THE MEDICO-LEGAL ASPECT OF INCINERATION.—THE OBJECTIONS TO CREMATION.
The battle between torch and spade is not new; it has been going on
since early times. Tertullian, a writer of the second century, declares
that many of the Gentiles were opposed to cremation on the score of the
cruelty which it did to the body, which did not deserve such penal
treatment. This is exactly what some are asserting now. The work of an
ancient Greek poet even contains a passage requesting Prometheus to take
back the fire which he had procured them. There was a time when the
Pagans were disputing the propriety of burning the dead upon any
consideration whatever. Heraclitus advocated cremation; Thales and
Hippon, earth burial. In the war which a few Christians are now waging
against incineration, we therefore only have another illustration of how
history repeats itself. Peoples are still contesting the point in lands
which are painted in Pagan black upon the maps of the missionaries, and
where Christians as yet have no footing. Some sects in Japan bury and
some burn their dead; some of the Hindoos practice interment, others
incineration.
[Illustration:
THE BUFFALO CREMATORIUM.
(Exterior View.)
]
The injudicious promoters of cremation are among the greatest enemies of
the reform. The utterance that incineration should be obligatory was
extremely unfortunate, as was the idea of producing illuminating gas for
general use from the combustion of corpses, something after the fashion
of the twelfth century’s _lanternes des morts_. The fancy of Sir Henry
Thompson to use the ashes resulting from cremation as a fertilizer was
also a mischievous idea, and did much to delay the progress of
incineration in Great Britain.
The abhorrence entertained by many of cremation depends, to a very great
extent, on the universal tendency of individuals and peoples to resent
any interference with established customs; to reject any innovation,
simply because it is an innovation. For instance, if cremation should be
the customary practice at the present time, a proposition to
re-establish inhumation would meet, I am certain, with the most violent
opposition.
The cremationists are now charged with enthusiasm and fanaticism by
individuals who would be content that science should “stand at gaze like
Joshua’s moon in Ajalon.” Most of the progress in all departments of
learning has been made by enthusiasts, and a man must be an enthusiast
indeed to withstand the prejudice “dry as dust” which yields the ground
slowly and grudgingly, but which is certain to be defeated in the end.
The first question that comes before us for consideration is, Would not
cremation destroy the evidence of crime? This refers not only to cases
of poisoning, but also to those instances where persons meet with a
violent death by being shot, stabbed, or otherwise severely injured.
This is the only tangible objection that has ever been made by the
anti-cremationists. It is of great importance, and unless we are able to
show that it can be obviated, we must admit that it constitutes a
serious drawback to cremation. This, as Dr. J. O. Marble appropriately
remarks, is, in fact, the one and only real lion in the way of the
progress of incineration as a substitute for inhumation, and unless we
can muzzle this lion, he may frighten away the pilgrims.
If the charges made by the anti-cremation party were true, incineration,
if established, would offer facilities for the commission and
concealment of hideous crimes. A victim could be destroyed by poison,
the dead body carried to a furnace and reduced to a small heap of ashes
in a short space of time, and the crime thus forever placed beyond the
reach of detection. The cremator, then, would become the instrument and
accomplice of the murderer. It is urged that the agents employed in the
commonest form of secret murder—poisoning—are often of a novel, subtle,
and various character. We are apprised that it is extremely improbable
that the physician called in, if he be called in, has ever seen their
effects, either on man or animals; that care will be taken that he shall
not see them; that the poisoner has the advantage of preparation on his
side; and finally, that discovery, when made, is generally made at some
variable period after death, and then rather in consequence of an
aggregation of suspicious collateral circumstances pointing to the
commission of other crimes of a like nature than of any possible
observations at the bedside of the murdered person. Indeed, a formidable
array of arguments, which can be, nevertheless, overcome in several
ways. The question now before us for solution is not of recent date, but
has already agitated the minds of the ancients, who, most probably,
investigated the cause of death before they consigned their dead to the
funeral pyre. Tacitus, the Roman historian, relates that the corpse of
Germanicus lay in state in the forum of Antioch, a place fixed for
sepulchral rites, but that “whether it bore the marks of poisoning yet
remains undecided,” for the people were divided in their opinions, some
pitying Germanicus and suspecting Piso’s guilt, others prejudiced in
favor of the latter.
