and even the existence, of which have been dis- 
puted. 
“Whatever its origin, the statement that a body is not 
property is neither useful nor helpful in the present discus- 
sion, and the question is merely one of phraseology. It is 
■certain that rights in the bodies of the dead are not property 
in the sense of merchandise. It is equally certain that one 
■cannot draw from the premise that there is no such property 
the conclusion that there are no enforceable rights. Ac- 
■cordingly, in the recent Pennsylvania case of Pettigrew v. 
Pettigrew, the opinions in Williams v. Williams and Enos v. 
Snyder, that a man cannot control the disposition of his 
body, which have just been criticised as obiter, are stated to 
be opposed to the weight of authority in this country. In 
this same Pennsylvania case the court expressed a doubt as 
to how far the desires of the decedent should prevail against 
those of a surviving husband or wife, but it was a doubt 
by a court which fully recognizes and agrees with the gen- 
eral line of argument adopted in this article. 
“Even in England, in spite of Williams v. Williams, the 
present practice of the ecclesiastical courts is to respect the 
wishes of the deceased, for, in 1892, Dr. Tristram, of the 
Consistory Court of London, said : 
■‘‘Where the deceased has himself expressed a wish to be 
buried in that or in any other church yard, the invariable 
practice of the court is by a faculty to give effect to such 
wish.’ And later, in 1894, he shows that they carry out the 
wish of the deceased to be cremated. 
“The matter may be summed up by an apt quotation from 
an opinion of the Supreme Court of Iowa: ‘It always has 
been and will ever continue to be the duty of courts to see 
to it that the expressed wishes of one as to his final resting- 
place shall, so far as it is possible, be carried out.’ 
IT 
“In What Form and Substance Should Instructions Be 
Giton By One Desiring to Control the Disposition 
His Body. 
“i. Such instructions should be contained in the will, in 
order that they may have the benefit of the special sanction 
and force of that instrument. 
“2. As wills are often not opened until after funeral and 
burial have taken place, such instructions should also be made 
known in writing to the person or persons likely to have 
charge of matters immediately after death, such as an imme- 
diate relative, the head of the house in which one lives, or 
an executor named in a will and known to the family to be 
so named. A clearly expressed oral request is probably suf- 
ficient ; but it has neither the sanction nor the freedom from 
mistake and error of directions written and signed. 
(To be continued.) 
RIGHT OF LIFE TENANT TO GRANT BURIAL PERMITS 
IN PRIVATE CEMETERY 
The opinion of the Supreme Court of the District of Co- 
lumbia has handed down an opinion on a case in which the 
owner of a tract of land on which he had conducted a private 
cemetery conveyed the same to trustees for the sole and 
separate use of his wife for life, she to have the rents, issues 
and profits. At her death it was disposed of to others, and 
the trustees were to sell and convey any or the whole of the 
land upon her direction, the proceeds in such case to be held 
so that she should have the income. After his death the 
widow continued the business in his name, granting permits 
to bury and receiving the consideration therefor, and the re- 
maindermen contend that this was in excess of her rights 
and brought suit for an injunction. The court held that the 
wife had the right to grant such permits, her rights with 
respect to the property being analogous to that of a life 
tenant to continue the operation of mines or quarries, even 
though the corpus of the estate is thereby diminished or even 
exhausted, and not being liable to impeachment for waste 
therefor. 
RECEPTACLES FOR ASHES FROM THE CREMATORY. 
The recent cremation of the body of Sir Henry Irving, 
and the disposition of his ashes in Westminster Abbey, near 
the monument of Shakespeare, revives interest in the prob- 
lem of the final disposal of the ashes. Fortunately, perhaps, 
the custom of dispersing them to the winds, of finally remov- 
ing all possible vestiges of the body, does not seem likely to 
extend greatly, — a lingering sentiment, a faint survival of the 
oldest beliefs, as natural as it is difficult to justify logically, 
will always remain to protest against this total abolition. The 
preservation of the inocuous and inoffensive ashes in small 
vases, or caskets, in the household offers various disadvan- 
tages, — partly owing to our more or less migratory habits 
as regards our dwellings, and to the absence of private chapels 
or other suitable apartments to receive them. The question 
of designing appropriate receptacles in the cemeteries, public 
or private, might well be considered in an architectural or 
sculptural competition ; the problem being complicated by the 
probability of future deposits when it is a family enclosure, 
by the necessity of preserving some readiness of access to 
the interior, and by the desirability of maintaining some 
relation between a certain dignified and monumental con- 
struction and the exceeding smallness and instability of the 
deposits. A revival of the ancient columbarium, closed niches 
provided in a wall, has, so far, been the method usually 
adopted abroad, but there are evidently other solutions pos- 
sible. Any division of these deposits, as. in a row of in- 
definitely successive vases along a parapet or terrace, would 
be difficult to combine with any unity of design ; and so would 
any multiplication of sculptured figures each carrying an in- 
dividual casket or vase. The preservation of each deposit in 
its own individual receptacle seems to be demanded; as is 
also an avoidance of any too familiar suggestion, — as of 
safety deposit boxes in a storage warehouse. It would prob- 
ably be possible to design satisfactorily (that is to say, ar- 
tistically, expressing its mission in its lines) a family vault, 
or tomb, a rectangular or circular structure, either complete 
architecturally or serving as a pedestal for the work of the 
sculptor, and provided internally with regularly appointed 
spaces for these deposits, access to which might be obtained 
by a structural door or by one concealed in the moldings. 
* * * 
An arrest was recently made in Greenwood Cemetery, 
Brooklyn, for stealing bronze grave markers from the G. A. R. 
graves; the thefts were carried on systematically for several 
months and about forty markers were stolen. 
