Cemetery Routes

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 19, 17 October 1930, Page 11

Cemetery Routes

Sir, —The proposal to construct a road through a cemetery, to give access to the city, appears to cause certain people much grief. Cannot their troubles be lessened by a little further thought? To begin with, is it necessarily “desecration” to move a grave? History is full of examples of mortal remains having been moved from one place to another. The most famous are no doubt the “unknown soldiers,” whose remains were taken from the battlefields and re-interred in Paris, London, and New York. But no one supposes that it is these worn-out and broken bodies which receive the homage of nations. “John Brown’s body lies amouldering in the grave, but his soul goes marching on!” And it is John Brown’s soul which we cannot bury, that won immortal respect, though his body may have perished long ago. And how little can you know or honour people by means of their graves! Think of some who have already passed on. One gave his life for his country, and was buried at sea. Another gave much of his worldly possessions toward the end of his long life, to the city wherein he had lived and became wealthy, and his gifts remain a much finer monument than any tomb. A third man—no friend of ours—left little or nothing to charity, and made his memory for ever ridiculous by providing for an immense marble memorial to be erected to his memory (nowhere near N.Z.). Fortunate it is that the graves of these three are no measure of affection and respect for their memories. How we live our lives is of the first importance; how long we live is of secondary importance; what sort of graves we have is, by comparison, almost a trivial matter. Reverence and respect are due, of course, but this need not prevent the removal of a grave from one place to another, any more than it would prevent the removal of a book from one case to another bookcase, or a portrait from one wall to another wall. It it had been essential that all graves be preserved for evermore, much of the world by now would be one vast cemetery. And if the preservation of our earthly bodies after death were of importance, only a few of the very richest people would have any hope of resurrection. This idea was no doubt accepted in Egypt, in the preChristian era, but afterwards people came to think of an imposing sepulchre as not essential to salvation. '■

If we could discuss the present problem with those who have passed on, would they be any more concerned at the removal of certain graves than a butterfly would be at the fate of the empty chrysalis it had left in the garden? ■ Coming down to other- consideration: The route through the cemetery appears to be not only shorter, but to avoid two right-angle corners, and so appears to.be safer. Does not the prospect of avoiding some possible future accident count for something? Furthermore, the cemetery route saves a large sum (I think somebody estimated it at £17,000) in compensation. At a time when there is much distress, is it right to-spend so much in a non-productive manner, when the choice of the cemetery route would permit us to do so much the more toward relief of distress and unemployment? In these times, it is not everyone who is in a position to give much to the city wherein he lives. But those who are interested in graves in this cemetery now have an opportunity before them to give something of consequence to Wellington. They can give them their consent to the road being constructed on the most direct route. This would cost them nothing, in money, and would be a real benefit to thousands of others, both now and in the future. —I am, etc., . CITIZEN. Wellington, October 10.