Pliny also relates in chapter 71 of his Natural History, lib. xi: “It is
claimed that the heart of those who die of _morbus cardiacus_ (organic
heart disease) cannot be destroyed by fire, and the same is said to be
true of the heart of poisoned persons.” An oration of Vitellus is extant
in which he accuses Piso, the physician, of having poisoned Germanicus,
since the heart of the latter would not burn. Piso defended himself by
describing the disease of which the emperor had died.
Dr. J. O. Marble, who has written of this subject, affirms: “It must be
admitted that cases of criminal poisoning, such as would be detected by
an exhumation and examination of a buried body, are very rare, for in
our day Lucrezia Borgias and Brinvilliers are few and easily detected.
In a community like ours cases of this kind are extremely rare. In a
vast majority of cases the cause of death is perfectly evident to any
intelligent physician. No doubt obscures the case. The list of causes of
death, perfectly evident even to the friends and non-medical persons,
embraces probably at least nine-tenths of the whole mortality. Doubtful
cases have generally been visited by more than one skilful physician.
The fraction in which crime of any sort might have been perpetrated
becomes thus very small. Moreover, in the present state of chemical
analysis and expert medical testimony, the advantages of the posthumous
examination of a body with a view to the detection of crime accrue less
to justice than to the lawyer for the defense.”
The medico-legal objection, as it is called, does not apply in every
case, since every day individuals die of easily determined causes, such
as small-pox, consumption, hemorrhage from the lungs or stomach,
drowning, or other accidents, and suicide; in short, in such a way as to
place the cause of death beyond cavil and dispute.
It is true that a regular proportion of bodies are dug up every year on
suspicion of foul play; but, aside from the fact that that proportion is
very small, how many of these cases justify the exhumation? So uncertain
and inaccurate is the post-mortem evidence of criminal poisoning, that
no bodies have been exhumed for forensic purposes in Vienna, Austria’s
capital, since 1805.
Tarchini-Bonfanti, for 26 years _perito-medico_ (medical expert) at the
tribunal of Milan, Italy, declares that during this time, although many
thousands of litigations came before the court which was requested to
pronounce judgment upon them, only in ten cases was it necessary to
resort to exhumation. Only ten cases in 26 years, out of several
thousands of lawsuits, and four only out of the ten exhumations led to
the detection of the crime and the criminal. These four cases, however,
occurred in a single lawsuit—that of Boggia. In this instance the
disinterment would have taken place, even if cremation had been at the
time an established and universal custom, for Boggia had buried his
victims in his own cellar. Tarchini-Bonfanti asserts that exhumations
for forensic purposes are extremely rare, and that those which are made
yield either negative, or at best doubtful results.
Disinterment, instead of furnishing an explanation, instead of shedding
light upon some mystery, more often is followed by confusion, and may
give rise to erroneous conclusions. It would be next to impossible to
cremate a murdered person in a furnace of the ordinary kind. As to the
poor and ignorant murderer, the regulation of cremation would make him
shrink from submitting his victim to the authorities of a crematorium,
and he would find it far more convenient and safe to inter the corpse
secretly, as these criminals generally do at the present time.
There are many poisons which, by a rapid change of their substance, are
extremely difficult to detect in the human body after death, even after
a short time, sometimes but a few days; for instance, cyanide of
potassium, prussic acid, and at certain times phosphorus. But when a
careful inquest, such as the cremationists propose, is held, poisoning
by these agents cannot so easily escape detection. In poisoning by
phosphorus, the yellow hue of the face of the victim would excite
suspicion and lead to a post-mortem examination, when the characteristic
sign of phosphorus poisoning in the fatty degeneration of the liver
would be discovered. An autopsy would speedily make evident poisoning by
pure prussic acid, for the open cavities of the body would exhale the
odor of bitter almonds. Poisoning by cyanide of potassium can, of
course, only be detected by a chemical analysis of the contents of the
stomach, intestines, etc.
