Year: 1878

Cremation.


A bill introduced in the legislature of


one OF the middle States to prevent ere


nation, IS bringing forward all the pros


and cons in the matter-the benefits and
| objections. The education and lifc-lonO


preiudices of almost the entire world Is
/ against this manner of disposing of the
| dead. We have been taught to lay our


loved ones reverently beneath the sod;


to plant flowers and raise marble monu-
ments over them to keep the graves
sacred, often visited and never neglect
| ed.


Tomany the rites of sepulchre are dear,
and Gods Acre" the most lovely spot
of earth, and it cannot be denied that
there is a mournful satisfaction in visit
ing the last resting places, and by the
care of graves keep those who have gone
| on before in loving remembrance. 1t is
but natural we should feel thus. Death,
\ the tearing loose from heart strings those
| who are the dearest objects of life, is al
ways terrible, and the lessons taught are
kept Yividly alive by the returning to
mother earth the dust robbed of the es-
sence of Immortality.


True, among many of the ancient ma
tions, burning the bodies of the dead was
practiced; but as civilization and chris
tianity made progress, it was abolished (;
has lain dormant for centuries, save IN
rare cases, and the sudden revival awakes
q thrill of horror and bitter and stren-
uous protest. Sutteeism has never made,
never could make any advance in this
country; has been steadily frowned upon
and held opposed and revolving to the
finer instincts of our nature and inclina-
ton. SIS worse than heathenish; as in
direct defiance of the fiat of the Almighty.


This upon the one side. Upon the
other, strong arguments are advanced in
its favor, though it must be admitted
generally upon purely scientific and san
itary grounds, and mostly freed from
feeling. Perhaps not entirely so, for the
advocates of incineration contend, and
with considerable show of reason, that
inurned dust can be as truly mourned as
any other, and that publication and re-
duction by fire is less Objectionable than
depositing in the earth and giving to the
worm and decay. There is force, too, in
the theory that the world is becoming
vast graVe-yard-that cofins are crowd
ing one another; the ashes Of former
generations dug up to make room for the
present; and as the centuries roll on this
viii be still more the case.


To remedy this, as well as to save the
enormous expense of fashionable funer-
ais, and to prevent the possibility of con-
tagion and noxious gases infltrating
the earth and poisoning the springs, are
the strong arguments of the advocates of
cremation. Of the truth of what they
advance, numerous instances are ad-
dueed, and scientific research is making
a bold front against the practice of bury
ing in the earth. And it cannot be de-
MED that there is much of reason upon
this side of the question, and setting
aside the strong bindings and prejudice
of education, it will be very difficult to
successfully dispute what is advanced.


The sole other point that arises, is the
legal right to do as we please with our
dead, so long as it does not initiate
against the living, or too much shock the
sensibilities of the public. There are
legal as well as moral rights upon both
sides. All do not, never can agree ex-
actly upon the subject of the disposition
of the body when left tenantless by the
spirit, any more than they can or will do,
the future of the soul.


To say, then, that there should be legal
enactments against what can injure no
one, is going very far. Cremation is GER
tainly safe for the living, and if it is the
belief Of any, why should they not be
permitted to carry it out Uncontrolled
with2 No one claims it IS a sole right.
If you wish to have your loved ones
rest beneath the daisies, and rear above
them commemorative tablets, there are
none to say nay, and it strikes us the
same latitude should be given to others
who wish to cherish even more efectual-
ly the ashes of the departed in another
form.


In Justice to the growing sentiment of
cremation, we can see no valid grounds
why the arm of the law should be raised
against it, save only to place proper re-
strictions, as in all other public affairs.
We believe the same freedom should be
allowed as in matters of religion, and no
question can arise as to the sanatory
principle involved, and it would be al
most fanatical to argue that it was of
any detriment to the body after death
that line of demarkation for good or
evil can be drawn between fire and de-
cay.


As a matter of taste each one must de-
eide for himself. We confess to a strong
leaning 10 the goOd old fashion OF our
forefathers, and no pleasant looking for
ward to being tossed into thrice-heated
furnace, and reduced to the merest atom
of ashes. Not that it would matter how
we were resolved back to clay; but edu-
cation has established barriers not easily
broken down, and love and respect
throw a shield around after death too
holy to be lightly disregarded. The grave
is to US sacred spot; one to be trod
reverently by man, and guarded by
angels. We would lay our dead away
amid pleasant surroundings; keep their
graves free of weeds and made bright
with flowers; we would plant the will
low, the rose and the evergreen there,
and make it an altar at which we can
hold communion with those in another
and better world.


But others have the same rights, and
if they look at the matter from a differ
ent standpoint why should we selhshly
arrogate to ourselves the exclusive priv
ilege? 1t is wrong to do so, and we be-
ieVe humanity and necessitywi settle
the matter Alright without legislation.