Administered by the cemetery interests, cremation has become just another way of making a buck, principally through the sale of the niche and urn plus “perpetual care” for the ashes. Cemetery men are most reluctant to relinquish the ashes for any other form of disposition; one told me rather plaintively, “If everyone wanted to take the ashes away and scatter them or bury them privately, we’d soon be out of business.” The crematoria, competing for the good will of the undertakers upon whom they depend for business, naturally play along with them in the matter of building up their services and merchandise.
Arguments for and against cremation were discussed at a recent convention of the National Association of Cemeteries, to which were invited top officials of the Cremation Association of America. The theme of the meeting was “Profit Through Cremation Without a Crematory.” A procremation speaker pointed out that although few cemeteries have their own crematoria, “their operators can derive substantial profit if they accent the memorialization aspects of cremation… Actually, in fact, most of the inquiries the C.A.A. receives come from cemetery men whose main feeling is that they’re not so much interested in who sells the razor as in who sells the blades.” The C.A.A., he said, is “endeavoring to show the cemetery men in an economic sense just what we show the public in a spiritual sense: that cremation is by no means the end-all.” Another spoke of the space-saving aspects: “Within a given area for interment spaces, for example, the cemetery can sell a greater number of spaces for cremated remains than for regular caskets. The greater number of smaller sales within that given area can make up the difference, and then some. That of course means profit. . . . Land purchase costs can be avoided. So can expensive and controversial battles with public bodies on rezoning.”
Arguments against cremation were advanced by a veteran sales director for one of Los Angeles’s largest cemeteries, which operates its own crematory. He cited figures on costs in the Los Angeles area to support his point that cremation is a demonstrably cheaper process than ground burial, even when the cost of the niche and urn is figured in, and therefore much less profitable. The cost of cremation averages $60 (although the public authorities charge only $15 at the county’s retort); containers for cremated remains average $55; interment spaces for the containers average only $85 as against an average $325 for regular graves. He said the most expensive space for a container in a columbarium is about $250, whereas the most expensive grave is about $1,000. “The economics of pro-cremation arguments are very questionable to me,” he said. “A big volume of cremations, at a lower price for each, may total up to a profit exceeding that from a small volume of regular burials. But you work harder and there certainly is a shocking overhead in administration.”
In spite of the admonitions of the Cremation Association, it remains true that families who choose cremation also tend to choose cheaper and less elaborate caskets. This may be because those who favor cremation incline in all matters towards rationality; it may be because of a rather natural disinclination to pay a lot of money for an embalmed and bronze-encased memory picture that is to be burned up in a few days. It is not surprising that there has always been a strong current of opposition to cremation among the undertakers, who are painfully aware of the financial hazards it presents to their end of the funeral business. As one wrote, “Cremations in volume will ruin any funeral director’s business. We cremate quite a few cases, and no matter how you figure it, we make a reasonable margin of profit only on about 6 per cent of the cases we cremate.”
Characteristically, they seek to counter the trend towards cremation by playing on the emotions of the survivors, portraying the procedure as hideous and horror-filled. A funeral director, Writing in Mortuary Management, describes how this can be done: “When anybody asks me about cremation,
I simply tell them the truth: that it can be the cheapest way of disposing of a body, but that anyone who had ever witnessed a cremation wouldn’t cremate a pet dog. I drop it right there, unless they ask me why I say that, and then I give them a blow-by-blow description of what happens in the retort. About four out of five back off immediately, and ex:press no further interest in cremation!”
Those with a direct financial stake in cremation, the owners of crematoria and the niche and urn salesmen, do not, of course, see it this way. On the contrary, they wax lyrical over “the clean, beautiful method of resolution by incandescence rather than the unspeakable horrors of decay . . . we think of our loved one as in his ethereal body, as
The Forest Lawn “Art Guide” has a good deal to say about the proper care of cremated ashes, and contains many a warning to those who might contemplate either scattering them, keeping them at home, or privately burying them. It reads in part like a Declaration of Principles for a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Cremated Remains: “Only by crushing or grinding can these hard, white bone-shapes be reduced to fine grit or ash, a practice as horrifying as any wilful mutilation. It is lack of understanding of this, and of the true nature of cremated remains, that has led to the deplorable vogue for ’scattering: . . . In the past and in areas where protective legislation has not been enacted, receptacles containing cremated remains have sometimes been kept in homes, and have been lost through fire [I], burglary, or other unforeseen occurrences, resulting in lasting remorse. Even more regrettable are the results of the practice known as ’scattering: Recognizable fragments of the human frame that come hurtling out of the skies, wash ashore on beaches, or roll about underfoot in gardens and parks appall the strangers who encounter them, and cause lifelong heartache to those who have had any share in such disposition of a loved one’s remains.” Follows, of course, a description of the niches for sale at Forest Lawn, marblefront, bronze-front or glass-faced, «designed to hold a bronze urn of artistic design.”
The cemetery and columbarium people will, understandably, go to all sorts of lengths to nip in the bud any trend towards the English practice of scattering. Their first concern is to make sure that the ashes are not reduced to scatterable proportions; a simple matter of failing to apply enough heat during the cremation to completely destroy the bony structure (thus guaranteeing that «recognizable fragments of the human frame” will appear among the ashes) and of failing to pulverize the ashes as recommended by English cremation authorities. Their second concern is with the aforementioned «protective legislation,” by which is meant legislation «protecting” the cremated remains from the next of kin of those decedents who have expressly directed that their ashes be scattered or privately buried.
