The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 1887. CEMETERY MANAGEMENT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1526, 6 April 1887, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 1887. CEMETERY MANAGEMENT.

A citizen has asked us for certain information with regard to the management of the Ashburton Cemetery, which we are happy to be able to afford. He wants to knew who are the Trustees, and how the funds are applied, and has also a grievance to which we will presently refer. Answering the queries put, we find that the Trustees are six m number, as follows, viz., - Messrs Joseph Ward, Robert Millar, John Harrison, Hugh Cullen, John Devery and Thomas Bullock, who hold office under ' appointment of the Governor, as provided by Section 6 of " The Cemeierits Act 1882." The funds are applied m the general management of the Cemetery, which has been fenced, and planted, and where a mortuary chapel has been built, footpaths made and other improvements carried out, all of which have been paid for. Indeed, the general appearance of the Cemetery is a credit to the Trustees and to the place. The grievance of the citizen referred to is, however, that he has been charged what he deems an unnecessarily high fee for the interment of a still-born child, having shown us an account for £2 17s, being £2 2s for the plot of land and 15s sexton's fees. He points out that such a sum is a serious one for a working man, and thinks that m such cases a much smaller fee should suffice. So do we. But it appears that it was not at all necessary for our friend to have incurred the expense that he did that, it was not requisite that he should purchase a plot of land at all, and that had he made application m the right way the burial would have been authorised on payment of the fee of £1 only, to cover sexton's charges. So that it seems the fault is with the compkinant to some extent, as he should have made full enquiry before incurring an unnecessary expense. We say to some extent, only, because we think the Trustees should publish the fees for public information. And now as regards the system of management generally. We observe that the Cemeteries Act makes provision for the keeping of proper accounts by every Cemetery Tiust, and the Trustees are required to make up a balance sheet or statement as at the 31st December m each year, which accounts and balance sheet or statement are to be open to inspection by any person appointed by the Governor m that behalf ; but it would, we think, be much more satisfactory to the public, and indeed to the Trustees themselves, that such annual statement should be published m the local papers for public information. This would enable it to be seen by all the world how the Trust funds were administered, and would show whether the fees charged were reasonable as compared with the necessary expenses of management, and whether there was or was not any extravagance m administration. Possibly this may be done without special statutory provision m that behalf, and, if so, we hope the Trustees of the local Cemetery will see the expediency of so doing; if not, then statutory provision should be made. As regards the personnel of the present Trust, nothing better could be wished for. We observe that it consists not only of thoroughly suitable business men, but also happens to contain representatives of the principal religious bodies, viz., j the Church of England, the Roman Catholic, the Presbyterian, and the Wesleyan Churches. It is, however, open to consideration whether m Ashburton, as well as m other cases, the Cemetery should not rather be entrusted to the. management of the Borough Council, under the powers contained m Section 45 of the Act. If the public so desire, effect can readily be given to their wishes ; all that would be necessary, we think, being si sufficiently numerously signed memo* rial to tfre Government on the sutyect,