c 
PARK AND CEMETERY. 
more than may be done in any city of 18,000, “where you can find 
a few persons willing to sacrifice a little time without pay. For 
instance, I have been trustee for 32 years, Mr. Crawford 30 years, 
A. H. Kling, 25 years. I find it takes some years to become 
fully familiar with cemetery work, and very good results will not 
follow frequent changes in officers or superintendent. We are a 
close corporation, so we fully control the whole thing; first show 
the people that you are in for beautifying the City of the Dead, 
and they will be with you sure.” 
* * * 
At the annual meeting of the lot-holders, of Magnolia 
Cemetery, Charleston, S. C., on May 4th. Mr. Geo. W. 
Williams, chairman, made his 39th annual report. The receipts 
from sales of lots the past year were $3,383.55 The fund for the 
care, of grounds, roads and lakes amounts to $35,423; the perman- 
ent fund to insure the perpetuity of the cemetery is now $36, - 
850.00 and the perpetual care fund $26,300. , The sale of lots in 
this cemetery since its organization in 1850 amounts to $177, - 
115 55, and the proprietors have expended over.fioo 000 in mak- 
ing Magnolia a beautiful cemetery. A pointed suggestion is 
conveyed in the report of the Trustees on Perpetual Care; it says: 
“It would certainly be better for lot holders before erecting ex- 
pensive monuments to provide a fund for the perpetual care of 
their lots." Magnolia cemetery is gradually coming to maintain 
stricter rules tor its care and development, such as have been 
found necessary in other progressive cemeteries. The ceme- 
tery was never in better condition than at present. 
^©orre^poridence.^ 
Politics in the Parks. 
Editor Park and Cemetey. 
Sir: — The following anent the Chicago Parks is lrorn 1 he 
American Florist. 
“The West Park Commissioners haveelected Wm. J . Cooke 
general superintendent of the West Park system. Previous to 
this time Mr. Cooke had been sergeant at-arms of the city coun- 
cil, and his studies in this great horticultural school must have 
made him peculiarly available. It is said that he can graft a 
slate on to a primary with finished skill and in the propagation 
of votes has produced some very interesting hybrids. 
“The new superintendent of Garfield Park is Mr. Hugh 
Ward, reported in the daily press to have been a lodging house 
keeper prior to his appointment. Probably he also knows some- 
thing about the propagation of votes, the atmosphere of lodging 
houses being said to be remarkably favorable to the process. 
“Mr. James Jenson was retained as superintendent of Hum- 
boldt Park, much to the surprise of all. The supply of lodging 
house and saloon keepers must have given out. The head gar- 
deners were retained at each park. The board seems to gener- 
ously admit that there should be some one at each park who 
knows the difference between a geranium and an elm tree. This 
magnanimous concession is much appreciated by the people. 
“The Lincoln Park board has not yet reorganized. It is re- 
ported that a livery stable keeper, prominent in political circles, 
is the leading candidate for the position of superintendent.” 
A Mr. Stewart is reported later, as resigning his appoint- 
ment as a commissioner on the Lincoln Park board, it is not said 
whether from conscientious scruples. 
Mr. Grant writes me that a paper on this subject is to be 
read at the next meeting of the Chicago Horticultural Society, 
and that the correspondents of the daily press are to be invited. 
I cannot conceive what kind of gardeners accept positions 
with these worthies? Surely they are becoming more and more 
hopeless. 
Why don’t the politicians scoop in the Hospitals? Are they 
afraid the doctors would kick? ‘Base Turks’ not they! Never 
theless, I only know of one or two instances where it has been 
done. 
A public so depraved, so ignorant, so steeped in indiffer- 
ence, deserve all they get, and are bound to get. 
7. MacP. 
* * * 
A Legal Point. 
Brooklyn, May 1, 1897. 
Editor Park and Cemetery. 
Dear Sir: — Will you please answer in your next issue the 
following: 1 If a person dies making no mention of his burial 
lot in his will, but wills all his real and personal estate to John 
Doe, does the lot go to the heirs of the testator or to John Doe? 
2. Must the lot be mentioned in the will? 3. Has an executor 
the right to order interments and restrict burials in said lot to 
certain persons. A Subscriber. 
[1. To the heirs. 2. No. 3. No. These would appear to 
be the correct answers under the New York law so far as-direct 
answers are possible. But there are certain provisions of section 
49, article 3. chapter 559 of the laws of New York of 1895 relating 
to corporations, or rather cemetery corporations, which should be 
borne in mind as somewhat qualifying the foregoing. They are 
as follows: “All lots, plats or parts thereof, the use of which has 
been so conveyed as a separate lot, shall be indivisible, except 
with the consent of the lot owner and the corporation, and the 
use of the same for burial purposes after a burial therein shall be 
inalienable and be held in perpetuity by the grantee and his heirs, 
except as otherwise provided in this section; and on the death of 
the grantee shall descend to his heirs at law, or to such of them, 
or to such other person or persons, or to such other class or 
classes of persons as may be designated in such conveyance.” “A n 
heir may release to the other heirs, and a joint owner may re- 
lease to other joint owners his interest therein on conditions 
specified in the release, which shall be Med in the office of the 
corporation.” “If no burial be made in any such lot, or if all the 
dead bodies therein be lawfully removed therefrom the owners 
thereof may, with the consent of the corporation, sell the use of 
such lot.” “A lot owner may reconvey or devise to the corpo- 
ration his right and title in and to any lot theretofore conveyed 
to him by such corporation.”], 
* * * 
Some General Questions. 
Ottawa, Canada, March 4, 1897. 
Editor Park and Cemetery , 
Dear Sir:— P erhaps you would be pleased through the me- 
dium of Park and Cemetery to express your views on the fol- 
lowing: 
1. What proportion of cemeteries prohibit Sunday burials 
excepting, of course, interments because of infectious diseases? 
2. Is it customary in a ny of the larger cemeteries to permit 
the transfer or removal of remains of dead from contagious dis- 
eases/ 
3. What proportion of cemeteries permit visitors to enter 
the grounds on horseback? 
4. What proportion of cemeteries permit visitors to enter 
on bicycles? 
5. Do the officials and workmen in some cemeteries use 
“wheelp” in the performance of their duties? 
6. What is the best method of regulating or preventing in- 
jury to grass, shrubs and trees by horses and obtaining redress 
therefor? W’e observe the rules and regulations of different 
cemeteries in this regard are simple and ought to be effective, 
but in practice we find them complex and inadequate. 
7 Is the “keep moving” policy the rule with regard to vis- 
itors in American cemeteries, or what is the prevailing custom 
in regard to seats for rest? 
8. Have most of the American cemeteries regularly arranged 
toilet accommodations for ladies and gentlemen, and what sort 
of surveillance over the same is generally maintained? 
9. Do the larger American cemeteries have many visitors in 
the long summer evenings, or is it the practice to close the gates 
at sun down? 
