The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-11-17


usual term applied to corpse selected for the
anatomist's scalpel is "subject" With a
sensitive lad, the horror of the thing Is slid
under one of the most comprehensive and in
definite words Of the language. In his testl-
mony on the Alexander trial, Prof. Sanford,
of Yale, spoke Of body purchased for pur-
poses of dissection as "anatOmical material
The World goes on to say that this expression
is more pretentious than skillful; the word
"anatomical' has O. suspicious suggestive
ness Of the dissecting-room. "The velvety-
tongued gentleman used O. much nicer
phrase when he called the things such
as Mrs. Alexander brought to him In
barrel preparations" When the body
snatcher robs grave or the burker chokes
D victim. he only helps to prepare "anatom-
ical material for dissection and when red
infusion is sent through the SUBJECTS
veins 1t becomes preparation"
We have made this reference to the Worlds
article simply for the purpose Of presenting
another legal question. I'VE hope our read
ers will not suspect us of trifling with Sc
rious matter.) We have shown, on the au-
thority of Blackstone, that the stealing
of O. body from the grave is not
larceny, under the law, because there can be
no property In q human body in q grave.
But may not property interest be created2
For example, should q physician send on to
New York and purchase an articulated skele-
ton, which is part of q human body, does
he not acquire property interest tn 1t? He
certainly does, and the man who steals the
skeleton Is guilty Of larceny under the law.
Why should not this rule apply to the entire
human body?
The law. with reference to the ownership Of
animals ferG nature, is familiar to every
lawyer. Wild animals belong to nobody. II
they are captured and kept alive, a mere con-
ditional ownership is acquired. II they are
killed In the chase they belong to the slayer
A bird In the bush is common property and
free as the air; but q bird in the hand is the
property OF him who holds 1t. TO capture
the one Is legitimate; to take the other Is
larceny. Is Il corpse ferte nature? To steal 8
body from q grave is not larceny; but after 1t
is stolen and sold to an anatomist as q Sub
ject," and has become q preparation
and anatomical material" has it not
become property" in the strict legal sense?
| Can anybody-husband, wife, child, or
parent-who never had q property interest in
the deceased relative, recover possession OF
the body by legal process? Will it not be lar
ceny to steal It, just as it would be to steal o
| skeleton?
These are certainly very curious questions,
and they present q deficiency in Louisiana
law which ought to be remedied out OF
abundant caution. What is the remedy?
| We have pursued this question at such
length that we cannot dwell long upon this
point. It can be stated, however, In very
few words. The incentive to these crimes, ex-
cept In the Stewart case, which Is phenome-
nal, is the price paid for bodies by the medical
fraternity. The business Of supplying sub
jects for anatomical purposes must be lucra-
tive, or such desperate chances would not be
taken by the resurrectionists The only
way to stop the evil is to strike at
the roots of it. In 1923 the crimes of
Burke and Harr presented the same
question to the British Parliament, and 1t
passed an act in 1880 to meet it. It was Or
dained that no person should practice anat-
omy without license; inspectors were ap-
| pointed to examine every anatomical room
and it was required of all licentiates to furnish
lists of subjects. The statute drew the lines
| tight around the doctors, and the body.
snatchers soon disappeared. Besides such q
statute as this, it should be made high crime
and misdemeanor to rob Or desecrate grave
for any purpose whatever. Then the "rest
of the grave might become something more
than q metaphor.
| - ~