3-0 
PARK AND CEMETERY 
Supreme Court in the case of Union Dale 
Cemetery, 227 Pa. 1. It was there decided 
that under a provision in the cemetery 
company's charter, exempting its land 
“from execution, attachment, taxation or 
any other claim, lien or process,” a muni- 
cipal lien could not be enforced against 
such land for a sewer improvement, not- 
withstanding the general provision quoted 
at the beginning of this article. It was de- 
cided that the special charter provision 
W'as not to be deemed to have been re- 
pealed by the general provision authoriz- 
ing municipal claims for sewers, etc. The 
court said : 
"It was not unusual for the legislature 
to include these immunities in acts in- 
corporating cemetery companies because 
from the beginning of our state govern- 
ment it has been the policy of our com- 
monwealth to treat burial grounds as 
sacred places not subject to levy or sale 
either by individual creditors or by taxing- 
authorities. It is true in the present case 
no direct tax was levied, but if the report 
of the viewers be confined absolutely a 
municipal lien will follow', which if not 
paid can only be enforced by sale of the 
cemetery property. The right of lien in- 
cludes the power to sell, else the lien 
would be a nullity. Sale by adverse process 
means the divesting of title, and when the 
title of the cemetery property and of the 
lot owners is divested, the burial ground 
intended to lie a permanent place of sepul- 
ture for the dead becomes a piece of prop- 
erty subject to barter and trade by the 
living. The legislature may subject ceme- 
tery companies to taxes, liens and proc- 
esses, but since the policy of our state, 
which reflects the feeling and sentiment 
of our people for more than a century, 
has been to regard burial grounds as sa- 
cred places not subject to writs and proc- 
esses applicable to other kinds of property, 
it is not too much to require that such a 
radical departure from the fixed policy 
of the commonwealth shall be expressed 
in language so plain as to leave no doubt 
as to the legislative intention so to do.’’ 
Speaking of the 1903 statute quoted at 
the beginning of this article, the Pennsyl- 
vania Supreme Court said : 
“It will be observed that this act in the 
main is but declaratory of the existing 
policy of the state not to subject places 
of burial to levy and sale by means of tax 
lien or municipal claim. It is true that 
‘sewer claims and sewer connections’ are 
carved out of the general exemption, and 
while the language used is negative in 
character the legislative intention to sub- 
ject property so held to municipal claims 
for the purposes stated may be fairly in- 
ferred. However, it does not follow that 
because the legislature provided in this 
negative way for the filing of municipal 
claims for the cost of sewer construction 
against burial places generally that the in- 
tention was to alter, revoke or annul the 
special immunities conferred by charter 
upon the appellant company. This is not 
the case of the repeal of a special law 
by a general act, but what is attempted 
to be done here is to revoke the charter 
privileges and immunities conferred * * *, 
and this by a general law which does not 
affirmatively enact any legislation on the 
subject and only negatively suggests that 
claims may be filed against a certain class 
of property. * * * The legislature may 
alter, revoke or annul any privilege or 
immunity conferred by the act of incor- 
poration, but when it does so the in- 
tention should clearly appear from the 
language used.” 
In the charter of the cemetery in ques- 
tion, apparently the only provision bearing 
on the question here involved is “that said 
cemetery grounds shall be exempt from 
taxation.” It seems that this alone would 
not be enough to sustain a claim of ex- 
emption from a lien for water frontage, 
for the courts draw a distinction now be- 
tween an e.xemption from “taxation,” 
wbich is held to relate to general taxation, 
and assessments for local improvements. 
“Cemeteries, although exempt from 
TAXES, are liable to assessment for local 
unprovements, unless total lack of benefit 
W. B. Sanford, of tbe Holland Banking 
Company and president of the Missouri 
Bankers’ Association, recently donated to 
the city of Springfield, Mo., a tract of 20 
acres of land located inside the city limits 
which will be converted into a park and 
will be known as Sanford Park. Work 
will be started during the coming spring 
to beautify tbe plot and approximately 
$15,000 is to be spent on tbe project. The 
plans accepted by the park board include 
the construction of a large lake and path- 
ways through the tract. A boulevard will 
also be constructed from the new park to 
Grant Beach park, which is but a short dis- 
tance away, thus giving it a twin-park ef- 
fect and each park being a supplement to 
the other, instead of distracting from one 
another. C. E. Phillips, civil engineer, pre- 
pared blue prints for the topography of 
the grounds which were submitted to Sid- 
ney J. Hare, of Hare & Hare, landscape 
architects of Kansas City, Mo., who pre- 
pared plans for the park. 
Benjamin E. Gage, the Chicago landscape 
architect, announces the establishment of a 
park management department which is pre- 
pared to assume the active management 
of parks and other properties, and operate 
them in such a way that the cost is re- 
duced and the properties are more efficient- 
can be shown or express exemption be 
granted.” — 28 Cyc, 1132. 
This statement of the law in a standard 
legal authority is supported by the fol- 
lowing cited decisions of the Pennsylvania 
Supreme Court handed down since the 
dates of the decisions referred to in the 
booklet issued by the cemetery in question : 
Philadelphia vs. Union Burial Ground 
Society, 178 Pa. St. 533. 
Beltzhoover Borough v. Beltzhoover, 173 
Pa. St. 213. 
New Castle v. Stone Church Graveyard, 
172 Pa. St. 86. 
But, on the data presented, it seems 
quite clear that the cemetery whose super- 
intendent writes us is entitled to claim ex- 
emption from the water frontage lien un- 
der the 1993 law to which we have already 
drawn attention. That law distinctly says 
that “places of burial not used or held for 
private or corporate profit * * * shall not 
be subject to tax or municipal claims, ex- 
cept for the removal of nuisances, for 
sewer claims and sewer connections, or for 
recurbing, paving, repaving or repairing the 
footways in front thereof.” Since a lien 
for water frontage does not fall within 
these exceptions, it is our opinion that the 
cemetery is justified in resisting the lien 
claim. 
ly cared for. He calls attention to the 
results in saving, and Ijetterment of parks 
that can be attained by more efficient man- 
agement. 
In one case, over one-half was saved on 
purchases of nursery stock and in other 
ways great economy has resulted. In an- 
other case the re-arrangement of work- 
ing hours for the men and the cutting off 
of one man from the pa 3 'roll has amounted 
to more than the cost of management for 
the year. In the case of boards composed 
of busy men these matters are left to vol- 
unteers on the board, who have not much 
time for personal investigation, and who 
leave most of the details to the foreman 
who may or may not be trustworthy or 
competent. 
The commissioners for the Queen Vic- 
toria Niagara Falls (Can.) Park System 
recently issued their thirty-first annual re- 
port covering the administration of the sys- 
tem of parks along the Niagara frontier 
for the fiscal year ending December 31, 
1916. Another year has passed under war 
conditions, and the park administration 
with its plans of development and improve- 
ment has again been influenced by the 
titanic struggle that the empire is engaged 
in. The extension of the boulevard road- 
ways to connect the various park areas 
PARK NEWS. 
