PARK AND CEMETERY. 
158 
'M.eii# CORRESPONDENCE. g|\§r3JK, > 
Elodea Canadensis. 
In a communication from Mr. Reinhard Schuetze, Land- 
scape architect, Park Department of Denver, Colo. , he says: 
“In the lakes of our parks we are greatly annoyed with the so- 
called moss, Elodea Canadensis, and all methods to get rid of it 
have proved to be more or less unsatisfactory. We would there- 
fore be greatly pleased if we could get some information on the 
subject through the columns of Park and Cemetery.” 
In relation to the subject the following has been received: 
“In reference to Elodea Canadensis I mu ; t say that nothing 
but pulling it out can be done. 1 am bothered with it too when 
the ponds or lakes are shallow, and employ a man to pull it out 
with an iron rake. It got into our new lily pond, but one thor- 
ough cleaning kept them in good shape. For pulling out weeds 
in the lakes, of the usual varieties, I use a piece of 4" X 4" with 
16" iron bolts running through it in opposite directions. This 
I dump from a boat and have either a man or horse to pull it in. 
It does the work well but is rather ruinous to the shores. 1 am 
trying to get up something new for next season .” — James Jensen , 
Chicago. 
* * * 
We are also annoyed with the “Elodea Canadensis” an l 
have tried different remedies without any satisfactory results. I 
have recently however discovered that swans are very fond of it, 
and by confining them to the lake where the water moss pre- 
vailed they did much towards keeping it down, and we hope to 
control its development in this way. German carp will also eat 
it, but I prefer the moss to the carp. I have also spread iron 
shavings and filings on the bottom and sides of our reservoir, 
which for a few years prevented its growth, but it came again as 
thick and fast as before, in fact it seemed to adapt itself to the 
iron, and finally thrived better than ever. I have great hopes 
that the swans will do much towards keeping our lakes campara- 
tively free from objectionable weeds, and they do not injure 
either the Lotusorthe Nymphaea. — Wm. Salway, Cincinnati, O. 
* * * 
The Trustees of Woodland Cemetery, Ironton, O., have 
recently passed resolutions embodying important reforms. 
These resolutions were framed to render certain rules of the 
cemetery of more effect: 
Resolved , 1st. That hereafter no foot stones, and what are 
known as “cradles,” will be permitted to be placed on any lot 
in the Cemetery. 
2nd. That the superintendent is hereby directed to remove 
all foot stones on lots where the owners fail to keep same in 
good order, after 30 day’s notice has been given the owner that 
said stones are not in good order and condition. 
3rd. The superintendent is hereby directed to use his best 
efforts to induce lot owners to remove all foot stones and “cra- 
dles” now in use in the Cemetery. 
4th. That no shrubbery known as “Irish Junipers” will 
hereafter be allowed to be set out on any lot in the Cemetery, and 
the superintendent is hereby directed to remove all such “Irish 
Junipers” as have become unsightly. 
5th. That hereafter no mounding of graves will be per- 
mitted. 
The commissioners of the District of Columbia, in accord- 
ance with the recommendations of the superintendent of parks 
have directed that no one hereafter shall plant trees in the street 
parks of Washington without a permit. This order will limit 
the planting of trees to such kinds as may be desirable. 
LEGAL. 
GENERAL RULES OF LAW AS TO BURIAL BEING FINAL AND RE- 
MAINS NOT REMOVABLE BY OWNERS OF CEMETERY LOTS. 
A good deal of valuable legal information is contained ir. 
the decision which the supreme court of Rhode Island handed 
down July 19, 1898, in the case of Gardner against the Swan 
Point Cemetery. 
The supreme court says, citing authorities for its state- 
ments, that while a burial lot is regarded as property, in which 
title may in most cases descend to heirs, it is evident that the 
title generally is not like that of ordinary real estate. Thus, 
in cases of churchyards and cemeteries it has been held that, 
though a deed mav run to a grantee, his heirs and assigns, he 
takes only an easement or right of burial, rather than an absolute 
title. So long as the land is used for burial purposes, he cannot 
exercise the same rights of ownership as in other real estate. 
For example, it has been held that a burial lot could not be 
mortgaged: and held that it did not fall within a power of sale 
given by an executor of a will for the payment of debts and 
legacies, but that it passed to the heir at law of the testator, in 
line with which it has also been held that it would not pass under 
what is termed a residuary gift, in a will, but would descend 10 
the heirs as intestate property. 
In one case, citing an ancient authority, it was held that 
those who erect gravestones may maintain an action for any 
injury done to them during their time, but after their decease 
the action belongs to the heirs of him to whose honor or memory 
the stones were erected. In another case the right of the heir 
was sustained as against a widow who had removed the body of 
her husband from the family burial lot. In a third instance it 
was held that the heirs of a decedent at whose grave a monu- 
ment has been erected can recover damages from one who 
wrongfully injures or removes it, or, by an injunction, may 
restrain one who, without right, threatens to injure or remove it, 
and this though the title to the ground wherein the grave is be 
not in the plaintiff, but in another. 
The principle of all the cases seems to be, continues the 
court, that the buried body shall remain undisturbed, and that 
the right and duty falls to the next of kin to see that its repose is 
duly protected. This right “ after burial ” has been referred to 
as one distinguished from the right of custody and disposal of the 
body at the time of burial, when other considerations than kin- 
ship may often arise. This distinction was noted in Fox v. Gor- 
don, 16 Pbila. 185, for one case, which has a full and instructive 
opinion on the subject, wherein it was held that even a husband 
and father had not the right to remove the bodies of his wife and 
child from the wife’s family lot in which they had been buried 
with his consent. Contrariwise, it has been held that the widow 
was entitled to the custody and control of the body of her husband, 
after a burial against her protest, and under threats and fear of a 
disgraceful scene. 
Thus, it appears that a burial by the consent of those most 
nearly interested is regarded in law as a final sepulture, which 
cannot be disturbed, against the will of those who have the right 
to object (generally the next of kin), on account of change^in 
feeling or circumstances. That there may not be possible ex- 
ceptions to this rule, the court particularly states that it does not 
say, since it is more a rule of ethics than of law, but it thinks that 
it is safe to say that in law it is recognized as the general rule. 
In view of the foregoing, the court further holds, as a point 
particularly involved in this case, that, the second wife of the 
former owner of a cemetery lot having been given the residue of 
his estate, by will, and she having deeded the lot to the cemetery 
corporation, in trust, “ for a place for the interment for me, the 
grantor, and for me only, in addition to those already buried 
therein,” neither she nor the corporation had authority to remove 
the body of a stepson of hers, even that she might be buried by the 
side of her husband, against wishes of next of kin of the stepson. 
