The New Zealand "Truth" is a now dead weekly which may be familiar to some readers. Its salacious content made it a publication which many read who did not admit to doing so. But it was not always salacity for salacity's sake. In its early days it was a crusader for justice - happily chewing on stories at which the other papers merely nibbled.
In Dunedin, at the end of 1910, it took a big bite.
GHASTLY GHOULS.
A DUNEDIN DISGRACE.
Burning a Pauper's Remains.
A Case for the Court
There is a storm of no uncertain nature brewing in the Scotchbyterian teapot of dour Dunedin, and when it breaks there are going to be reputations and other thinks broken simultaneously. The people of Dunedin who have dear departed friends and relatives in the little graveyard which occupies a commanding site in Dunedin South have had a rude shock through the disinterring of a cemetery scandal, which wants a lot of explanation. There are rumors of disinterment and burnings of remains and all sorts of atrocities in connection with the South Dunedin cemetery which have just had ventilation through a most atrocious deed, which, if sheeted home, ought to merit a salutary sentence for the conscienceless perpetrator.
Dunedin's dailies dealt with the matter in veiled terms on Tuesday last, and, to keep in with the powers that be, and the fat subscribers, all names in any of the reports were
SCRUPULOUSLY SUPPRESSED. "Truth," which tries to live up to its name and generally succeeds, went out, and in spite of extreme reticence on the part of everyone concerned in the matter, managed to get a fairly coherent version of the alleged awfulness.
It appears that some seven years ago a poor old individual named Townsend, who was one of the joyful and contented inhabitants of the Old Men's Home, did his country the favor of passing in his mess number, and, plus a wooden overcoat, was planted in the Dunedin South cemetery with the usual ceremonies which are given to parties who have slightly less filthy lucre than John D. Rockefeller. Old man Townsend had a lot of company in his last earthly habitation, as he was only three feet under the sod, but old man Townsend couldn't have even 3ft., as he was occupying the wrong patch, so to speak, and was dug up (at least what was left of him) and burned. The cause for old man Townsend's disinterment was that he had the high-flown impertinence to have
A CONCRETE KERB round his grave, which was put there by mistake and cost 35s, or there-abouts, and was not paid for. The wall ought to have been put around the little plot of a man of the same name but of a different spelling, namely, Townshend, and this was ultimately done.
Now the relatives of the party who was buried on Monday last, named Ansell, bought old man Townsend's little plot from the Dunedin City Council, which is a godly body and erects prohibition notices on its public reserves. Old man Townsend hadn't paid for his last sleep, so was dug up and turned over to the tender mercies of an amateur crematorium on Saturday last, and with great persistency kept burning until the time of his successor's funeral and to the great discomfort of the parson and the mourners. In fact, the ashes of old man Townsend were
SMOULDERING AND STENCHING some five yards away at the time the Rev. Siggers, of St. Matthew's, was reciting the last offices for the dead. The scene of the horrible occurrence is in the Anglican portion of the cemetery, and that portion is under the control of the Anglican Cemetery Trust.
Chief 'Tec. Paddy Herbert knew that something was going to happen, and sent up 'Tec. Hunt to see into matters, but, of course, he could do nothing until the funeral was over. Things are moving with much swiftness now, and someone is going to find trouble over the matter, as the removal of a body from a grave without the permission of the Colonial Secretary is a breach of the Cemeteries Act.
"Truth" knows the names of the responsible parties, and also some other fine facts about the cemetery at Dunedin South, but, as the case is practically sub judice, it would be unwise to comment on the matter. However, one thing is sure: if nothing is done about old man Townsend's desecration, "Truth" will take a hand in the game. -NZ Truth, 24/12/1910.
DASTARDLY DESECRATION.
RATTLING THE BONES OF A PAUPER.
Canon Siggers is Smug and Satisfied.
What Will The Board Do?
It is now ten days since the mortal remains of Old Man Townsend were rudely dug up out of his pauper's grave by Sexton Scarfe in the Anglican portion of the Dunedin South cemetery, and nothing has been done towards relieving the public mind by a thorough investigation of the circumstances, and the punishment of the offender against the canons of common decency, if not against the law of the Dominion. The Anglican portion of South, Dunedin cemetery is under the management of a board of Trustees
COMPOSED MOSTLY OF PARSONS, with a lawyer named C. E. Statham as secretary, and is taking shelter behind the fact that the Cemeteries Act permits of the grave of a pauper being re-sold after the expiration of seven years from the date of burial. Also, in the event of any irregularities taking place in the cemetery, or on the part of its servants, the onus of prosecution lies with the Trustees, not with the police. "Truth" was under the impression that sections 67 and 68 of the Cemeteries Act of 1906 (consolidated statutes) provided a penalty of £50 or 3 months' imprisonment for the removal of a body without the permission of the Colonial Secretary. If this is so, then somebody ought to be prosecuted.
