New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-04-17
TIE RIGHT To A GRAVE.

orro~iIipN 10 HE REMOVAL or BODIES n A
HEBREW CEMrugY
The case of William VI. Blume and Others
,.,nst the Hebrew Congregation Beth FL came ycser-
dry before Judge Brrrett. supreme Court Chambers,
on motion 10 make temporary injunction against the
removal OF the dead bodies in the cemeteries formerly
belonging 20 the Congrpgation Anch Chesed permanent
william NJ Buae, SAMSON Bossman, and George Hey
mar the plaintiffs. in their complaint that they
were members OF the Congregation Anch Chesed formed
in 1928 that that purchased two buryng-
roundsone sixThave., Forty th-st the other
ON Eirhtyniuth-st; that il them the bodies Of their
friends and relatives have been buried and are now not
.eparae IN many cases from the earth which surrounds
them that those cemeteries dedicated by ceremO
mes prescribed by rules which are dear To theih
"a orthodox Hebrews. and thai TO them as al
hcriug 10 the old beliefs di>inteTnent seems
wrong They further state that more recently the
Congregation Adath JeshurIn was formed. leaning to
the doctrines known ar reformed Judaism. That the
trustees OF the two congregations undertook to anal
camae them into one known the Congregation Bcth
FL ami a majority of tine two congregations aSsen'ed
,ut that the plaintiffs and large minority objected
that now the new congregation l. proposing TO sell their
Old burying grounds, and to remove the remains to
new cemetery known AZ Union Field removal which
plaintiffs claim IS prompted by mercenary motives, and
viii be contrary the religions feelings OF themselves
defendants the new Congregation Beth Eli dehy
that the plaintiffs were, al the Jlhe OF the
any religious doctrine among TIE Jews which Is prORSrH
ft foundation of a feeling against relnterment Ine
Az that the present cemeteries are the common uepost
~ garbaue and offensive matter; tha inc careIu to
,va hey prOpOse will protect all feelings which should
l.e resperd They furthcT that the cOnsolatlon
az the Two congregations made with tht assent OF
nearly II not quite al the members OF the congregation;
80 he nrnnos4d removal desired by the great ma
1ority and that the money arising from the saS OF ne
odd cemeteries would be applied 10 the cnarltaDie P
pse- OF the CORPORATION. They further set UP tnt he
in 1874 passed act con solidatl1g the Two
congregations and ratyDg the acts OF he trustees iooA
ing to such consolidation. -, ,.,.,er
on the argument yesterday counseI for the pdiHtIns
admitted mat neither any departure from the religious
fifh on which cation was at nrst founded nor
v property the soil IN which tey were buried, OF
even In the bones of their relatives furnished tne pam
fs snv standing in the courts. IL merely nlrnlsned an
~ for insistin harsh legal riEhs. Tue trustees
OF the old CORPORATION were merely trustees OF TINS pV
erty for .pecc purposes They might have dealt with
e propery for tie purposes OF that trust They could
not DESTROY the the corporation formed 10
administer IT, without the consent OF every member OF
ne con CATION who the position OF ees'n que
Zach member had veto Oh such a ransactlOn
IJ-re The assentents only 80, the opponents 40
H. ,usised that he act OF the legislature Was yOld IL
ndant, counsel claimed that meeting was called "
conaer the subject OF the consolidation ana every me
~, ~ the con gre given notice 10 attend IT,
sre motiou Tor consolidation was carried Dy large
Inaiortty and few who al first dssented Withdrew
their opposition, ar be understood. .-. - A..
Judge Barrett said that wac most Important mater
and should be put in positive shape Counsel said they
,pnud do 30 and further argued that the corporation
.n created by Jaw, the act Of the Legislature was ph
isa 4, an er,ted 10 violate clear right OF prop
- ana the piaintifs admitted that this had not Deen
done The Court reserved lie decision.