PARK AND CEMETERY 
461 
enables all to come to an understanding upon the best 
ways to meet the ordinary difficulties that arise, or un- 
expected emergencies, or to arrange for the co-opera- 
tion of all hands if necessary, and without the delays 
or waste of time that surely occurs under ordinary 
circumstances, and Lakeview being a large cemetery 
these advantages can be realized. 
The system of accounting permits the division men, 
or in fact any employee, if he choose, to become ac- 
quainted with the exact cost of everything about the 
cemetery, and the expense for any particular spot. 
Every man is led to become personally interested in not 
only his own special work, but in the whole cemetery, 
and it has been observed as the system developed into 
completeness that an inspiration seemed to possess 
the men to exert themselves to the best of their ability 
in all their occupations. 
On pay-day, once a month, all the employees assemble 
for consultation and conference, at which time all com- 
plaints are considered and fines assessed by the advi- 
sory committee. The slightest infraction of the rules 
laid down is subject to a fine, and every man from Mr. 
Green himself and his office assistants, to the young- 
est helper on the grounds, is liable. This mild correct- 
ive is nevertheless stimulating, for no man cares to be 
called down before his fellows, and yet the regulations 
having been adopted by the whole company, no dis- 
affection results. 
The little blue book of employees rules covers all 
the outside work of the cemetery and it opens with ex- 
cellent advice and suggestions : “Do your work as 
well as you can and be kind, also cheerful. Do not 
waste a second thinking about your enemies or trying 
to get even ; no one here has time to bother about 
hating you. Remember that no one can hurt you but 
yourself”. 
“These rules are adopted by the employees of Lake 
View Cemetery Association for the mutual benefit of 
all concerned. They do not aim to oppress any man, 
on the contrary their object is to help each man to be 
his own boss.” 
“Every employee pays for superintendence and in- 
spection. Some pay more and some less. That is to 
say, a dollar a day man would receive two dollars a 
day were it not for the fact that some one has to think 
for him, look after him, and supply the will that holds 
him to his task. The result is that he contributes to the 
support of those who superintend him. Make no mis- 
take about this ; incompetence and disinclination re- 
quire supervision, and they pay for it and no one else 
does. The less you require looking after, the more 
able you are to stand alone and complete your task, 
the greater your reward. The law of wages is sure 
and exact. =(= * * p)o your work so well it will re- 
quire no supervision ; and by doing your own thinking 
you will save the expense of hiring some one to think 
for you.” 
Most excellent results have so far attended this co- 
operation plan of labor management in a large ceme- 
tery. 
Eeg'al Rig'll ts in tlie Remains of tlie Dead. 
(Continued.) 
“WH.'tT Are the Relative Rights of Members of the Fam- 
ily OF A Dead Person and Others Interested, as 
Among Themselves 
"In the opinion of the writer as above stated, the direc- 
tions of the decedent in a will or other appropriate writing 
are of binding force and elfect. This third question, there- 
fore, arises where the deceased has expressed no opinion 
upon the whole matter, and when the family differ among 
themselves. In such cases there are no absolute rights. 
There are, however, definite rules of precedence which may, 
and which practically always do, govern the matter ; but, in 
the last resort, the courts may give weight to special circum- 
stances and establish a rule of fitness and decency in the 
particular case which does not precisely conform to these 
rules of precedence. 
“In Massachusetts the court decided in the case of Burney 
V. Children’s Hospital, that the father of a deceased minor 
child may maintain an action for damages for mutilating the 
child’s body by an unauthorized autopsy. The grounds of 
the decision were that in the Massachusetts decisions ‘a right 
of possession’ (of a dead body) ‘is recognized, which is 
vested’ (primarily) ‘in the husband or wife or next of kin, 
and not in the executors.’ The court then held that the 
father, as the natural guardian of the child, was entitled to 
the possession of its body for burial in the condition in 
which it was at time of death, and, therefore, was entitled 
to sue for mutilation of it. 
“From the opinion in this and other cases it may be laid 
down as the general rule of law in this country that, in the 
absence of special circumstances of unfitness and in the ab- 
scence of expressed wishes of the deceased : 
“i. The husband has the right to control the disposition 
of the wife’s body. 
“2. The wife has the same right as to her husband’s body. 
“3. If there is no surviving husband or wife, the living 
children have the right, as they naturally come ne.xt. 
“4. Next would come probably the living grandchildren. 
“5. If there were no children or other descendants, then 
first the father ; second, the mother, as she is the natural 
guardian after the father. (A court might regard the father 
and mother as having equal rights, especially if the deceased 
child was of age.) 
“6. After them, the living brothers and sisters, and so on 
through the living next of kin. 
“7- That the rights of- these persons interested will be 
protected by a court of equity. 
“8. That the estate is liable for the reasonable expenses 
of disposing of the body. 
“9. That, in the absence of directions from those en- 
