262 
PARK AND CEMETERY. 
development of the general scheme, watch- 
ful and intelligent supervision on the part 
of some person or persons representing the 
several interests in the cemetery. 
In many of our municipalities today we 
find art commissions wisely appointed for 
the purpose of supervising the designing 
of public structures, particularly those of 
a monumental character. A similar plan 
has been introduced into many of our best 
cemeteries not as yet very systematically 
followed, but still accomplishing much 
good. In most instances the supervision is 
intended to be advisory rather than dicta- 
torial. 
The superintendent of the cemetery is 
well qualified for the diversified duties of 
his profession, including a reasonable de- 
gree of artistic temperament, together with 
a fair understanding of monumental archi- 
tecture, especially in its relation to the 
landscape, and having, as is usual, con- 
ceived and constructed the plan of the 
cemetery, or if not, being competent to 
interpret the scheme outlined by others, is 
logically the man to whom the practical 
development of the cemetery in all its de- 
tails should be entrusted. He enjoys the 
confidence of the lot owners and commands 
the respect of monument dealers. His 
opinions and suggestions are generally ac- 
cepted as unbiased, worthy of adoption for 
the best interests of the lot owners and 
monument dealers and welfare of the cem- 
etery. 
Beyond a doubt the great improvement 
achieved in monumental art, principally 
within recent years, is mainly attributable 
to the awakening of the cemetery authori- 
ties to a higher appreciation of monumental 
architecture and landscape beauty and the 
persistent efforts and intelligent supervi- 
sion of the superintendent of the cemetery, 
to which the Association of American Cem- 
etery Superintendents through its educa- 
tional influence has contributed to a degree 
almost immeasurable. 
In my experience I have found lot own- 
ers very grateful for advice and willing to 
comply with our regulations and co-operate 
with us in all things pertaining to the de- 
velopment and beautifying of the cemetery. 
They have also displayed a broad-minded 
and liberal spirit by acknowledging their 
appreciation of that policy which recog- 
nizes the supremacy of mutual rights over 
individual interests, so important in many 
things, patricularly in the selection of mon- 
uments. 
Monument dealers, with few exceptions, 
are always very courteous and willing to 
co-operate with us in the promotion of our 
plan for the improvement of monumental 
architecture. They might reasonably be ex- 
pected to advise and assist their clients in 
the selection of a monument, but we real- 
ize they are in this respect confronted by 
difficulties which sometimes render their in- 
fluence ineffective and their best intentions 
on our behalf abortive. We should be sat- 
isfied if they are willing to acquiesce in 
our regulations and submit designs of every 
proposed structure for approval before for- 
mally closing a contract. It is evident, 
then, if we desire to accomplish any 
marked improvement in monumental art, 
particularly in its relation to environment 
and landscape beauty, cemetery authorities 
must assume the initiative in an effort to 
unify the interests of all concerned and 
effect a higher appreciation of landscape 
art among lot owners and monument deal- 
ers than is common today. 
Thus far I have endeavored to excuse 
the desire for memorials and consistently 
justify the presence of certain types of 
monumental structures in the cemetery. 
But it must be apparent beyond cavil that 
monuments and memorials of stone, being 
subject to disintegration and decay, must 
in time go to ruin and should therefore be 
considered from an economic as well as 
from a sentimental point of view. In their 
erection we are creating a legacy for our 
successors which will surely prove a seri- 
ous problem to future generations. It 
should therefore be our duty to dissuade 
lot owners rather than encourage them in 
the erection of a monument. If they elect 
to erect a monument we should look care- 
fully to its design, material and workman- 
ship to insure the maximum of durability as 
well as beauty. We need not exclude a 
classic or decorated form of individual me- 
morial which of necessity must have some 
reasonable height, but all plain markers 
(the style we should strongly recommend) 
should be set very low, preferably flush 
with the surface of the ground, a plan we 
should always advise or insist on when 
markers are set in conjunction with a mon- 
ument. 
In our experience we find it quite prac- 
ticable to eliminate monuments from all 
small areas such as lots intended for one 
to three graves, and from a large percent- 
age of lots of all sizes. This has become 
possible within recent years by the change 
of sentiment regarding monuments ex- 
pressed by purchasers of lots. The plan is 
particularly beneficial in sections of com- 
paratively small lots. 
The landscape cemetery of the idealist 
may only be a dream, but the many beau- 
tiful cemeteries in this country in which we 
find some of the finest examples of monu- 
mental art, paying tribute to the taste of 
the lot owner, the artistic skill of the de- 
signer and the well-directed efforts of cem- 
etery authorities, are very encouraging and 
incite us to greater efforts for further de- 
velopment and improvement. 
If it were possible to carry to completion 
the original scheme as visualized and 
planned in harmony with modern ideas, 
the cemetery might with comparative ease 
be developed into the place of beauty per- 
ceived in the mind of the artist. But the 
“best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men gang 
aft agley,” and so we sometimes find well- 
conceived plans thwarted and well-intended 
and carefully framed regulations, if put to 
the test, subjected to modification, involv- 
ing changes in the plan not always advan- 
tageous, but sometimes detrimental, to the 
welfare and beauty of the cemetery. Con- 
stant vigilance is necessary to insure satis- 
factory results and to guard against the in- 
troduction of some objectionable monument 
or other feature into the cemetery. One 
misplaced structure may undo the efforts 
of years and irreparably ruin an otherwise 
harmonious and charming scene. 
Progress may be slow and discouraging 
by reason perhaps of deep-seated prejudice 
or peculiarly difficult conditions ; but re- 
member that reform will be long delayed 
unless we battle against old customs and 
strenuously oppose the continued erection 
of monuments representing poor concep- 
tions of art, and work with energy and in- 
telligence to instill into the minds of lot j 
owners and monument dealers a due ap- 
preciation of beautiful scenery and artistic [ 
harmony of architectural forms. 
To many of you it may seem superflu- i 
ous to allude to the important function of 
shrubbery in conjunction with architectural 
features in the cemetery. I will briefly sug- 
gest that deciduous and evergreen shrubs 
and dwarf conifers liberally and judicious- 
ly interspersed and artistically arranged are : 
invaluable accessories in disguising or soft- 
ening the bald and often harsh effect of 
obtrusive stone structures, and enhancing 
the beauty and harmony of some beautiful 
and artistically designed monument. 
In closing I wish to particularly empha- j 
size this thought in my mind, that next to 1 
the mausoleum the most important single I 
factor dominating the beauty of the land- 
scape and affecting the maintenance of the I 
cemetery from an esthetic arui economic I 
point of view is the monument and other 
memorial structures. We should, there- ■ 
fore, strive diligently, patiently and cir- 
cumspectly to minimize the number of 
structures permitted, eliminate all poor de- ! 
signs and improve those erected in style ; 
and proportions, artistic beauty and har- 
mony of design to environment, that the 
charm of the landscape may be enhanced 
and conserved and the cemetery become an I 
everlasting place of beauty. Surely the 
attainment of this object is worthy of our 
best and united efforts. 
MORE OR LESS PERSONAL. 
J. O. Thompson recently traded his farm 
and all equipment near Montevallo, Ala., i 
valued at $50,000, and his residence, valued 
at $30,000 and $20,000 In cotton for Wood- | 
land Cemetery. 
At a regular meeting of the Stringtown 
Cemetery Association, of Stringtown, Ilk, 
the following officers were elected for the 
coining year : President, G. W. Springer ; 
vice-president, D. S. Porter ; treasurer, L. j 
E. Whitten ; secretary, T. E. Graves ; over- 
seer, E. C. Gingrich. 
