eccentric, and his relatives may discount his wishes along the lines of their inclinations after he is gone. This possibility ought to admonish one about to become a corpse, either to express wishes agreeable to his rela tives, or to go on his way unconcerned about what may become of that which is left. In a reported case, a girl, when sixteen years of age, went to live with a friend, and between them a feeling of affection grew up. After living with this friend seven years, the girl died. During these seven years she was entirely neglected by her parents. The girl had associated herself with the church of her friend, and before her death expressed her fears that her father would claim her body, and she would be deprived of the burial she desired. Before death she directed her friend how and where to bury her remains. After her death the father moved a court of equity to give him control of the dead body of his daughter for burial purposes, claim ing such right as the next of kin. The court declared that there was no law which com pelled the next of kin to perform the duties of burial. There could be no property in a corpse, and as the girl disposed of her re mains orally, as she had a right to do, it was impossible to entertain the complaint of the father. Notwithstanding, the corpse, while the breath was. in the body, may not have given either written or oral directions as to the disposition of the remains, yet that does not affect the question that there can be no prop erty in a corpse. No other person in the world may legally say, I own this cadaver and will do with it what I please. Blackstone says the heir has a property in the monuments and escutcheons of his ances tor, yet he has none in their bodies or ashes. If no one owns the corpse, or rather if the real owner has departed without directions as to what should be done with the remains, if the dead cannot bury the dead, the next inquiry must be, how is the corpse to be come buried or burnt? Easily enough; the right of sepulture belongs equally to prince
and pauper. To each, society owes six feet of ground. It has been declared that so universal is the right of sepulture that the common law casts the duty of providing it, and of carry ing to the grave the dead body, decently cov ered, upon the person under whose roof the death takes place; for such person cannot keep the body unburied, or do anything which prevents Christian burial. He can not, therefore, cast it out, so as to expose the body to violation or to offend the feelings or endanger the health of the living; and for the same reason he cannot carry the dead body uncovered to the grave. When the body is decently and properly buried, in an appropriate place, the claims of society have been entirely satisfied. It is a singular condition that the law gives no civil remedy for the violation of sepulture; yet it is a logical position. There is no property in a corpse as to give any one the right to recover in a civil court for such violation. The only party possible to such an issue is the corpse; and as it is unfortun ately unable to be on hand for such purpose, there is no wrong nor a remedy therefore. The Roman law gave a civil remedy, an ac tion for the violation of sepulture, to the relatives for any unlawful disturbance of a sepulture. No such action has been recog nized under the English law, or in this coun try, unless it be in Indiana, for the courts of that State alone seem to recognize that there is property in a dead Hoosier. The stealing of a dead body was not at common law a larceny; logically, it was not property, and hence could not be stolen. Stealing a dead body is and always has been indictable as a statutory misdemeanor, not as a violation of private property, but as being contrary to common decency and shocking to the gen eral sentiments and feelings of mankind. The fact that there is no civil remedy for the violation of sepulture presents certain novel situations. Civilly, when a corpse has been buried, it is earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust. It has become part of the
