PARK AND CEMETERY. 
242 
required. The hole should be just large 
enough to receive the trap and should 
be covered so as almost to exclude the 
light. Scalding the trap frequently to 
remove the animal odor is important. 
Some of the special gopher traps 
possess the advantages of ease and sim- 
plicity of operation, and kill the ani- 
mals instantly. Two of these are shown 
in our illustrations. These special traps 
should be set in the laterals leading 
into the main tunnel of the gopher, or at 
the entrance of open burrows where 
fresh earth is being thrown out. The 
trapper should choose the freshest of a 
series of mounds and dig along the 
lateral until it is found clear of soil. 
Carbon, bisulphid has been employed 
for killing pocket gophers, and under 
favorable conditions its use is recom- 
mended. If the burrows are extensive 
or the soil dry, the gases are dissipated 
so rapidly that a large quantity of the 
liquid is required to kill the animals 
and the method becomes too expensive. 
If, however, the burrows are simple and 
the soil moist, bisulphid may be used 
successfully. For pocket gophers an 
ounce of liquid for each burrow is suf- 
ficient. The carbon bisulphid is poured 
over a bunch of cotton rags or other 
waste material, and this quickly pushed 
into the burrow, which should be closed 
at once. 
Any farmer may readily rid his prem- 
ises of gophers by the use of poison or 
traps. Unless, however, the entire com- 
munity unites in active and intelligent 
cooperation in the destruction of the 
animals, the cleared area will be sooner 
or later invaded from neighboring prem- 
ises, and the work of destruction must 
be repeated. Cooperation only will ef- 
fect a radical cure. When cooperative 
efforts for the extermination of goph- 
ers over a considerable area are at- 
tempted, careful attention must be giv- 
en to waste lands along fences, streams, 
public highways, and railroads. Such 
places are favorite haunts of the ani- 
mals, because in them are found loose, 
sandy soil, moisture, and succulent roots 
for food. It is from such resorts that 
adjoining premises are often restocked 
with pocket gophers. 
CROSS SECTION OF GOPHER BURROWS. 
a. Mounds of Loose Soil; 6, Laterals Leading- to Mounds, Usually Closed with Earth; 
c. Main Runway Usually Clear. 
COURT DECISIONS ON POINTS OF CEMETERY LAW 
Pay for Cemetery Grant Illegal. 
In the cases of Long vs. Union 
Township and Long vs. Board of 
Health, of Union, N. J., a grant was 
made by a to\\mship committee and 
a board of health to a cemetery com- 
pany to locate its burying ground 
within the township. This consent 
was induced by a contract on behalf 
of the company to build a trolley line, 
not as a means of reaching the ceme- 
tery merely, but as an accommoda- 
tion to the residents of a section of 
the township, irrespective of ceme- 
tery uses. 
The Supreme Court of New Jersey 
holds that the township committee 
and the board of health in making 
the grant were exercising quasi- 
judicial functions, and that they were 
improperly influenced by the contract 
to build and operate the trolley road. 
The record of the case in brief was 
as follows: 
The Clinton Hill Cemetery Asso- 
ciation made application to the town- 
ship committee and to the board of 
health of the township of Union, N. 
J., for their respective consents to 
the location of a new cemetery in the 
township, the township committee 
and the board of health called a pub- 
lic meeting, although the statute does 
not require notice, and heard the sen- 
timent of those attending the meeting, 
which was generally opposed to the 
grant, although it was represented on 
behalf of the applicants that, if con- 
sent was granted, the cemetery asso- 
ciation would present to the township 
bonds amounting to $10,000 for the 
purpose of insuring the township 
against loss arising from the immun- 
ity of the cemetery property from 
taxation. No action was then taken 
by the township committee. There- 
after the cemetery association offered 
the following inducement to obtain 
the requisite consent 'of the township 
authorities: First, that it would give 
10 bonds of $1.00 each, payable in 
10 years, to bear 6 per cent interest, 
to be secured by a mortgage on the 
lands of the cemetery association, and 
to be guaranteed in such manner as 
should meet the approval of the town- 
ship attorney; second, a promise to 
construct an electric street railway 
from Irvington, adjacent to which 
avenue the cemetery should lie, to 
be operated by the Public Service 
Corporation, for a 5-cent fare. An- 
other public meeting was called by 
the township committee, and by rea- 
son of the trolley proposition a 
change of public sentiment was ef- 
fected in favor of a consent to the 
location of the cemetery within the 
township. Such approval was given 
by the township committee and by 
the board of health. 
The court held that the board of 
health, in acting upon the question 
of granting a right to locate a ceme- 
tery, was exercising a quasi-judicial 
function. The decision says further: 
“The question remains whether the Induce- 
ments held out by the cemetery company 
were such as to illegally influence the judg- 
ments of the township committee and the 
board of health. In the solution of this 
question, we will assume that the township 
committee, before it grants consent, may 
exact conditions which look to the proper 
management of the cemetery. • * • 
“There would, I think, have been no In- 
fringement of public policy had the ceme^ 
tery company agreed to waive its exemption 
from taxation, or agreed to pay the amount 
which would have been received from the 
tax upon this property if left free from 
cemetery uses. 
“But there is a feature of the contract, 
which, w*e think, was clearly an illegal in- 
ducement to the judicial action of the com- 
mittee and the board. The consent was 
based upon the contract of Mr. Walker, al- 
ready set out, to build and cause to be 
operated a trolley line. The testimony clearly 
shows that the trolley was to offer facilities 
for transportation to the inhabitants of this 
section of the township, irrespective of ceme- 
tery uses. This promise constituted a bribe 
which changed the sentiment of those in the 
vicinage from opposition to friendliness 
toward the cemetery project, and undoubt- 
edly influenced the judgment of the com- 
mittee and the board of health in arriving 
at the conclusion that the location for this 
burying ground at this point should be per- 
mitted. For this reason we think both or- 
dinance and resolution should be vacated.’” 
Sale of Cemetery Land on Judgment. 
The Supreme Court of Kentucky 
has decided th,at where, in an action 
against a cemetery company, the 
company after settlement failed to 
pay the fees of a master commission- 
er, the Circuit Court had power to 
order a sale of land belonging to 
the company on which there were no 
