THE MODERN CEMETERY. 
67 
The Coming Cemetery. 
In a recent issue of the Rochester, N. Y. Union 
and Signal, there appeared an interesting descrip- 
tion of the new Riverside cemetery near that city, 
which is being developed on the most approved 
lines. The article gave the substance of a conver- 
sation had with an official of the cemetery, which 
is so thoroughly in accord with modern ideas on 
cemetery matters, that we reprint it in full: — 
“In this age of culture and refinement, people 
are demanding many changes in habits and cus- 
toms. Many grotesque customs are permitted 
simply on account of their antiquity and because 
they have worked their way into the lives of men 
and women through many centuries of habit. The 
conventional cemetery must change its old-time 
fashion and appear in line with reason, good 
taste and that simplicity of form which com- 
ports with true art. 
“The majority of the people have long since 
learned the lesson of that simplicity which is the 
soul of art, but from fear of criticism have recoiled 
from leadership in reform. But now, thanks to ed- 
ucation and its enlightening influences, the trend 
of social taste is towards that simplicity. 
“The conventional cemetery has evolved into no- 
thing more inspiring than a stone mason’s and mar- 
ble cutter’s show ground, and the lines of true art 
have been cruelly ignored. The sentiment back of 
this vulgar display, though, in the main actuated by 
deep feeling and real affection for the dead, is built 
upon a false estimate of duty and a desire for os- 
tentation. 
Pride and vanity has done much to mar and dis- 
figure every cemetery in the world, and nothing 
is more irksome and distasteful to the cultivated 
mind than the display of acres of unmeaning, ill- 
formed, unpoetic and conventional creations of the 
marble cutter’s hands. The coming cemetery is 
going to be entirely different in many respects to 
the old. Mother Nature, with its divine art, its 
glorious diversity of form and color, its inexhausti- 
ble resources and its immortal lessons will, under 
the guiding hands of skillful artists, usurp the place 
now occupied by the vulgar hand of ostentation. 
“The lesson of future cemetery adornment and 
conduct is learned in that sublime utterance of the 
Master, who in speaking of the common lilies, ex- 
claimed: ‘And yet I say unto you that even Solo- 
mon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of 
these ! ’ Men and women now realize that the 
highest and most ornate shaft of marble that was 
ever fashioned by man does not convey so lofty a 
sentiment of love and devotion, nor teach so sweet 
a lesson of faith and hope as common flower fash- 
ioned by the hand of God.” 
Allowances for Tombstones. 
One of the questions raised in the case of 
Howard’s Estate recently decided by the Surrogate’s 
Court of Cattaraugus County, New York (23 N. Y. 
Supp. 836), related to an indebtedness of $300 in- 
curred by the executor for a tombstone to be 
placed at the grave of the testator. Shortly after 
the death of testator the executor caused an inex- 
pensive tombstone to be placed at his grave. The 
remains of deceased were subsequently removed to 
another burial place, and thereafter the executor 
entered into an agreement for the purchase of 
another tombstone for testator at an expense of $300. 
The expense of a tombstone, if not excessive, will 
be allowed to an executor, upon his accounting. 
Wood V. Vandenburgh, 6 Paige, 277. The term 
“funeral expenses” includes the cost of a suitable 
tombstone to be erected at the grave of the de- 
ceased. Owens V. Bloomer, 14 Hun, 296. This 
expenditure being such a one as the executor was 
authorized to make, the only question was as to 
whether the amount was reasonable or not. In Re 
P 2 rlacher, 3 Redf. Sur. 8, where the estate amount- 
ed to $2,625, 't was held that the administrator 
should be allowed only $250 of the $700 expended 
by him for monument and inclosing burial lot. In 
Re Mount, Id. 9, note, the administrator, out of an 
estate of $938, paid $425 for funeral expenses; and 
it was held that only $200 should be allowed for 
funeral expenses, and $50 for a gravestone. In 
Valentine v. Valentine, 4 Redf. Sur. 265, an ex- 
penditure of $350, where the estate was $13,000, 
was held not unreasonable. So it is apparent that 
there is no arbitrary rule for determining the ques- 
tion of reasonable funeral expenses and expenses of 
tombstone, but each case must be disposed of upon 
its own particular circumstances. In this case there 
was originally an estate of over $6,000, with accu- 
mulations thereon to much more than that sum. 
The rights of creditors were in no manner impaired 
by the expenditure, and, as against the legatees 
under the will of testator, all of whom were collat- 
eral, the court said the expenditure of $300 it must 
be held that the expense incurred is reasonable and 
proper. 
A funeral custom creeping into New York city 
is the fashion of leaving cards at the tombs of friends 
who are buried in city cemeteries. Small baskets 
are placed in the urns of flowers over the graves for 
receiving the cards. When the family visit the 
grave they can see who have called and learn to 
appreciate the sincere devotion of their friends 
One would naturally view such a fad with repug- 
nance, but I favor it says a writer in the Oakland 
Tribune, as it will have a tendency to induce people 
to care for the resting places of the dead more 
tenderly than is now the custom. 
