362 
PARK AND CEMETERY. 
have any vault used that will prevent the 
sinking of the ground at some future time. 
It does, however, when ordered by the 
undertaker, or by the family direct of the 
manufacturer, eliminate our profit on the 
work. I understand that this is provided 
for, however, in some cemeteries through 
an extra charge to the burial fees. 
In this much depends, as I have said, 
upon the form of our financial organiza- 
tion. In the case of our department, hav- 
ing twenty separate cemeteries and burial 
grounds supported by an annual appropria- 
tion made by the city government, which 
never exceeds our requirements, we do not 
like to use our appropriation which we so 
much need for labor and other necessities 
for the purchase of vaults, even though we 
may make a profit upon them. On the 
other hand, I believe we can manufacture 
vaults to good advantage as the only 
expense to our appropriation will consist 
of the purchase of cement and reinforcing 
material, as we carry our entire force of 
men permanently through the year and so 
would not feel the labor cost. The profits 
derived from the enterprise going to our 
recently established permanent fund for the 
maintenance of the department when all 
land is sold, creates a motive for earnings 
which did not previously exist. 
In closing, I feel that all cemeteries of 
sufficient size and adequate organization 
should manufacture cement concrete vaults 
for sale to lot owners, that they should 
be supplied to them at a reasonable price, 
and that they should be encouraged by all 
proper and legitimate means to use them 
in all burials. Ihe smaller cemeteries 
which are without facilities to do this will 
without doubt be able to purchase them 
from the manufacturer, and carry in stock, 
ready for immediate use, perhaps paying 
for them as used, making no charge for 
storage or handling to the maker who 
should be found willing to enter into such 
an arrangement. 
MOTOR TRUCKS FOR CEMETERY WORK 
The application of motor trucks to all 
kinds of transportation problems at the 
present time is hardly appreciated by the 
average layman. I believe the demand for 
them is the main cause of their high ini- 
tial cost. A study of one of the leading 
automobile journals just issued reveals the 
fact that there are seventy makers of 
trucks, of -capacities varying from 1,000 
pounds to six tons, and ranging in price 
from $750 to $3,850 — the last figure, I feel, 
leads the cemetery superintendent to believe 
that trucks are entirely beyond him for the 
economical solution of his hauling prob- 
lems. 
Considering the displacing of horses with 
trucks, there are two main questions. First, 
we want to know the comparative cost. 
Second, the method of allication of the 
machines to our work. The object of this 
short paper is to state our experience in 
the handling of two trucks in the past two 
and one-half years, and also to make a 
comparison of the costs between teams and 
trucks. By the expression “team” I mean 
the horse, cart and driver ; and in the case 
of trucks, the motor vehicle and its driver. 
In 1911 we had ten horses. One driving 
horse, used by the assistant superintendent, 
the other nine used with tip-carts, express 
wagons, and other vehicles in connection 
with cemetery work. 
In 1913 we had six horses, one lj4-ton 
truck, one 1,500-pound truck and one small 
passenger car for the assistant superintend- 
ent’s use. 
The figures here quoted in the cost mean 
feed, fuel and repairs of all kinds. In 
1911, when we had no trucks, the cost of 
the ten teams was $6,149. The cost in 1913, 
with six teams, two trucks and the passen- 
ger car, was $6,986 — this shows a difference 
of $837 in round figures in favor of the 
horses. However, in 1911 the cost per team 
was $615 and in 1913 the expense per team 
(I am speaking of teams only, you will 
notice), w<as $767. 
This is an increase in cost of $152 per 
Address before the New England Cem- 
etery Association, by John F. Peterson. 
team. This is accounted for in the in- 
creased cost of feed and labor, and also 
the fact that our overhead charges remain 
the same, whether we have six horses or 
ten horses. Six horses at the rate of $152 
increase would mean $912. This, as com- 
pared with the previous figure of $837. 
shows a difference of $75 in favor of the 
motors. 
A comparison of all trucks with all 
horses would be as follows : 
Expense, 10 horses, 1911 $6,149.00 
Add depreciation of horses — 10 
horses, Value $2,500, 7 years 360.00 
Total, including depreciation and 
drivers’ w'ages $6,509.00 
Assuming we had two more U/Tton 
trucks, based on 1913 figures the expense 
would be : 
3 lid-ton trucks at $1,385 $4,155.00 
1 1,500-lb. truck at $1,302 1,302.00 
1 passenger car at $450 450.00 
Total $5,907.00 
The difference between the two, showing 
about $600 in round figures, is in favor of 
the motor trucks, and to this we should 
add also the increased efficiency of the 
work done in connection with the trucks. 
I will illustrate my point later in a para- 
graph under Incidental Advantages. 
As to the methods of handling the 
trucks, the ltd-ton truck has two different 
bodies applied to the chassis in the course 
of a year’s work. These two bodies are in 
turn added to, so that we have practically 
four bodies available. 
First: The dump body, which is used in 
the usual manner for dirt, gravel, sand, 
crushed stone, etc. In the spring and fall 
cleaning a rack is added to this body, 
which increases its capacity about three 
times and makes it an important factor in 
removing leaves and rubbish from the 
grounds. In May, when the flowers are 
being set out, the dump body is removed 
altogether, and a two-deck body is attached 
to the frame. For boxes, or large plants, 
the upper deck is removed and a platform 
body is used. In the case of the 1,500-lb. 
truck two bodies are available for that also, 
an express body and a rack body. The 
time required for shifting the body is 
small and is included in the figures for 
truck expenses. 
The dump body was purchased with the 
truck ; the other body, with the additions 
to both, was made by our own workmen 
during the winter months and at a com- 
paratively small cost. 
It has been suggested that the use of 
trailers in our work would be an advan- 
tage. I think that the application of dif- j 
ferent kinds of bodies to the chassis to ac- 
commodate the kind of work is a better 
method where both horses and trucks are j 
used. 
I he question naturally arises as to the 
reliability of motors. Provided the truck is 
bought from a reliable firm, and at all 
times only loaded to its rated capacity, its 
reliability is equal and better than that of : 
a horse. In the 2 l / 2 years we have had the I 
larger truck it had to be towed home once 
and was out of commission two days. This 
was not due to any flaw in the design and 
construction of the motor, only the per- 
sonal equation of the workman who assem- 
bled it, as he put on the large driving gear 
with putting cotter pins in the nuts, and the 
gear, of course, became loose. In the win- 
ter months, and when not urgently needed, 
the engine and all parts of the chassis are 
looked after and kept in the best possible 
condition. This is an essential require- 
ment in any mechanism. 
In a recent paper written by an automo- 
bile engineer he says : 
“Trucks are at a disadvantage when com- 
pared with horses. The majority of team- 
sters have a soft spot in their heart for 
their teams, and the majority of owners 
know the limitations of the horse and re- 
spect them for humanitarian and for finan- 
cial reasons.” 
