Rensselaer Union, Volume 6, Number 37, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 June 1874 — A Grave Subject. [ARTICLE]

A Grave Subject.

A singular, but not uninteresting, advertisement appears in a late number of the Plymouth (Ind.) Republican. As a literary curiosity, and to illustrate what are have (p say on the subject, we copy it herewith: rsanns. attention! let as show ran a thing or two. When s friend or a relative dies, you come to town, and through a feeling of liberality aud respect toward the deceased yoa pay thirty, forty, and even sixty and sixty-five dollars for s coffin. Undertakers are getting rich by so taking advantage of a farmer or a citizen in distress, and it is high time yon ware getting posted in regard to this matter. Allow ns to yon a few figures, giving the cost of material and labor expended on a so-called $65 coffin: Black walnut lumber, not to exceed .$ 1.00 Jour's price for making 1.00 Upholstering and trimming, with silverplated handles, etc., not to exceed 5.00 Total cost to the undertaker $7.00 Be tail prioe.. ; 65.00 Profits on one coffin $58.00 “HOW IS THIS FOB HIGH?" This can be changed into a thirty, forty, or a fifty dollar coffin by omitting fifty cents' worth of stain and varnish—and, perhaps, nsing a slightly Inferior qnality of silk lining. We are selling a “forty," ''fifty,” and “sixtyfive dollar” coffin at $lO to $lB. How would you like it if we should charge you S6O for the same oofflnf “ A dollar saved is a dollar made.” Children's coffins at $3 to $6. This is not all of the advertisement, but it is enough to show the spirit and enterprise of the firm whose names in bold capitals are signed at the bottom. Though told rather roughly and embellished with phrases which seem grossly incongruous when speaking of things so solemnly associated, we do not doubt the advertisers are giving us a deal of truth in their double-column manifesto. Some time ago we published an account of a trial in the Washington courts in which an undertaker was plaintiff and the Hon. Fernando Wood was defendant. The suit grew out of a charge by the undertaker for coffin, hearse, and attendance on the occasion of the death of Mr. Wood’s mother-in-la\y. The bill was so grossly exorbitant that the Hon. Fernando absolutely refused to pay it and a suit was the consequence. On the trial facts closely resembling those stated in the above advertisement were made public, the evidence showing that the undertaker had charged a profit of more than 500 per cent. This robbery seems to have grown into a custom with the undertakers, who, taking advantage oi the grief and despair so common on sucb occasions and which shrinks in stinctively firwn any controversy regarding the price for performing this last sad rite to a cherished triend, pile up their charges until dying and being decently buried is a luxury that no one but a millionaire can afford. The very nature of the service invites this imposition; but it is time that some philanthropic individuals put a stop to it by rejecting any but reasonable bills. They may hate to quarrel over the grave of a relative; but the great service they will thereby render to the living should induce them to submit to the pain of such a controversy for the benefit of others. The practice in the city of following the remains of a friend to the cemetery with long lines of costly carriages is another custom which should be abolished, or at least not made a rule the breach of which is a mark of meanness or disrepeck It must add a pang to the parting for a man in moderate circumstances to know that a tyrannical custom will compel his widow to indulge in empty display over his remains, squandering valuable means which would go far toward starting her out successfully in her solitary life in the world. This practice should go down with the extravagant undertakers’ charges, until a man may not have added to the fear of dying a,still worse dread—thathis decease will bankrupt his family.—Chicago Inter-Ocean.