THE CREMATORIUM

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 76, 16 May 1941, Page 3

THE CREMATORIUM

COUNCILLOR HURST’S REPLY [To the Editor] Sir, —The correspondent “Evod” asks why the council should not buy a new cemetery instead of erecting a crematorium. My view is that one would be a liability, the other an asset. For one must remember that the opening of a new cemetery does not mean the closing of the old. Owners of family plots have the right to use them, and burials will go on for many years. And in any case, continual maintenance will be necessary; no council could, or would allow an old cemetery to become a wilderness. Cemetery maintenance is costly as figures prove. Last year, in addition to fees and sale of plots, the cost of the Wakapuaka cemetery to the ratepayers was £2BO. This year £298 will need to be transferred from the general account. That is why the present Council wish to postpone the purchase of another cemetery as long as possible, in order to save the ratepayers’ pockets. With the land now available at Wakapuaka. plus the provision of a crematorium, the necessity of a new cemetery may be delayed, perhaps, fifty years. And another reason why I support the crematorium proposal, is that it provides an alternative method of the disposal of the dead—the only hygienic and sanitary method, and one preferred by many citizens and increasing in favour. It provides a service that ratepayers are entitled to, especially as it can be provided at so little cost, and with such a trifling risk of being any expense to ratepayers.—l am etc., H. HURST. Nelson, 15th May.