New-York tribune., 1879-08-30
TIE RIGHT or RURIAL.

agitated 10y controversy as 10 Uuii'"' "a"
refusal of the Archbishop to permit the IN
terment, in the Catholic grounds, OF com
rade Of the Grand Army of the Republic, as
desired by the Post of which he was mem
Der. will present almost the precise question
now pending before our courts IN the case
of Dennis COppers. Questions OF buriai
need 10 be conadered in two distinct aspects.
On one side are the necessity and duty
OF making interment somewhere or eaeh
deceased person; and on the other the nsht
and authority. OF owners or managers Oh
particular cemetery grounds TO control burials
within that tract. Considering that Durials
are constantly taking place, it is creditaDie 10
human nature that few controversies are
chronicled. The authorities are almost Silent
upon the general right and duty or I'M
mediate relatives OF deceased person 10
inter the remains; not because the subject Is
not of deep Importance, but because good
sense and kind feeling seem to have almost
always controlled it.
Scarcely nny transaction occurss SO often as
funeral; vet hardly any occasion has arisen
for courts 10 prescribe rules, or even to agree
mon the nature of the right. In old
fashioned law there arc traces of view that
and that the right of heirs to bury them is in
the nature of an inheritance. Wills used TO
run: al give my body to be buried" as II it
was a thing to be bequeathed. And there
was a notion. probably always Incorrect IN
our law-certainly groundless now-that the
cOrpse of an nsolvent person might be taken
in execution for payment of his debts. Inns
property idea never attained very distinct OF
f,Il development in England, because, In early
times, tie ecclesiastical courts took burial rites
into their charge; and the law courts, the proper
guardians of nights of property, have never
had much to say about Interments. In THIS
country ecclesiastical law, rs distinct Ns-
tenn. has been discarded. In some OF the rev
;,atarces in which our courts have had occa-
sion 10 discuss the subject they have regarded
the question as one of property. The true
view, however, probably is that burial Is
public duty, demanded by sanitary necessities
and the common sentiment of humanity. Inc
law casts tins duty upon the nearest reiatlVes
surviving; upon the persons charged WIN
the estate, If such there are II none, theh
upon appropriate public officers. And These
have the right to control the remains, not so
much as an inheritance, as because sucn Il
r;,ht ia necessary to the performance OF the
dutv. There was a case whers city authorities
of INDIANAPOLIS claimed TO interfere with
fathers burial of his child and the court de-
clared that the city might forbid lnterments
within limits indicated by sanitary reasons, but
the fathers right to bury his child in suits-
able place he had rghtfuIly acquired was
paramount to any municipal claim. Ther was
an instance in Rhode Island where widow
IN oil nf hpr
hand. against the objection of daughter,
from the cemetery where he was first buried
to another, and the court said she had no right
to do so. They were not hers to move about;
and the duty of burying them had been per-
formed.
The controversies now pending involve the
other aspect of the questiOn-the rights ana
mowers of custodlans of cemeteries. The friends
of the deceased desire interments in grounds
consecrated to burials according to the Roman
Catholic communion. And the authorities of
tbe Church are understood to refuse, in one
case because the deceased was Free Mason
in the other upon objection to the Grand
Army of the Republic as a secret society.
The two cases resemble the noted Gubord case
in Canada That resulted in decision of the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in
England, requiring the ecclesiastical authorities
of the colony TO waive their objection and
grant the interment desired. This may not
however, afford n precedent for cases in these
States; for tho reason that it arose III English
jurisdiction and was governed by ecclesiasti-
cal law, which does not prevail here. With
us the question must, probably, depend on
the ownership and rules of the cemetery. In
T., L., an i'm
portant territorial division, the view obtained
that resident Of a parish had tho right 10
be laid IN tho parish burying ground. Bat
with respect to cemeteries Of the more mod
ern kind, the charter aud bylaws, the regu-
lations of the proprietors and terms of the
deeds of lots, prevail The title to the land,
not any rules of ecclesiastical law, determines,
subject TO sanitary regulations, who may per-
nit burial in it,
There was a case in Philadelphia, within a
few years past, in which the Mount Moriah
Cemetery Association sold lots without having
prescribed any restriction as to burial of ne
groes. One purchaser was about to bury q
coored person in his lot, when some other lot
owners objected. and the superintendent for
bade it. The lot owner complained to the
court. The judges looked at his deed, and
said that as it gave him tho right of Sepulture
in the lot without respect Of persons, the gov
ernment of the cemetery could not interfere
With respect TO Catholic cemeteries it is prob
able that such deeds have not, in general,
been given if 80 larger control remains
vested in the management.
------------
Nobody, we think, will bo surprised TO learn that
the Oneida Community has formally abandoned
what il calls its system of complex marriage, but
which severe norasts gnate by less compl-