California is one of four states in which cemetery lobbyists have succeeded in passing such legislation. (The others are Alaska, Indiana and Washington.) California is, from the point of view of the niche-and-urn business, a key state, for there is a very marked regional factor in the incidence of cremation in the United States. In 1960 almost half of the total number of cremations in this country-z8,ooo out of 59,00o-took place in Pacific coast states. In California one out of six decedents is cremated, and the proportion is higher in the big cities.
The law in California does not contain an explicit prohibition against scattering or private burial of the ashes. It works like this: After a decedent has been cremated, the next of kin may arrange for removal of the ashes from the crematory, but only by designating a recognized cemetery or columbarium to which he wishes them shipped. Removal of the ashes for any other disposition is a misdemeanor, “‘ punishable by fine or imprisonment; if two or more persons participate iii the removal, they could be prosecuted for conspiracy, a felony. If the next of kin fails to designate a cemetery or columbarium, the crematory customarily begins to charge a monthly storage rate for the ashes of $1.50.
If he demands that the ashes be turned over to him, he will be told by the crematory that this is «against the law.” However if he protests loudly enough, the crematorium will almost certainly give in and hand over the ashes (thus presumably becoming a party to the felonious conspiracy) because the last thing the cemetery interests want is a legal test case on this question.
This peculiar piece of legislation, on the statute books since 1939, went unchallenged until 1961, when an amendment to the law was introduced by State Senator Fred Farr of Carmel and Assemblyman Nicholas Petris, which would permit the next of kin to obtain possession of cremated remains for private burial or scattering. The hearings that ensued were instructive because they demonstrated beyond question the enormous power of the cemetery interests and their ability to influence legislation in the face of reason, popular demand and expert testimony. Both Mr. Farr and Mr. Petris received an unprecedented flow of mail from constituents in support of their amendment. Many of the letters were from people who had firsthand experience with the problem of trying to rescue ashes of relatives from the tenacious cemetery. One correspondent related a conversation he had had with a cemetery salesman: “This man, a professional hard-sell artist, said that their groups had it fixed so the bill would be tabled in committee, and added that if for some unknown reason the bill did slip by, it would not do the slightest good because the crematories would hand back the skull and bones intact to the customer and tell him to scatter them. He said the cemeteries were not in business to scatter ashes to the winds, and that they would lick this bill hands down.”
On the eve of the hearing, Senator Farr learned that the lobbyists were indeed circulating among the legislators photographs purportedly of cremated remains, displaying knucklebones, bits of shin and other unappetizing remnants. These, they claimed, would become commonplace features of the California landscape if the proposed bill should pass.
The following morning, three stalwart matrons, supporters of the Farr-Petris amendment, appeared at the entrance to the State Capitol in Sacramento. They were carrying an odd assortment of objects. One had a large box, inscribed CREMATED REMAINS OF MR. , another carried an old-fashioned coffee-bean grinder, and the third wielded a claw hammer. A guard stopped them, and asked the lady with the claw hammer, “What are you taking that in for?” “To open this box of the cremated remains of Mr. —,” she answered. “And what’s the coffee grinder for?” asked the astonished guard. “To grind up the cremated remains of Mr. —,” explained one of the ladies helpfully. The guard, open-mouthed, let them pass.
Senator Farr’s purpose was a visual demonstration. On opening the box, he found not the gruesome hunks of human bone shown in the photographs but a grayish compound of fine and coarse ash, most of it the consistency of cornmeal, in which were contained some brittle bone fragments up to three inches in length. These he proceeded to put through the coffee grinder, preparing several trayfuls as evidence for other members of the committee. The San Francisco Chronicle reported, “As he passed the small box of ashes around to committee members, some of the dust of ‘John Doe’ wafted from the box, hung in the air for a few seconds, then settled on the highly polished table.”
Senator Farr’s demonstration succeeded in demolishing the first major argument of opponents of his amendment. With equal ease, he laid waste to their two remaining contentions: that scattering human ashes would endanger the public health, and that to permit dispersion of the remains would hamper crime detection in cases of suspected poisoning. A public health officer testified that human ashes are sterile and could not possibly create a public health problem. A pathologist said, “Many romantic stories tell of conviction following analysis of cremation ashes, but no documented case of this type exists. Anyone claiming such should be required to produce proof, which I hold cannot be done. The only time that proper medicolegal post-mortem examination can be done is prior to cremation. Such ashes have no importance in law enforcement or crime detection.”
Yet, when all the dust had settled, the bill was shelved by a vote of 4 to 3, and referred to a committee for a two-year study. In spite of the efforts of the sponsors, the study was never made. Mr. Nicholas Petris declared the measure lost because of a combination of fear, superstition and enormous lobby pressure. He added that he personally abhors cremation-the very thought makes him shudder; furthermore it is contrary to the doctrine of the Greek Orthodox Church to which he belongs. But, he said, he intends to disinter this bill anyway, because of the civil liberties issue involved; the law as it now stands robs Californians of the right to arrange for such disposition as they see fit of their own mortal remains.
At this writing, the final outcome of the legislation is unknown. It can be predicted with certainty that the cemetery interests will fight long and hard to maintain their selfconferred role of protectors of the defenseless little packages of human ash.
First, the remains of a cremated body are not “ashes,” as the term is commonly referred to. The remains are bone fragments that, can be too large to scatter if they have not been mechanically reduced. They do not immediately dissolve when scattered. They normally cannot be disbursed and blown away when scattered; so be mindful of that.