I think I may safely affirm that it is impossible for the best of
anatomists to determine the lesions, if there be any, of a decomposed
body.
All vegetable poisons, except the alkaloid of strychnia, decompose with
the body; it is extremely rare that any alkaloid can be discovered in
the body posthumously. Mineral poisons, such as antimony, lead, copper,
combinations of baryta, and many others, are indestructible, and can be
detected in the ashes. It may even happen that, by some extra care, the
process of incineration may be the most efficient means of detecting
poisoning by arsenic and mercury. Of course we should not forget that,
without some precaution, the salts of arsenic and mercury would be
volatilized; but while they are volatilized, they must also, at a
reduced temperature, be again deposited, and it remains for the chemist
to determine the most efficient contrivance for recognizing its
deposition.
Direct experiments instituted by M. Cadet and verified by MM. Doursant
and Wurst, even prove that the salts of arsenic can be detected in the
ashes after incineration.
As matters stand to-day, it is puerile to think that we can prevent the
rich and skilful poisoner from committing crime as long as we permit him
to employ undertakers, who, without restraint of law, inject arseniate
of soda and corrosive sublimate into the body of his victim, and thus
remove all traces of the crime.
Dr. Cameron, in a speech before the House of Commons of England in 1884,
declared:—
“Numerous modern researches have shown that putrefactive fermentation in
decaying animal matter gives rise to the formation of sepsine and other
alkaloids, some of them intensely poisonous. Little or nothing is known
in this country concerning the products of putrefaction. _Ptomaines_ is
the general name which has been given to them abroad, and I don’t know
that I ever saw it printed in the English language. Little is known of
these ptomaines even by those who have studied them most closely, but
enough has been discovered to show that we must be very careful as to
how far we rely upon what are called physiological tests for poisons in
the case of bodies which have been exhumed; and that the fact that
frogs, rabbits, or dogs are killed by the action of matters extracted
from the viscera of a putrefying body can no longer by itself be held as
proving that those viscera contained any poison before putrefaction
commenced.”
Is it surprising, when the above is taken into consideration, that the
testimony of chemists at trials for poisoning should vary so much and be
so contradictory in nature?
Sir Henry Thompson, in his admirable exposition of cremation, which was
translated into almost every civilized language of the world, thus
disposes of the medico-legal objection:—
“It has been said, and most naturally, what guarantee is there against
poisoning if the remains are burned, and it is no longer possible, as
after burial, to reproduce the body for the purpose of examination? It
is to my mind a sufficient reply that, regarding only ‘the greatest good
to the greatest number,’ the amount of evil in the shape of disease and
death which results from the present system of burial in earth is
infinitely larger than the evil caused by secret poisoning is or could
be, even if the practice of the crime were very considerably to
increase. Further, the appointment of officers to examine and certify in
all cases of death would be an additional and very efficient safeguard.
But—and here I touch on a very important subject—is there reason to
believe that our present precautions in the matter of death certificate
against the danger of poisoning are what they ought to be? I think that
it must be confessed that they are defective, for not only is our system
inadequate to the end proposed, but it is less efficient by comparison
than that adopted by foreign governments. Our existing arrangements for
ascertaining and registering the cause of death are very lax, and give
rise, as we shall see, to serious errors. In order to attain an approach
to certitude in this important matter, I contend that it would be most
desirable to nominate in every district a properly qualified inspector
to certify in all cases to the fact that death has taken place, to
satisfy himself as far as possible that no foul play has existed, and to
give the certificate accordingly. This would relieve the medical
attendant of the deceased from any disagreeable duty relative to inquiry
concerning suspicious circumstances, if any have been observed. Such
officers exist throughout the large cities of France and Germany, and
the system is more or less pursued throughout the provinces. In Paris no
burial can take place without the written permission of the ‘_médecin
vérificateur_’; and whether we adopt cremation or not, such an officer
might with advantage be appointed here.”
