The Newtown bee., 1892-02-26
THE OPEN PARLIAMENT
CONCERNING FUNERALS.

February l2, our critic e. snapped us up rather short on account of a para. graph published under The Bee Buzz the week before.
 Well, now, it is q great thing to have censor. We are ''all poor critturs'' lia- ble to go astray, in our thoughts, espec- tally if we write for the newspapers.
 There is certain sense of comfort in the assurance that some one is watching over you to jerk you up whenever you fall into any error. Yes and there is some sort of compensation in a censor, too; even a Russian censor who blacks out all those sentiments which are not according to the edicts of the imperial authorities thereby calls special atten- tion, marked attention, to what has been said and so one feels that he has been read, at least by the censor.
 We are pleased that our little note on funerals has received so great attention and our only complaint is that s'G" did not give it more and better attention
 He started out with such vigor that we felt that we should catch it now, sure. But To! and behold. as we read, clear down to "G, |" we found nothing of any consequence with which to disagree. And all we could say was, good" Sure enough, and "G'' stands for good.
 Indeed, we never thought of such thing as picking quarrel with a quiet, orderly, family and neighborly funeral. That's just the sort We believe in.
 Neither did we refer at all to the state ly and impressive church funeral at which the communicant, having died in the faith, is followed with prayers and Holy Sacrament into the intermediate state of the dead, witnessing to the com- munion of saints and the hope of the resurrection.
 For all such burals we have profound respect.
 But if ''G" will put on his other specs and try to get the writer's point of view, as all good critics should, we think he may be able to see what we are driving at.
 We did not altogether condemn public
  CT attendance at the same. We referred entirely to certain abuses which were clearly specified in our brief paragraph.
 The writer speaks from an extended and varied experience in different parts of New England and elsewhere. It is possible that our critic has not had much experience and is not, therefore, pre- pared to judge of the 'justice and good taste" of our remarks.
 It is well known to most people that there have been great changes in the customs of funerals within the last D years, even in country places. There are many places in which the people do not ''make great account of public fun erals," except in the cases of prominent public men.
 It is not in the nature of real grief to make a public exhibition of it's mourn ing; neither do ''well bred people, wish to make d spectacle of the bereavement of others.
 Sensitive people shrink from the sym pathetic gaze of neighbors who never enter their houses except that they sal ways go to funerils'' and pay their re- spects to the dead, rather than to the living. Accordingly, many good people have private burials, at the convenience of the family, sit in room by themselves at the funeral service and take their final leave of their dear departed in the sacred privacy of their homes. In some cases, the loving hands of the nearest and dear est prepare the body for the grave.
 Now-a-days, the minister is often re- quested not to make remarks, but to simply read the beautiful service for the dead; and relatives or familiar friends only bear the remains. How very differ ent is all this from what it used to be and still is ''in some places ;'' and there may be room for improvement, still.
 We referred particularly to pro,niscu- ous, habitual and somewhat profession al attendance at funerals. How can peo- pie show any respecG for the dead whom they did not respect while they were living? How can they synlpatllize with the bereaved, when they did not show any consideration for them in their sick ness and distress. Is dead person more interesting and respectable than he was when alive?
 Why is it that these people who never go to church except when there is ser vice for the dead; people who take no stock in the offices of religion, generally speaking; who apparently make few and slight moral and spiritual distinc- tions in the lives of men; why is it they have such an abnormal interest in d corpse and the state of the dead?
 "Is it custom, superstition, idle cur iosity, or what v
 Is it not d pertinent inquiry? If not, why not?
 And if it is not just to condemn that which iS unjust to both living and dead and if it is not ssgood taste to ridicule