14 
THE MODERN CEMETERY. 
owners and but comparatively few cemetc ries offer their 
lot owners suggestions on the subject. 
-» * * 
Mr. Timothy McCarthy, superintendent of Swan 
Point cemetery, Providence, R. I., writes that a case 
quite similar to that of Mt. Hope happened at Swan 
Point recently, but no special notice was taken of it as 
the cemetery has no law preventing a lot owner from 
disposing of his lot to a friend or any one else. He 
cites an instance that has come under his observation 
where a man removed the body of his wife to a single 
grave section in another cemetery and disposed of the 
\’aluable lot in which she was first interred. Mr. Mc- 
Carthy suggests the discussion of laws bearing on the 
important subject, and we would be pleased to hear 
from cemetery officials who have such laws in force. 
* * * 
To render a burial lot safe from the cupidity of heirs 
the safest plan is to reconvey the lot to the cemetery 
corporation in trust and to designate who shall be en- 
titled to interment therein, or, as is suggested by the 
cemetery of Spring Grove at Cincinnati, O., purchasers 
may secure the same object under a declaration of 
trust, which is issued to those desiring it instead of the 
certificate of ownership. The form of reconveyance in 
use at Spring Grove reads as follows; I give and devise 
to the proprietors of the cemetery of Spring Grove my 
lot in the cemetery of Spring Grove, located in Hamil- 
ton county, Ohio, designated as lot No. , in Section 
, to be held by them and their successors forever 
in trust for the permanent interment thereon of myself 
and (here insert names of persons whose interment 
thereon are to be permanent) wholly free from all con- 
trol of my heirs at law or any other person whatsoever; 
but to permit the interment thereon of (here insert 
names and description of those who are to have the 
right of interment thereon subject to ordinary rules and 
regulations as to removals) as “any member of my 
family,” or “my children and their families,” or “my 
heirs,” etc. 
riount Hope Cemetery of Boston Not Subject to 
Legislative Control. 
It has just been decided by the Supreme Judicial 
Court of Massachusetts, in the famous Mount Hope 
cemetery case, that the state legislature does not have 
the power to transfer this cemetery to any one, so that the 
new corporation formed for taking it cannot do so wdth- 
out paying the city of Boston for it. Of course, the under- 
lying principle of this decision will be as applicable to 
any other similar cases. After reviewing the statutes of 
1849 and 1855 authorizing the purchase of Mount Hope 
cemetery by the city, the court says: 
“ There can be no doubt that the city held the cemetery not 
only for the burial of poor persons, but with the right to make 
sales of burial lots rights to any person who might wish to pur- 
chase them, whether residents or non-residents. With these du- 
ties, and also with these rights and privileges, the city has ac- 
quired and improved their property. It is not as if the land had 
been procured and used exclusively as a place for the free burial 
of the poor or of inhabitants of Boston. In addition to these pur- 
poses, the city has been enabled to provide a well-ordered ceme- 
tery, with lots open to purchase, under carefully prepared rules 
and regulations, and thus to afford to its inhabitants the oppor- 
tunity to buy burial places, without being compelled to resort to 
private cemetery companies, where the expense would probably 
be greater; and it has done this upon such terms that the burial of 
its paupers has been practically without expense in the past, and 
it has about forty acres remaining, the proceeds of which when 
sold, would go into the city treasury, but for the requirements of 
statute 1889, chapter 265, which requires the city to transfer to the 
newly-formed corporation called "The Proprietors of Mount Hope 
Cemetery" without compensation this cemetery, with the personal 
property pertaining thereto and with the right to any unpaid bal- 
ances remaining due for lots already sold, and the annual income 
of certain funds held for the perpetual care of lots. If such trans- 
fer is made, all the city would retain would be the right to bury 
such persons as it is or may be by law obliged to bury in a certain 
prescribed portion of the cemetery. Its previous conveyances of 
lots and rights of burial are expressly confirmed. 
"But it is apparent from the considerations heretofore ex- 
pressed that this is not property which is held exclusively for purpos- 
es strictly public. The city of Boston is possessed of much other 
property which in a certain sense and to a certain extent is held 
for the benefit of the public, but in other respects it is held more 
like the property of a private corporation. In view of all these 
considerations, the conclusion to which we have come is that the 
cemetery falls within the class of property which the city owns in 
its private or proprietary character, as a private corporation might 
own it, and that its ownership is protected under the constitution 
of Massachusetts and of the United States, so that the Legislature 
has no power to require its transfer without compensation. * * 
Moreover the legislative power over municipal property, when it 
exists, does not extend so far as to enable the legislature to re- 
quire a transfer without compensation to a private person or pri- 
vate corporations. 
" There are other reasons leading to the same result. The 
first is that the duties of the city in respect to providing a burial- 
place for the poor and for persons dying within its limits are not 
taken away. The city is still bound to provide one or more suita- 
ble places for the burial of persons dying within its limits and it 
is still bound to bury its paupers and indigent strangers. If this 
cemetery should be conveyed away, under the provisions of the 
statute of 1889, the city would be bound to provide another. Cer- 
tainly the mere continuance of the city’s right to bury in a limited 
portion of the cemetery such persons as the law requires it to bury 
is not a provision adequate to meet the requirement, and by the 
report of the facts the portion referred to is not likely to suffice 
even for the burial of paupers for any great length of time. The 
city is bound to provide a suitable place for the interment of per- 
sons dying within its limits; not poor persons only, but all per- 
sons; and the burial of the dead in ground not sanctioned by the 
city authorities, is strictly forbidden. But the duty of burying 
paupers, and of providing a place for the interment of all persons 
dying in Boston, is not imposed upon the new corporation” 
Five grave robbers are on trial at DesMoines, la., 
for despoiling graves in Woodland cemetery for local 
medical colleges. Despite the most convincing evidence 
the jury in the first trial disagreed, making another trial 
necessary. In the meantime the party who is known to 
have concocted the ghoulish plot, has jumped his bond 
and left for parts unknown. 