Sir Henry suggests that in suspected cases the “dead officer” should
retain in sealed vessels the stomach and other portions of the viscera
for future examination. But I think it next to impossible that such an
officer could execute duties so burdensome and so averse to the genius
of the people.
Let us for a moment turn to our dear American commonwealths. Do our
burial laws aid in the detection of crime? In the majority of states a
death certificate, signed by a physician, must be filed with the health
officer, who issues a burial permit. This is all which is required.
Generally it makes no difference whether the physician or surgeon who
affixes his name to the document is reputable or not. The burial permit
is looked upon as a mere formality, an unnecessary institution, that
owes its origin to some whimsical lawmaker. How often do even the most
zealous of health officers investigate the causes of the deaths that are
reported to them? The doctor’s certificate is put upon record; that is
satisfactory, and no more is asked for. The rest is silence—like that
which reigns under the turf, where the undetected victims of the
poisoner lie.
Now, if our faulty burial laws, if the indifference of our officers of
health, are not a direct incentive to the foulest and most insidious
forms of crime, I do not know what is. Were I a secret assassin, I
certainly would wish for no more encouragement. As matters now stand,
any evil-doer, with the help of some unscrupulous medical man, may
commit murder daily without fear of detection.
I propose to show that if incineration were established, the careful
scrutiny of corpses and official examinations in suspected cases, which
would precede the reduction of the body to ashes, would rather assist in
the detection of murder than hinder it.
Mr. W. Eassie, in a lecture delivered at the International Health
Exhibition last year, expressed himself anent this question as follows:
“With regard to doubtful deaths it would be necessary to make sure that
the body exhibited no traces of poison, or that certain small portions
of the body should be removed therefrom and kept for a few years. For
instance, a small portion of the stomach and intestines and their
contents in case of vegetable poisoning, and a small portion of the
liver, should mineral poisoning be suspected. There is no difficulty in
dealing with this matter in other countries where cremation has become
permissive; and it is upon record that the examination of the body of a
child in Italy, which had been made in the ordinary way demanded by the
authorities previous to the cremation, proved that the child had been
poisoned apparently by sweetmeats, and this would not have been revealed
had an ordinary burial in the earth taken place.”
I must here repeat what I have already said regarding Sir H. Thompson’s
intimation that part of the bodies about to be cremated might be
conserved for future examination: The strong dislike of the public would
never allow of such a measure.
Lord Bramwell, the eminent English lawyer, in a letter to Sir Spencer
Wells concerning incineration, states: “I wish you success in the
promotion of cremation; I think it is right, and what is very rare, with
no drawback. It is the cheapest, the most wholesome, and to my mind, the
least repulsive way of disposing of the dead and those we have loved.
That it is legal there is not a doubt. The only objection, that murders
might go undetected, I believe to be more than unfounded. You have
surrounded the thing with precautions. I have heard it suggested that
there are many murders which escape detection for want of suspicion and
consequent inquiry. How that may be I know not, but it will not be the
case with those bodies cremated under the regulations of the Cremation
Society of England. The English society requires such undoubted proofs
of natural death that a criminal would not dare trust his victim to the
flames.”
[Illustration:
THE BUFFALO CREMATORIUM.
(Interior View.)
]
To cut a long story short, let me say that cremationists meet the
medico-legal objection by a demand for a careful inquest over _every_
dead body, and a post-mortem examination, including a chemical analysis
of all the viscera, in every instance where death by toxic agents is
suspected.
In many cities of Europe the dead are examined by physicians appointed
by the government. The result has been that, as for instance in Dresden,
Leipsic, and Frankfort, Germany, no exhumation took place after the
inquest became obligatory and was practiced in every instance of
decease.
