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.

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.”

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.”

“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.