PARK AND CEMETERY. 
66 
solicitude at last aproaches- the cemetery very often 
with feelings of anxiety and frequently leaves it in 
deep disgust. 
How much better for both the cemetery and him- 
self when he can be met by a gentlemanly superin- 
tendent and respectable uniformed pall-bearers 
who bear the casket and lay it reverently upon the 
Floral Mantle. The mechanism is started, and 
while the minister pronounces the services for the 
dead, the casket gradually dissolves from view and 
the device closes with its floral mantle surrounded 
by the flowers contributed by sorrowing friends. 
The repulsiveness of the qpen grave is supple- 
mented by a touch of tenderness and beauty, and 
the last remembrance is softened by suitable 
emblems of immortality. J. J. De Haven. 
THE FLORAL M.A NTLE WITH C.\SKET READY TO LOWER. 
Btirial of Animal Pets in Cemeteries. 
After a controversy of several years’ duration 
County Judge A. S. Swartz has rendered a decision, 
denying the right of anyone in Pennsylvania to inter 
domestic animals in cemeteries set apart for human 
beings. A Mr. Charles E. Bean buried a pet dog in 
his family lot in the graveyard attached to St. Peter’s 
Evangelical Church, North Wales, Pa., and later re- 
moved its body at the request of the church council, 
but erected a tablet in its memory over the spot where 
it had been buried. An injunction was sought to re- 
move this stone and the judge’s decision, which is 
printed more fully below gave the church officials 
the power to order its removal. Many people, who 
have a kindly respect for animal pets, will differ with 
Judge Swartz in his straining after sentimental rea- 
sons for his decision, for his opinion is practically 
founded on sentiment, and while there may be reason- 
able objections to permitting the burial of animals in 
our cemeteries, reasons are not so valid in our opinion 
with regard to the permission for tablets in memory of 
faithful animal service and affection. One may do a 
great deal of thinking on this question, and thought 
out even crudely, objections lose much of their force. 
However, a judge deserves sympathy when he is called 
upon to render a decision on sentimental grounds ; he 
is decidedly out of his element, notwithstanding that 
sentiment may be said, perhaps, to be as old as the 
hills, it would be well for all cemetery organizations 
to include in their rules and regulations stipulations 
on this question. 
The decision is as follows: 
“This cemetery belongs to the church and was set apart as 
sacred ground for Christian burial. One by one the church 
members and others to whom the privilege of burial was ex- 
tended found a resting place for their bodies. .Common senti- 
ment in every community regards the resting place of the dead 
a sacred spot. It is God’s acre. 
“The grave of a domestic animal or the stone tablet that 
commenorates its death and burial seems to us so out of 
place, when it stands in a cemetery, side by side with the 
memorials to our departed loved ones, that it must be revolt- 
ing to our better feelings. True, it may not offend the persons 
whose affections were won by the animal, but a man has no 
right to offend others by invading the sacred grounds of a 
cemetery where his friends and neighbors have rights that 
must be respected. 
“Whether, therefore, we consider the language in the cer- 
tificate or the recognized uses of a cemetery and the sanctity 
of the ground set apart for a graveyard, we are of opinion 
that it was wrong to bury the dog in the defendant’s lot or to 
erect a tablet to its memory. 
“If the defendant may bury his dog in the lot then the 
same right can be invoked to bury all his domestic animals in 
the cemetery. If the council allowed such use of their cem- 
etery it would soon be known as an abandoned burial ground. 
People have not reached that stage when they are so indiffer- 
ent to the resting place of their dead that they will deposit 
their bodies in a graveyard that is common to man and beast. 
“A man may not know his companions in the tomb, but it 
is some consolation, while in life, to know that he will not be 
laid beside a dog or that his tablet will not be overshadowed 
by the memorial erected to his neighbor’s domestic animal. 
“We can see very little distinction between the right to 
bury the dog and the right to erect a tablet to the memory of 
the dog. In this case the dog was buried ; his grave is still 
marked by the tablet, although the body of the dog was 
removed. 
“The tablet is the object that calls attention to the burial. 
If the dog were in the ground without a marker a few years 
would obliterate all evidence of the fact and all would be 
forgotten, but the tablet is a continual reminder that dogs as 
well as men and women may have tablets erected in this ceme- 
tery to their memory. 
“If there is no right to bury the dog in the lot we do not 
see how. there. can be any right to place a tablet for the dog. 
Each right must rest upon the same basis for its authority.’’ 