In Bavaria, Saxony, Nassau, and Baden, there are regular coroners whose
duty it is to inspect every corpse, while in England the coroner’s jury
only convenes in cases where the cause of death is not apparent.
With us the office of coroner is not an important one. Generally laymen
are appointed to it, men who have done some work at that awful power,
the political machine. This is wrong. The office of coroner should only
be vested in medical men, and only in such who have shown that they are
qualified to fill such a position of consequence. Every candidate for
coroner should be examined in forensic medicine and pathology, and
should give an ocular demonstration of his capability to make a thorough
autopsy. Only those who have graduated from a medical school of repute,
recognized by law and all the boards of health of the country, should be
eligible.
The coroner should have power to demand an explanation of the cause of
death from the physician who attended the deceased in his last illness,
and whenever such explanation is unsatisfactory, or there are other
reasons which lead him to suspect that the defunct has been foully dealt
with, to order a complete post-mortem examination. He should,
furthermore, have the right to summon before him any witnesses whose
testimony might clear up the case in hand.
The coroner should issue the burial permits, the health officer being
notified only when persons have died of an infectious or contagious
disease.
To make this scheme successful, it is essential that the practitioner of
medicine who assumes the coronership should receive adequate payment for
his services, such remuneration in fact as would enable him to give up
his whole time and talent to his office.
Beside the advantages which I have already indicated, a system such as
this would doubtlessly enrich the mortality statistics as well as
forensic medicine and pathological anatomy. That it would be an
efficient safeguard against crime, I think every unprejudiced person
will admit.
If this were not so, I could but indorse the Rev. H. R. Haweis, who
declares honestly: “For so grand a benefit to mankind, a few more cases
of poisoning would be a small price to pay. In the great progress of
social and sanitary reform I cannot conceive what it signifies whether
or not an additional Smith or Jones gets poisoned here and there.”
Dr. Purdy says: “Indeed, we have not in man’s history any great benefit
resulting from a system or practice but it is attended by its consequent
minor evils; no great public good but has its attendant drawbacks.”
For these reasons the following saying of the celebrated Professor
Coletti, of the University of Padua, Italy, will always be recognized as
a truth of unusual stability: “The health of whole communities is of far
greater importance than the possible escape of a few criminals.”
The enemies of cremation inquire: Would not incineration deprive the
schools of medicine of anatomical material, the phrenologists,
craniologists, and last, but not least, the anthropologists, of the
basis of their investigations; namely, the human skeleton?
Objections of this nature can only provoke a smile. In a country like
ours, where many of the cadavers which are dissected in our medical
schools are stolen from the graveyards, the proposed introduction of
cremation must, no doubt, raise a storm among teachers of anatomy, who
are fearful that the supply of corpses will be cut short by the reform.
It is not to be wondered at, that the anatomists raise a cry of alarm,
for, indeed, I know of no other method of disposal of the dead that is
as damaging to their relations with the defunct as cremation. Even a
professor of the Jefferson Medical College, a man who ought to have
known better, joined the anti-cremationists for these reasons. Every
educated person knows that a thorough knowledge of anatomy is essential
to the successful practice of medicine and surgery, and that a
familiarity with the internal workings of the human system can be gained
in no other way under the sun. But although I belong to the medical
fraternity, I can but wish that such a terrible and desecrating practice
as grave-robbing be put a stop to. It is for the government of each
state to provide fully for the dissecting-rooms of the medical colleges,
to deliver to them all who die in prisons and poor-houses. Prisoners
should not be given up, even when claimed by relatives or friends; the
idea that the commission of crime may land one on the dissecting-table
may deter many from trespassing the laws of their country.
What difference it makes whether future generations know, or do not
know, how our skulls compared with that of a gorilla, I cannot conceive.
Let the craniologists and allied scientists make their investigations
now and record them in books. Printed matter of value is immortal.
