PARK AND CEA\ETERY. 
'^O 
center of the lot, the four sides facing the four cor- 
ners, and each inscribed with the name of one of 
the brothers. The corner space opposite the name 
was set apart as a burial place for that family. The 
father and mother were buried at the two opposite 
corners of the monument, thus placing them parly 
in each of the four divisions. The arrangement, it was 
held, did not make an oral partition of the lot; did 
not affect the title or uses for which the lot was pur- 
chased and dedicated, but the title still remained 
in the lour brothers as the joint owners of the en- 
tire lot. Now while the owner of a burial lot may 
doubtless permit the interment of any relative, or 
even a stranger, in his lot, in the case of two or 
more joint owners, no one has that right, but it re- 
quires the consent of all. Consequently, in this 
case one of the brothers, or his widow, had no right 
to authorize the interment in that brother’s portion 
of the common lot of any person not a member of 
his family, without the consent of the other joint 
owners. Still burials by such widow of her mother 
and her sister would, after eighteen or more years, 
it was held, be inferred to have been consented to, 
and no objection would be permitted to be raised. 
A recent purchaser by quit-claim from the widow 
and heirs of one of the brothers was enjoined from 
future interments in the lot, or erecting any tomb- 
stone or otherwise interfering with the lot, without 
the consent of the other joint owners, and was re- 
quired to remove bodies but a few years since in- 
terred, and all tombstones erected by such purchas- 
er. The defacement of a monument by simply cut- 
ting off the raised letters on one side thereof by the 
purchaser of such an interest as that last mention- 
ed, it was said was hardly such a defacement as re- 
quired a new monument. 
Early riourning Customs in New England. 
In a paper on “Customs of Mourning,” recent- 
ly read by Mrs. C. E. Bigelow, before a Woman’s 
Club, she gave the following on the customs in 
vogue in early times in our own New England: 
“In Hartford and neighboring towns all orna- 
ments, mirrors, and pictures were muffled. Win- 
dow shutteis were closed in front and kept tied with 
black for a year. Gloves were sent as an approved 
form of invitation to a General. In 1736 at the 
funeral of Gov. Bilcher’s wife more than 1,000 pairs 
of gloves were thus given away. And at the funer- 
al of Andrew Fanieul more than 3,000 pairs. The 
Rev. Mr. Elliott of the North Church in Boston 
kept a record of gloves he thus received, and in 
thirty-two years he was given 2,940 pairs. In 
these later years and in this practical generation, 
people do not look to others to find their belief or 
hope, or even an expression of their sorrow in the 
shade or shape of their garments. The bonds of 
custom are strong, but they are not too strong for 
common sense and conscience to break asunder. 
And if all had independence of thought and action, 
no fashion could be ever dictatorial. And when 
we can have more inspiring examples of those who 
have the moral courage to stem the tide of foolish 
custom, we can hope the day is not far distant 
when enlightened common sense shall rule in these 
matters. 
In this matter of Funeral Reform, the Rev. E. 
M. Milligan, of Steubenville, Ohio, in the course 
of a recent sermon said; “Fashion regulates every- 
thing, and there is a tendency at funerals to impose 
a burden on the living poor, merely in deference 
to prevailing customs. 
“Funerals should not be set for the Sabbath 
Day by Christians. It is only done in order to 
have a big turnout, but it is a desecration of God’s 
day. Funeral services should be held in the even- 
ing of a week day at the convenience of friends. 
This will give a chance for private leave taking and 
prevent hysterical scenes at funerals. It will also 
stop the expensive hiring of carriages for people 
who only go to have a carriage ride. Leave these 
people to hire a carriage, and then you will see how 
deep their sympathy is. Emblem.s of' mourning 
should be discouraged. They are not authorized by 
the scriptures.” 
RIETCHEL’S STATUE OF SCHILLER AND GOETHE AT WEIMAR, 
A FACSIMILE OF^WHICH IT IS PROPOSED TO ERECT 
IN golden"* gate park, SAN FRANCISCO. 
