490 
PARK AND CEMETERY 
existed then — have always existed so far as we know — but 
the modern cemetery did not exist. Will the cemetery of to- 
day exist fifty years from today? Perhaps yes — perhaps no. 
And yet fifty years is but a passing moment as compared with 
the time covered by the word “perpetual.” The present use 
of grass or turf for covering cemetery lots is well nigh uni- 
versal, and yet who can say that some time in the future other 
plants or other materials may not be produced which will be 
much better for the purpose, and will be generally used? Who 
can say how soon the best of our ornamental plants and shrubs 
will be discarded for something infinitely better, or that our 
present methods of care may not be revolutionized? The only 
sure thing about the future is that great changes will come, 
and in forming our plans and drawing our contracts we must 
be strict only in safeguarding the spirit of the obligation, and 
leave to our successors the widest possible freedom of action 
as to the details. We must discontinue taking contracts for 
planting a bed of General Grant geraniums annually, forever, 
and leave future trustees free to stop such planting when the 
time comes that such planting would be an offense against the 
eternal fitness of things. We must bind the trustees, not to 
continue forever what the creator of trust may wish done now, 
but to change, from time to time, to that which he undoubtedly 
would wish done were he living under the changed conditions 
of future years. 
Details to Be Considered, 
Necessity of perpetual care funds. — There seems to be no 
question but that funds should be set aside for the perpetual 
care of the entire cemetery. 
Method of raising the funds. — The nearly universal meth- 
od seems to be by the setting aside of a sum at the sale of 
each lot, either as a percentage on the selling price, or as a 
fixed amount per square foot, supplemented by such sums as 
the owners of lots sold without perpetual care can be induced 
to pay. Other funds generally applicable to special lots are 
raised by payments by individual lot owners, after an estimate 
by the cemetery officials of the amount necessary to produce 
an income sufficient to pay for the special work desired. 
An alternative method of raising the general funds is by the 
setting aside of a portion of the unsold lots to be sold at a 
future time and the proceeds to be used for such funds. This 
method should be of especial interest to those cemeteries which, 
for the time being, require the use of the entire proceeds of 
the lot sales for development. 
Kinds of perpetual care funds. — They may be classed in 
three divisions. 
General Perpetual Care Funds — those devoted to the care of 
buildings, drives, lakes, fences and unused or unsalable por- 
tions of the cemetery. 
Lot Perpetual Care Funds — those devoted to the care of the 
lots and graves, the used or sold portions of the grounds, but 
not specifically set aside for care of special lots. 
Special Perpetual Care Funds — those contributed in trust 
by lot owners for the purpose of securing special work upon 
individual lots or graves, and of which a special accounting 
must be made. 
The Contingent Fund is another fund not spoken of, which 
it might be desirable to establish. This could be provided for 
by a small tax on the other funds, and would be used in case 
of emergency, when the regular income from any fund was in- 
sufficient to meet unusual conditions, or to offset losses or de- 
layed income. 
The first two are by some advised to be kept as one fund 
and where from the beginning all lots and graves have been 
sold under perpetual care no valid objection would seem to lie 
against this method. Where, however, as is the case in most 
cemeteries the perpetual care feature is introduced after many 
lots have been sold without such provision, two funds would 
seem necessary, the lot fund income being devoted to the care 
of the contributing lots and the general care fund being partly 
used for the keeping of'other lots in as good condition as the 
amount available would warrant. 
Division of funds. — The recommendations seem to be to 
1-3 general care, 2-3 to % lot care. It is a question whether 
they should not be equally, or nearly equally divided, especial- 
ly if there are many old lots to be cared for. Possible surplus 
earnings in the general fund could be transferred to the lot 
fund, but the reverse transfer could be objected to by the lot 
owners. 
As the special funds would require extra labor and expense 
in accounting, and as they benefit no part of the cemetery 
except the lot in whose favor they are received, it would seem 
eminently proper that a • portion of their income should be 
transferred to the general fund as advocated by Mr. Pirie in 
his paper before the Cemetery Superintendents’ Convention. 
Investment and division of profits. — For the purpose of 
investment the monies of the several funds should be com- 
bined and treated as a whole. At the end of the fiscal period 
the net income should be ascertained and prorated among the 
different funds, after deducting the percentage assigned to the 
contingent fund. The special fund would be also again pro- 
rated among the individual endowments. 
Trustees of tfie funds.— In some states the law expressly 
authorizes cemetery corporations to accept such trusts, and 
it is doubtful whether the courts would prohibit such action 
even where it was not specially authorized by statute. Few 
corporations, however, possess perpetual charters, and pro- 
vision should be made for the transfer of the trust at the end 
of the life of the corporation, upon its refusal to act, or after 
the sale of all the lots, especially if the corporation be con- 
ducted for profit. 
The funds may be placed in the hands of trust companies, 
in which case, also, provision for the transfer of the trust 
should be made. 
Perhaps the preferable way would be by trustees, selected 
originally by the corporation or by vote of the lot owners. 
This body might be self-perpetuating, or vacancies might be 
filled by judicial appointment. Continuation of the lot owner 
vote system would not be desirable, as the changes and divi- 
sion of ownership and the apathy of those concerned would 
soon make the voters representatives of only a small minority 
of the lots. There would seem to be little doubt but the trust 
fund should be placed in the hands of a corporation or trus- 
tees other than the cemetery management. The actual work 
done in the care of lots will be, for many years at least, exe- 
cuted by the cemetery corporation. If they also control the 
funds they will be placed in the position as trustees, of mak- 
ing a bargain with themselves in their capacity as cemetery 
managers. This is liable to result in embarrassment and 
would render a possible future suit regarding the execution of 
the trust difficult to defend. 
I 
)■ 
Amount to be set aside. — The amount recommended varies 
from 5 cents to $2.50 per square foot. Some sort of care can 
undoubtedly be given for the income from the smaller sum, 
while the larger amount is more than is needed, save in excep- 
tional cases. The weight of authority favors 25 cents per 
square foot, or thereabouts, as a minimum for the modern 
cemetery of average size. The same care will, in general, cost 
more in a small cemetery than in a large one, and under some 1 
climatic conditions, than under others. Too much dependence 
must not be placed on a continuance of present operating ex- - 
penses when low, as conditions may change. The amount to ; 
be set aside should be such as can be carefully and conserva- 