How the archæologists and anthropologists, ignoring the printing press,
can imagine (for such fears only dwell in their imagination and have no
real foundation) that without the records of the tombs the present age,
its acts and deeds, might pass away from the ken of posterity as
completely as the ancient civilizations of Central America and Malacca,
I am unable to explain. But even if dire oblivion should be the ultimate
doom of the nineteenth century, the opinion of the world two thousand
years hence is of little consequence when compared with the health of
those now inhabiting it. In the words of the learned rector of the
University of Padua, Professor Coletti: “Man should disappear and not
rot; he should no more be transformed into a mass of corruption—the
source of filthy and injurious exhalations—than into a grotesque mummy,
a shapeless mixture of pitch, resin, and perfumes; man should become a
handful of ashes and nothing more.”
“Would not cremation rob nature of its supply of ammonia?”
This, one of the most discreetly urged weapons against cremation, was
that promulgated by Professor Mohr, who asserted that if incineration
were practiced to its full extent, an interruption to the order of
nature would ensue, since the supply of ammonia would be arrested or
greatly curtailed.
Dr. Mohr’s objections to the cremation of the dead principally rest upon
the following bases:—
1. That ammonia is the most important form in which nitrogen is taken up
by the plants.
2. That free nitrogen does not, or at any rate in sufficient abundance,
return to the organized world.
3. That in cremation the ammonia is entirely destroyed, and the nitrogen
entirely liberated.
4. That the nitrogen of buried corpses is entirely converted into
ammonia.
Mohr soon had many followers who imagined that if the bulk of all animal
remains should be burnt to ashes, the mischief produced by the loss of
ammonia would be incalculable. They claimed that it is as necessary to
vegetable life as is the air we breathe to us; that there is no
counterbalance in nature whereby this ingredient can be supplied from
other sources; and that by cutting off a large proportion of the supply
of ammonia the loss would be quickly felt throughout all the animal
kingdom, and would soon be followed by an appreciable diminution of
animal life on the globe.
Dr. Mohr’s objections were met by the eminent Professor Franchimont, of
the University of Leyden, Holland, who proved that the views held by his
_confrère_ were both erroneous and absurd, and concluded his _exposé_ as
follows:—
1. That it is not proved that ammonia is the chief nitrogenous
constituent of plants.
2. That it is proved that free nitrogen returns by many and various
routes to the organic world.
3. That it is not certain that by interment all the nitrogen becomes
ammonia, and that probably a portion of this ammonia is temporarily
taken out of circulation; and, finally,
4. That it is not proved that the nitrogen is completely set free during
cremation. And even if this were so, its quantity, in comparison with
that of the ammonia now yearly produced by the dry distillation and
combustion of coal, is so small that the loss of it cannot be advanced
as any really serious objection to the practice of cremation.
I must here add that the explanations given by Professor Franchimont are
held to be perfectly satisfactory by seventeen professors and teachers
of botany and chemistry in the Dutch universities, whose names are well
known in the scientific world.
Students of agricultural chemistry, and others interested in the
subject, should not fail to read Mr. Eassie’s excellent article on the
asserted loss of ammonia caused by the cremation of bodies, in the
_London Sanitary Record_ of Jan. 18, 1878.
It must be remembered that all animals—from the smallest insect to the
largest beast—excrete a great amount of ammonia during their lifetime,
which passes off with the fecal matter, urine, and transpiration.
Besides, it cannot be denied that ammonia is formed spontaneously,
during the great electrical processes which take place in nature, from
the nitrogen and water of the atmosphere. The smoke that emanates from
the chimneys of factories all over the world supplies more ammonia to
the vegetable kingdom than the decomposing animal bodies ever could.
And, finally, it must be kept in mind that we can generate ammonia
artificially; therefore, should a dearth of ammonia ever occur, which is
not very likely, this expedient would still be left to us.
There is no recorded evidence to show that any damage was done to the
Egyptian vegetable world by the mummification which was carried on for
thousands of years in the land of the Pharaohs. On the contrary, the
country was in a more flourishing condition then than now.
