PARK AND CEMETERY 
AND LANDSCAPE GARDENING 
Vol. XIX Chicago, February, 1910 No. 12 
The Field Museum Site, Chicago 
There is no relaxation in the strenuous efforts of Chicago 
to secure the $10,000,000 museum, which the will of the late 
Marshall Field made possible provided an appropriate site 
could be determined upon within a stipulated time. The Chi- 
cago “city plan” decided upon Grant Park, located along the 
harbor shore in the down-town district, as the most suitable 
spot for both the Field Museum and the Crerar Library, and 
indeed a general consent endorses that location. But a prom- 
inent citizen who has constituted himself the “watch dog of 
the lake front” acting under a legal technicality that prohibits 
building on the said lake front, has persistently opposed the 
erection of any buildings of whatever nature or cost in Grant 
Park, and the law has upheld him. Two schemes are being 
prosecuted now to break this opposition, one a legal suit, a 
condemnation of easement rights, and the creating of an island 
just far enough from shore to give it the name, upon which 
to construct the museum, with the possibility in the future of 
connecting the island with the mainland by a little more fill- 
ing. The location of these splendid buildings in Grant Park 
fits in so well with the “Chicago plan”, that this opposition 
must be defeated. 
N? 
The Forestry Bureau Episode 
Whatever may be the outcome of the situation that com- 
pelled the dismissal of Gifford Pinchot from the office of Chief 
Forester at Washington, the good sense of President Taft 
in appointing a competent man to succeed him is to be highly 
commended. Prof. Henry S. Graves, of the Yale Forestry 
School, a warm friend of Mr. Pinchot, and unquestionably a 
man devoted to his work, will make a worthy occupant of 
the office, and the people may rest satisfied that the efforts of 
his predecessor will be seconded with zeal. And the people 
may further be congratulated that they do not lose the emi- 
nent services of Mr. Pinchot, and it may be that as a cham- 
pion m the field of conservation over the whole country, his 
particular devotion and ability, may be more effective in de- 
veloping just and proper conditions, than the limits of official 
life encourages. The controversy in official life on the con- 
servation question, will probably have been entirely to the 
advantage of the people; nevertheless it was an unfortunate 
episode. 
Ng 
The Public School a Social Center 
As a complement to the Pla 3 ^ground movement the Public 
School has, in a number of places, been found to be an ex- 
cellent Social Center. And there is good reason in it too. It 
is a public building erected and maintained by the people, and 
is only occupied for its particular functions, a minor part of 
the day and for less than three parts of the year. Where a 
sustained effort has been made to supply entertainment and to 
interest a neighborhood by means of the public school build- 
ing, it will have been noted that an extension of the proposi- 
tion is very soon in order, and the extra expense to the tax- 
payers is not felt at all. A neighborhood has to be studied in 
order to be able to supply its ethical needs, and the public 
school invites a trial of its appropriateness as. a center from 
which to encourage social betterment. 
^ 
Two Important Cemetery Decisions 
An important suit has just been decided by Judge Swear- 
ingen in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny, Pa., be- 
tween Mrs. Elizabeth E. Pitcairn, and the Homewood Cem- 
etery, Pittsburg. Mrs. Pitcairn in consequence of the body 
of a son-in-law having been already interred on her lot, or- 
dered the contractor to locate a mausoleum midway be- 
tween the grave and the rear of the lot so that the outer 
walls would be twelve feet from the end of the lot. She held 
that the mausoleum could not be erected in the center of the 
lot without disturbing the grave. The Board of Managers of 
the cemetery refused to allow it to be erected except in the 
center of the lot. The complainant therefore asked an injunc- 
tion to restrain the cemetery managers from interfering 
The Homewood Cemetery denied that the title to the lot 
passed to the plaintiff under this general devise, but that it 
was “intended as a family heritage for the interment of his 
own and the bodies of his immediate family; and having left 
children surviving him, they and not the plaintiff are the only 
persons who jointly have the right of disposal and use of said 
lot. While the plaintiff had the same interest in said lot as 
she would have in the other real estate of her deceased hus- 
band had he died intestate, this interest, in so far as the 
cemetery was concerned, was merely nominal, and she had 
no right either to dispose of the lot or order interments to 
be made therein. The defendant denied that the mausoleum 
could not be erected in the center of the lot without interfer- 
ing with the grave or body. The cemetery held that the rules 
and regulations were sufficient to enable the “Board of Man- 
agers of the cemetery to prevent the location of a mausoleum 
or other structure upon any lot at a point unfit or improper in 
view of the general scheme of improvement of the cemetery 
property.” The defendant’s answer then proceeded to aver 
that apart from rules and regulations, a general discretion is 
vested in the Board as trustees for the entire property, to 
control the erection and location of structures, which in view 
of their location or design may injuriously affect adjoining 
properties.” This had been done on the surrounding lots. 
“To permit the plaintiff to violate this rule and erect a mau- 
soleum at one side or in the corner of the lot described in 
the bill, would be to seriously damage these other properties 
by destroying the alignment and symmetry of this class of 
improvements in the vicinity.” To allow lot owners to lo- 
cate such structures at pleasure would prevent any future 
control of the location thereof by the managers. Judge Swear- 
ingen declared that when Robert Pitcairn purchased the, lot 
the deed was in fee simple, and decided that the plaintiff has 
a right to locate the mausoleum on any part of her lot with- 
out giving any reason for her action, but if her reasons are 
material, the reasons shown in this case are sufficient to jus- 
tify her action in locating the mausoleum between the grave 
of her son-in-law and the westerly side of her lot. The costs 
were placed upon the cemetery. 
The decision of Judge Wilbur F. Booth in the petition of 
the Lakewood Cemetery Association of Minneapolis, Minn., 
to condemn adjoining land for cemetery extension has an im- 
portant bearing upon such cemetery propositions. The own- 
ers of the lots in the Saunders Park addition to the city con- 
tended that the cemetery association was not a public body, 
was not entitled to the right of eminent domain, and that there 
was not now need to expand the grounds. The ruling held 
that the body is public, that the statutes give cemeteries the 
right to condemn, and that enlargement is necessary if the 
artistic features are to be preserved. On the question of 
the “artistic” the judge declared: “Public sentiment now de- 
mands that a cemetery be not merely a burial ground, but a 
dignified sepulchre laid out and maintained with cultured and 
artistic taste.” 
