Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-06-01
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE.


The People Opposed to Lawn Cemeteries
To the Editors Of the Appeal
President Lenow, in his reply TO the AP-
PEAL's article on despailing the graves in
Elmwood, says this matter of leveling
graves has been in contemplation for years.
II this is true, why did they not give timely
notice TO the public that this thing was to be
done, and give those who oppose grave q .se-
~cration an opportunity of removing their
dead? This indecent haste and secret man.
ner of carrying out the work is proof that
the management knew that our people would
oppose any dissertation of graves in Elm
wood-for desecration it is, no matter what
President Lenow may say. If President
Lenow and the trustees are sincere in what
they say, and care to convince the people of
that sincerity, let them practice what they
preach. Let them commence the leveling
process with the graves ofstheir own dead.
Desecrate the graves of their own loved
ones first, and they may convince the
community that they are sincere, how
ever much they may abhor the act.
II they have power TO obliterate single graves
they surely have power TO etiace all signs of
a grave on any lot. The single grave is paid
for at a higher rate than what the lot-owner
pays, and it is in every sense as much private
property as a lot with costly and beautiful
monument May not this leveling process
be aimed at single lot-owners because they
are generally persons of small means, and
are consequently easier to get away with in
the courts than the wealthy lot-owner? Or is
Elmwood to be held hereafter as an exclu-
sive lawn burial park for wealthy lot-owners,
with elegant drives, and must the poorer
classes seek elsewhere for a more modest
place for their dead? The past few decades
have brought many new ideas TO our people,
but this resolution of the management Of
Elmwood is a novelty in that line that viii
shock the sensibilities, of our people into
expression of sentiment and action that will
have but little regard for the "unblemished
character and universal esteem and good will
the people of this commudity" have hereto
fore entertained for the president of Elm
wood. He will find that he has made
serious mistake, sand that Will our people
will readily acquiesce in some new ideas,
that it will take generations to educate"
them up to that point where they will look
upon the desecration of the graves of their
dead with approval. This is crowdipg
new ideas upon us too fast; we can't digest
them. Perhaps in dozen generations more
if we grow and improve in this direction, and
body-snatching becomes one of the fine arts,
we might learn to look upon the '1awn"
business with less of disgust A graveyard
without mounds is simply no graveyard at
all. We go there to hold silent commune
with our loved ones who have gone before
US; the mound is suggestive OF all that is
sacred and holy about us; there is nothing
unsightly or hideous about it; it is no "eye-
sore" except to those who deal arbitrarily
with our dead, and yet it is proposed to turn
this sacred place into a lawn, with elegant
driver, where the speed of our trotters can be
tested, perhaps, and where all the holier
thoughts that naturally come to one when in
so sacred place may be entirely obliterated
What sacrilege! May such thought foie
ever perish, and the originators of such
move be consigned to oblivion w