Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1894-05-25
Judge Agnew on the Conhscation OF
Grave Yards.
(Communicated.)

| Mr. EDIToR:-The following Is the oplA-
| ion of Ex-Chief Justice Hon. Daniel Agnew
as to the policy of confiscating graveyards.
All who have q knowledge OF the Judges
| character and attainments will read MS
views with interest They are worthy OF
| a careful study at this time by our people.
| In the case of Craig VS. The First Presbyte-
rian Church, where the congregation ask
| ed leave to remove the dead from their
! old burying ground, the Judge says:
"In nv Judgment it offends against
| natural feeling and constitutional law
| grant the right of the State, in the exer-
| else of her police power to regulate grave
wards for the public good, and to remove
| decaving remains for the preservation OF
| the health of the citizens. l grant her
right of removal, by way of eminent de-
main, where q great public interest re-
quires it, but on compensation OF those
who have acquired right of sepulture by
| contract, vet even in this respect, the state
| has shown her sense of propriety and right
| in the General Railroad Law OF lo49, Sec
| 10. by excepting burial places from the
| powers of company to appropriate lano 5;
| but deny the right of removal for lndlvld-
| al or private interest whether 1t be 1or
| building a lecture-room for church con-
| gregation or a sabbath school room. Its
| purpose is to save money by taking ground
| appropriated for the dead. A rellglous
congregation is private body, ami Its IN
| terests are individual, not public. Tnus
| to coin money out OF the bones ol tne
dead. is to violate a purchasers right of
| sepulture, contrary to the instincts OF the
| race and the keenest sensibilities of the
| heart.
Among all the tribes and nations, saw
age and civilized, the resting places OF the
| dead are sacred There, memory loves TO
| linger and plant the choicest flowers; there
| the sorrowing heart reviews the past, re-
| kindles into life the viewless forms of the
dead, reyives the scenes where once they
moved, and recalls the happy hours OF love
and friendship. There parent and child,
husband and wife, relatives and frlends,
| with broken spirits and crushed hopes, re-
visit often the spot where they deposiIeu
| their dead. Who does not feel the foun-
tains of his heart broken up and the warm
gushings of emotion, when standing over
| the green sod which covers the departed.
| Wherever the single stone is placed, or
| the marble monument is erected, ,spontane
GUS thought inscIibes upon 1t Sacred 10
the memory
This sacredness is evidenced by one of
the most touching incidents of scripture,
when Abraham standing by the dead body
| of Sarah addressed the sons of Heth, say
ing. 4 am q stranger and sojonrner with
| you, give me a possession OF buryln
place with you, that l may bury my dead
out of my sight They offered him
choice out of their sepulchers, but Abra-
ham, intent upon possession OF his own,
where the remains of her he had loved
might repose in security, purchased the
field of Macpela of Ephron, the Hitite, for
four hundred sheckles of silver. Even
more touching is the reference to Jacob,
who, dying in Egypt, surrounded by his
children, charged them and said unto
them, Il am to be gathered unto my poo
ple: bury me with my fathers in the cave
that is in the field of Macpelah.' There
thew buried Abraham aud Sarah, his wife,
there they buried Isaac and Rebecca, his
wife. and there buried Leah Tradition
has preserved to this day, the identity
of the cave and the tombs of these ancient
worthless, undisturbed even by TIE Moslem,
4 whose mosque covers ana protects tnell
resting places.
The man who violates the homes of the
} dead, who erases the tablets by which at
fection records their lonely dwelling, Ii
lost to natural feeling and does an act
which excites mankind to rage. The law
! seizes hold of him for condign punishment,
} Act 81 March, 1860, Sec. Al. At common
} law it was msdemeanor and indictablt
as an offense, 'aighly indecent and contra
bonus mores,' King VS. Linn, Lerm 733
Commonwealth VS. Cooley. 10 Pick 81. The
law enacts no new standard, but follows
only the natural impulses of the race
Even now this common instinct is swell
ing in united chorus from the Atlantic to
the Pacific, in the voice of the press, ovel
the robbery of the grave of Stewart. Bal
few short months ago it thundered Ovel
the desecrated tomb of Harrison. And
are we now to say that the descration q
scores of graves to save money to con
gregation is according to lawf
In my Judgment it is equally against the
constitutional inviolability of contracts.
Can a private association. corporate or an
incorporate, sell right of sepulture to-
day, aud tomorrow or next year take the
| ground for lecture or school roomY 1t i
| immaterial whether grant OF sepulture
confers al estate or privilege; 1t Is pur-
| chased right founded in contract, which
| no law can violate, except for public ne
cessity. They who advocate this violation
| of nature and of the sanctity of contracts,
| by calling it mere privilege. assert It's
| application to green graves as well as moss
| covered tablets This is the necessary and
| logical result of their argument, for power
| stops not even when the mourners aro
| bending over the freshly filled grave. The
power to do 1t to-day, is the same power
which must do it to morrow or years hence.
Let it be privilege, and this is the entire
scope of the argument founded on Kin
| cade's Case, 16 p. f. Smith 4l2, yet 1t Is Il
right also paid for by the legal IepreSen-
tatives of the deceased. What law can take
| it away for private purposef
1t has no analogy to append and cannot
fall with the building. Its occupancy is
permanent, not like that Of pew. periodi-
cal and temporary. II the building tall,
| is burned, destroyed or rebuilt the pew
right fails with it. But the purchased
grave has no such necessary and intrinsic
weakness of title There the body is laid
away, according to the rights of christian
burial, and in the acts OF christian faith, tn
await the resurrection morn when its dust,
terminated by the Creators call, shall rise
to meet the Lord. Then why should a
christian congregation violate instinct and
| law, on the ground of privilegef Poverty
| is the plea, but such a plea would better
defend larceny of bread to feed famished
children. But can poverty sanctify this
disturbance of the bones of the dead The
principles stated in Kincade's Case go the
length of my conclusions. The opinion
there states that owing to its neglected
condition, the grave yard was rapidly be-
coming a nuisance" TO the neighborhoo1
1t is also admitted that if congregation
from mere motives of convenience or orna
ment, resolve to pull down the old and
erect new chnrch edifice, in such case
| the pew holder is entitled to compensation.
| In Kincade's Case, the law provided that
| the proceeds of the sale should first pay
the expenses of removal including the cost
of new lots, and in the second should COM
pensate lot-holders before any division of
| the funds.
1t is said also in the opinion: "But when
| it is an act of necessity required by the
| condition of the building or other impera-
| tive exigency, he (the pew-holder) has no
| claim whatever to compensation" For
this many cases are cited. But what ne
cessity or exigency exists in this case3
None whatever. The purpose is to raise
money, to raise money to build lecture
and Sunday school room, mere improve
ment the congregation ought to pay for
itself. 1t has no analogy whatever to the
case OF a pew-holder, whose privilege
fails by the destruction of the building of
which it is part. This is contract priv
ilege not depending on building. Ii
buy the privilege of running water. or
| right Of way, or right to open any win
dows over my neighbors yard, what law
| justifies its violationf 1t is right secur-
ed by contract, which the constitution pro-
tects; here right made sacred by the in
stincts of nature which precede constitu-
tions, and implant upon them the highest
| obligations of mankind to each other"
France was all upset Tuesday. It's gov
ernmAt was defeated in the Chamber OF
Deputies. that day by the Socialists, its
| Minister resigned and President Carnot