Evening journal., 1916-08-05

money contracted TO De PAID Dy
Bailey, why the cemetery. or a large
portion Of it. should now be dis
mantled. aliened and applied to other
uses.
In Brick Presbyterian Church. 3
Edw. CHI +155, IL was held that where
a religious corporation has acquired
land in fee for the purposes Of a
church and a grave yard, 1t could
grant In fee a portion Of the land for
burial vault. and that the same
could not be sold against the objec-
ton Of the grantee. The point was
raised and sustained that mo sale or
alienation Of the property by which
It is to be converted to secular pur-
poses, can be made, without infring-
ing vested legal rights" The court
distinguished between pew-holders
and vault-owners; recognizing that
the right Of the former would fall
with the destruction or removal of
the church building, but that a con-
veyance in fee Of the land for vault
gave a permanent and substantive
right to the soil.
Lend But Little Support.
After quoting the Brick Church de-
cision and many others the court
says that the defendants in support
OF their contentious have cited a num-
ber of cases decided under or in view
of statutory enactments. UNLESS read
in connection with the statutes" the
court continues, these cases are mis-
leading and embarrassing; but when
/ so read It will be found they lend lit
/ tie, If any, support to the propositions
for which they are cited" Judge
/ Bradford then takes up that question
| One case Of special interest follows;
Craig " First Presbyterian Church,
lSS Po 40. was decided under thN
| Pennsylvania act of April IS, 1877.
/ On a petition by the trustee OF the
church for the removal of the remains
of the dead from a portion Of its
burials grounds, decree was grant,
ed accordingly, the court holding that
the statute authorized such action,
and stating:
l The right Of the legislature to au-
thorize the removal of the remains
OF the dead from cemeteries is well
settled. So II may delegate such
power to municipalities. 1t is po-
lice power necessary to the public
health and comfort"
The constitutonality Of the statute
was assailed. But it is wholly i'm
material so far as present purposes
are concerned whethe~ it was valid
or invalid for the fact remains that
the decree was expressly based upon
the statute. In the course of the
opinion the following significant Ian
, guage was used:
THE record does not show. nor does
Mr.. Craig allege that he has buried
any dead in the grounds, or that he has
, any right to do so Mr.. Guthrie al
leges that he has relatives buried
! there, but in no part of the record
, does he show tiSat he has any rights
] Of sepulture in said grounds or any
contract relation with the church.
|, We have no accurate informa-
o. ton as to the precise nature of the
relations between the church and
, those privileged to bury in its
r grounds. II does not appear that
I any one Of them had any right TO OF
I title in the soil, nor any right OF
sepulture in any particular lot or
r place in the yard"
: Dissenting Opinion.
In this case Chief Justice Agnev
delivered a forcible dissenting opin.
lon. His views, however, did not pre-.
vail as against the provisions of the
= act. But some of his language 1.
: peculiarly appropriate to the case II
, hand, where there is or has been M
: such statute. He said:
ITO coin money out of the bone
= of the dead, is to violate a purchas
er's right of sepulture, contrary L
the instincts of the race and the keen
est sensibilities of the heart. Amonl
all tribes and nations savage and civ
!, ilized. the resting places of the deaf
: are regarded as sacred. There mem
!. ory loves to linger and plant tn
= choicest flowers; there the sorrowinl
heart renews the past. rekindles int
: life the viewless forms Of the dead
= revives the scenes where once the,
= moved, and recalls the happy hour
- of love and friendship. There par
ent and child, husband and wife
relatives and friends. with broker
spirits and crushed hopes, revisi
often the spot where they deposite
n their dead. Who does not feel I'll
+ fountains of his heart broken up an
the warm gushings of emotion, whe
a standing over the green sod whic
II covers the departed. Wherever tn
e simple stone is placed, or the mar
"a BILE monument is reared, spontaneou
p thought inscribes upon il sacred t
80 the memory. Can a private as
N sociation, corporate or unincorporat,
"a sell a right Of sepulture today. and to
morrow or next year retake tn
F. ground for lecture or
l. school room? II is immaterif
whether a grant Of sepulture confer
In an estate or privilege; it is a pur
g. chased right founded in contrac
n which no law can violate. except 70
l. public necessity. II has n
E. analogy 10 the privilege of a pew an
ie cannot fall with the building. II
TO occupancy is permanent. not like ths
of a pew. periodical and temporar.
II the building fall. is burned. do
ls stroyed or rebuilt. the pely right fal
Of with II. But the purchased grave ha
IN no such necessary and intrinsic veal
Id ness Of title. There the body is lai
ne away, according 70 the rites of Chris
ry tian burial. and in the acts of Chris
)n tian faith, to wait the resurrectio
lis morn, when its dust, terminated
in the Creators call, shall rise to me-
a the Lord Then why should a Chril
e. tian congregation violate instinct an
b. law on the ground of privileges
e. This is a contract privilege not d.
er pendent on a building. If 1 buy n
n privileges OF running water, or a rigl
II of way, or a right to open my viii
r dows over my neighbor's yard, wh'
law justified its violation ?"
ce Judge Bradford, after making