The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1899-07-27
IT IS THE WIFH'S RIGHT
Her Husbands Body to Be Buried
Where She Directs.
A Decision by Attorney DuvaIl on n
Question Raised by Census Direc-
init TO Remove His Brothers. Re-
mnins-A Dispute in the Family.


the disinterment of bodies and their re-
moval 10 other cities, yesterday formed the
subject OF an interesting and important
opinion from Andrew B. Duvall, the At
tornsy for the District, TO the District Com
missicners. The question involved the
rights of widows in the disposition of the
bodies of their deceased husbands. and the
opinion takes a firm stand in favor CT
the rights of the former.
The question grew out of the application
which was recently made of the Health Of
fcer by former Gov. William R. Mer-
RAM. the present Director of the Census,
and Robert H. Merriam, for permit to
disinter and remove TO ST. Paul. Mimi, the
body of their brother John W. Merriam,
now buried in Glenwood Cemetery.
The latter was employed in one of the
Government departments and died intes-
tate here June % last, leaving widow
and two brothers. The application for re-
moval was made by the latter on the
ground that they are the nearest relatives
of the deceased. The widow has gone to
ST. Paul, Mimi, for the purpose of taking
out letters of administration on his estate.
Before leaving the city she made an oral
request that no permit be issued for the
removal of the remains of her husband
without her consent. In view of the cir
cumstances surrounding the case the Health
Officer requested that the Attorney for the
District render an opinion advising what
would be legally just and proper in the
matter of granting the application of the
brothers.
In the opinion which the Attorney rem
dered he recommends that the application
of the brothers be denied in view OF the
request made by the widow to have the re-
mains of her husband held here until her
return from ST. Paul. The act of January
%. 1898, for the regulation of cemeteries
and the disposal of dead bodies in the Dis
trict provides that no permit shall be is
sued for the removal of any body unless
applied for in writing by the nearest rel
alive or legal representative of the deceas-
ed. Attorney 'Duvail holds the widow is
the nearest relative and bases his recon-
mendation for a rejection of the applica-
ton of the two brothers upon this construc-
ticn of the law. Attorney Duyail holds
that the term legal representative is
technical. and means executor or admins
traitor" He defines the terms relative
and relation" as meaning a person con-
nected with another by consanguinity or
affinity. In its strict legal and technical
sense it does not the Attorney says, in
clude husband and wife. On the other
hand. he holds that the term nearest rel
alive" as used in the act of Congress, is
neither legal nor technical, and for this
reason he CONSTITUTES the term according 10
its commonly accepted definition which
would include relatives by consanguinity or
affinity.
1T seems TO be almost unchallenged
law" continues Attorney Duvall's opin-
ion, that the husband has the right TO Sc
lect the place of burial for his wife This
being so where there have been no dis
cordant relations says the court of Rhode
Island in the Haekett case, why should
not the widow have the same right with
reference to his remains? A woman is
naturally quite as sensitive in such a mat
ter as a man. II would be quite as great
shock 10 her to have the body buried
against her wishes as it would to the man.
Hers is relationship closer than that of
kindred, for it is the teaching of the
Holy Scripture: "A man shall leave father
and mother and shall cleave 10 his wife
and the twain shall be one flesh The
chances of complications by marriage are
no greater in her case than in that of a
man and the reasons which give the right
to the husband are equally applicable to
her It would be shock to the sensibiIi-
ties of humanity to say that the reasonable
wishes of wife in regard TO the burial
OF her husband should not be entitled to a
paramount respect, when such a right
would be accorded to him. In no case is it
an absolute right, but as the court has al
ready said, sacred trust for the benefit of
all who may, from family or friendship
have an interest in it." which should he
properly administered; and, as we now
say primarily administered by the wife.
due regard being had 10 the circumstances
in the case
Furthermore 1t appears that the widow
is about taking out letters of administers
ton on the estate of her deceased hus-
band, and has made an oral request that
no permit should be issued for the removal
OF the remains without her consent-thus
plainly indicating a purpose on her part
to apply for permit to remove the re
mains after she has become the legal
representative of her deceasd husband. i"
The Commissioners, 1t is understood,
will approve the opinion of the Attorney.