The sentimental objection to cremation I have already treated of in a
previous work; but since I have something to add to what I then
remarked, I will revert to the topic.
The subject at first glance is revolting. To some persons there may be
something in the idea of reducing one’s friends to ashes that is
repulsive. Yet, when one makes a careful study of the question, that
prejudice or repulsiveness wears away entirely, and makes way to a
feeling that cremation is correct both in theory and practice. One
should not listen to the emotions in a matter like this, but study
incineration to be able to judge of it; objections founded on sentiment
only are sure to be wrong.
If the general public knew, as a physician does, the many changes a body
undergoes in the process of decomposition,—putrefaction and most
disgusting changes,—I think a great deal of their objection to cremation
would be removed. I fancy if people in general could see the ordinary
process of decomposition, they would be in favor of the quicker and more
scientific method of cremation.
The Bishop of Lincoln intimated that incineration would keep all future
great ones out of the silent company of those who have in former times
added lustre to England’s name. It will do no such thing. I cannot
comprehend what obstacles could stand in the way of the entombment of an
urn containing the ashes of some illustrious personage who chose to be
cremated instead of buried, in Westminster Abbey.
Mr. William Eassie says:—
“In the play of ‘Virginius’ the body of Virginia is represented as
having been placed in an urn, and when the distraught father inquires
for his missing daughter, the vase is placed in his hands by the
sorrowing lover. When this scene is presented, the thrill which seizes
the audience is succeeded by a sensation of admiration at the eminently
superior system of the ancients. I have seen the actor Brooke, in this
tragedy, and the effect which he here produced was inexpressible. Many
whom I have consulted as to the feelings engendered at this point have
invariably declared that they were at the time complete converts to
cremation, and that the sense of approval only left them when they began
to realize how impossible were funeral pyres in this country. Happily
the Siemens apparatus is now at hand, and its suitability proved beyond
cavil.”
An eye-witness to the process of incineration says: “I have stood before
the crematory with a faltering heart. I have trembled at the thought of
using fire beside the form of one whom I had loved. But when, in
obedience to his own dying wish, I saw the door of the crematory taken
down, its rosy light shine forth, and his peaceful form, clad in white,
laid there at rest amid a loveliness that was simply fascinating to the
eye, and without a glimpse of flames, or fire, or coals, or smoke, I
said, and say so still, this method, beyond all methods I have seen, is
the most pleasing to the senses, the most charming to the imagination,
and the most grateful to the memory.”
[Illustration: GROUND PLAN OF THE BUFFALO CREMATORIUM.]
“Is cremation illegal?”
This interrogation I am obliged to answer with a most decided “No!” In
our country, it is true, the legal status of the question is somewhat
unsettled, but I do not believe that any action taken in our American
courts could prevent any persons from cremating a dead body who wished
to do so, provided it was not contrary to the expressed wishes of the
deceased. In England it is only illegal to burn a corpse in cases where
an inquest ought to be held or has been ordered. In other cases, if the
burning is conducted in such a manner as not to cause a nuisance or
offense against public decency, there is no rule of law to prevent this
mode of disposing of a corpse being adopted. Some time ago a rajah, who
consulted Mr. Eassie as to burning the body of his _ranee_, had to be
told that what he claimed as a right in India could not be accorded him
in the capital of the Empire except at a risk of scandal. Thanks to the
decision of Sir James Stephen, the honorary secretary of the Cremation
Society of England would not now be forced to make such a humiliating
admission.
There are, I am sorry to say, individuals who think that those who are
cremated let themselves be burned only because they are anxious to
create for themselves a little notoriety after death. I can but pity the
people who believe that Dr. Gross and Garbaldi, for instance, adopted
such a means to attract public attention after decease. Those who now
order their bodies incinerated after that mysterious power called life
is fled, have the courage of their opinions, recognize the many
advantages of incineration, and allow their convictions to triumph over
local and even family prejudice; they are the true martyrs of cremation.