Anyway, it says very little for the much lauded humanity of the Trustees that they knew of such disinternments taking place, and did not put a stop to them immediately. If the cemetery is full to overcrowding, it is a matter for which provision could have been made years ago, and steps should have been taken to acquire further land in the vicinity of Dunedin. "Truth" here wonders what special privileges the Trustees have got, which allow them to enter within borough boundaries.
All the steps the Trustees have taken are to suspend Sexton Scarfe and take possession of his books and papers, and the suspension cannot count for much, as, on a "Truth" representative's visit some days after the suspension, he was still working in the cemetery. This sounds suspiciously like
TRYING TO HUSH THE MATTER UP by, on the one hand, satisfying the short-memoried public, and on the other hand, satisfying a servant who is no doubt valuable to a soulless body.
Canon Curzon-Siggers, who is the owner of the boss Anglican church in Dunedin, admits that he advised the widow of the party who was interred in Old Man Townsend's grave, to allow the funeral, at which he and Parson King officiated to proceed "as the probabilities were that there would be nothing more done." These are the words of this piece of ecclesiastical artillery. Criticism of them would be useless. They show a fine spirit of Christian charity, and yet the reverend gent no doubt preached goodwill to men on Christmas, and will keep on doing it and chiming his bells. The reverend gent., who by-the-bye is one of the Trustees, and that explains a lot, takes great consolation from the fact that there was not enough of Old Man Townsend left to
FILL A QUARTER OF AN OIL DRUM, nor could anyone have proved they were human bones of any particular portion of the body. This is a very pretty piece of self-justification, and it is eminently parsonical in its way. How would Parson Siggers like the remains of one of his children, if he has any, to be disinterred and burnt? Would it console him to know that there was only a quarter of an oil tin left, or that they couldn't be recognised from those of a dog? "Truth" rather thinks not. Parson Siggers is a rich man, and he would raise Cain and such a tremendous row that every sexton in the cemetery would get short shrift. "Truth" has heard further allegations in connection with this delectable cemetery with which the Dunedin public should be acquainted. Most people with affectionate feelings for their dead are in the habit offering up flowers and shrubs and planting them on the graves, and sextons are paid small sums by the relatives to look after the graves in their spare time. Now, in very numerous instances, these flowers and shrubs have been stolen, and in some cases have been sold outside or to other mourners. Maybe the Board will also let this pass without action. Those who would steal from the dead
ARE SOULLESS RASCALS. Those who disturb the dead are not much better if as good. "Truth" wants to know what the Trustees are going to do about these things. It has the law at its command. It has the power to take action. Will it simply let things slide? -NZ Truth, 31/12/1910.
In connection with the recent cemetery scandal (telegraphs our Dunedin correspondent), Daniel Scarfe, the sexton, a married man, is reported as missing. He has not returned to his home since leaving it on Thursday morning. It is said that the recent trouble at the cemetery had been preying on his mind. -Press, 14/1/1911.
Whatever the trustees did, "Truth" was not a paper to let things slide
DESECRATING THE DEAD.
SEXTON SCARFE'S SUDDEN SCOOT.
Why was He Allowed to Wander?
A Grave-yard Ghoul — The Tricky Trustees — Their Masterful Inactivity — If Scarfe was Arrested — Some Startling Statements — Revolting Revelations — A Pious Parsonical Party — Smug, Sanctified Body-snatchers — Are the Anglicans Anxious? — A Matter for Mayor Cole — Of Concern to the Council.
It is now three weeks since Sexton Scarfe, who dug up the mortal remains of old man Townsend out of their pauper's grave and re-burned them, shook the dust of Holy Dunedin off his feet and disappeared suddenly. Shortly before Scarfe disappeared it was announced by the daily papers that the Detective Department was going to take action against him under the Crimes Act, and this may possibly have accounted for his disappearance. The proper parties to take action against Scarfe were his employers,
CANON CURZON-SIGGERS and the other members of the Church of England Cemetery Trustees, under a section of the Cemeteries Act which applies to such a case, but these worthies first suspended Scarfe whilst popular indignation was hot on the matter, then reinstated him when they thought things had quietened down, and finally let him slip through their fingers when the police began to look like business.
Now, "Truth's" readers might be interested to know what steps the Trustees have taken to find out where Sexton Scarfe has gone to, and perhaps an explanation of the position may show that there is more in the disappearance of Scarfe than meets the eye at the first glance.
From the police point of view, it is doubtful whether a charge, laid by them under the Crimes Act, would fit the case of Scarfe. The section under which proceedings were threatened provides punishment for any person "committing any indignity" on the dead, and this, it was considered, would be construed to be mutilation or other act of a similar nature. Scarfe's case scarcely comes within that category, and "Truth" is inclined to agree with the poll that proceedings under that section would never reach a jury, and, if they did, would be thrown out.
The Trustees, on the other hand have a clear case against Scarfe under sections 67 and 68 of the Cemeteries Act, which provide
A PENALTY OF £50 OR THREE MONTHS for the removal of a body from a grave without the permission of the Colonial Secretary.
Now the peculiar points about the Act, in its application to Scarfe are: (l) That the Trustees are the only persons who can take action; (2) that proceedings must be taken by way of summons and information; (3) that unless an information is laid within six months of the date of the offence, no subsequent action can be taken.
What has been the action of this spineless lot of Wowsers? Nothing but a masterly inactivity, which looks suspicious. No information has been laid against Scarfe, and the only step that has been taken is to mildly ask the police to keep a look out for Scarfe. If an information had been laid, it would hold good for all time, even though the summons were not served on Scarfe for years, but all that is done is make a request to the police, which will be worse than useless.
For the sake of-example, let us suppose that Scarfe was located in Auckland by some energetic constable. What can the constable do? He can merely write to Dunedin and say, "I saw a party here
WHO LOOKS LIKE SCARFE, but I have no summons for him, a there is no warrant out against him. What do you want with him and what am I to do?" Then the Dunedin police have to run round to tell the Trustees' secretary, if happens to be in, the momentous news. Then the secretary has got to call a meeting of the Trustees and if they should happen by any chance, which "Truth" considers doubtful, to decide to prosecute, by the time the information is laid, the summons issued, and the Auckland police communicated with, Scarfe, warned by his friends, could be at Honolulu or 'Frisco, or the South Pole.
The whole action, or, rather, inaction, of the Trustees is a suspicious farce, intended to throw dust in the eyes of the public, and it is not going to if "Truth" can help it.
Look at the attitude of this pious push from whatever light the reader will, he cannot fail to conclude that they don't want to see Sexton Scarfe again, and that they hope the police will not see him, and that the public can go to the deuce.
IF SEXTON SCARFE WAS ARRESTED and tried in open court by a jury of his fellow-men, "Truth" understands that such revelations would be made in connection with the Southern cemetery that would stagger this Dominion with horror and revulsion. "Truth" has given up all hope of the parsons ever taking action on their own initiative, and, as the six months necessary for the information to laid are rapidly passing, it would like to know whether the Anglican community, which delegates its authority to smug, sanctified body-snatchers, is going to force their hands, and compel them to disclose the ghastly secrets of their consecrated bone-yard. In its own interests as a body, if not in the interests of the public as a whole, the Anglican community should do so. What guarantee has it that its own paid-for graves have not been tampered with? How does it know that its own little individual family plot does not contain some unwanted corpse, whose relatives no doubt paid for a plot, but for whom no unoccupied corner could be found? For all it knows, Sexton Scarfe may have burned the remains of one its relatives, just as he burned those of old man Townsend. It is up to the Anglican community to get busy and compel the shedding of a little light on the gruesome darkness.
In parting, "Truth" would also like to know when the City Council is going to close the cemetery. The cemetery is admitted to be packed
AS FULL AS A SARDINE TIN and, although a portion of it has been closed for burials, yet the Anglican portion is being cheerfully packed tighter every week. Why the privilege should be granted to every special sect, "Truth" cannot see, but there must be a reason. Perhaps Mayor Cole, who is an undertaker and ought to be perfect conversant with these matters, make a statement in answer to the questions at the next meeting of the Council. It certainly would interest the public. -NZ Truth, 11/2/1911.
Shortly before the preceeding issue of "Truth" was published, Sexton Daniel Scarfe had gone missing without trace. In September of 1912, a man's boot with a sock and portions of a human foot were found in the spoil deposited by the harbour dredge. The boot was described as a "size 8 box calf Balmoral design with toe plate and O'Sullivans cushion rubber heel." Sexton Daniel Scarfe was but one of four disappeared men whose boot it might have been
No comments:
Post a Comment