60 
PARK AND CEMETERY. 
ing $500 for his services. It is generally 
known that the promoters in Springfield 
are not local citizens, although they have 
rented homes and will probably stay until 
their scheme proves a failure or success. 
It is certainly well known that all mem- 
bers of the Cemetery Board are local citi- 
zens and have the best interests of the 
people in mind; they have managed Fern- 
cliff ably and well for years, and when 
they decide that a scheme is unfit for 
their approval, that should be a good 
cause for others to reject it. 
When other cities like Decatur, 111., To- 
ledo, O., Ada, O., and Troy, O., as well 
as other towns, have tried these schemes 
and find them undesirable, it is surely evi- 
dence that there is something wrong some- 
where. 
A representative of one of the largest 
and most experienced private mausoleum 
builders in the United States recently stated 
that the Decatur (111.) building had a 
crack from the gable to the foundations 
and that over thirty bodies had been re- 
moved to graves in the local cemetery. 
At Troy, O., this has proven true in 
many cases and I have like reports from 
numerous other points. Should these re- 
ports prove true, they alone should canse 
anyone to reject the scheme; but greater 
than these is the question, Who is respon- 
sible for the building? 
After a period of years isn’t it reason- 
able to presume that many of the crypt 
owners will die or move away? Who will 
take interest in the building and see that 
it is repaired and cared for? Will it be- 
come a charnel house and a ruin? Who 
would want to own property adjoining a 
thing of this kind? 
I believe the day will come when the 
State Boards of Health will pronounce 
them a menace and declare them a 
nuisance. 
With all this, the promoters do not as- 
sure you that there will be no contagious 
diseases placed in the crypts next to those 
you own. 
With such bodies therein, would it im- 
prove health conditions if these buildings 
should crack, as others have, permitting 
the foul gases and odors of decomposed 
bodies to escape into the air? 
Do you realize the enormity of these 
conditions? 
Of course, the promoters will tell you 
that these buildings are constructed to en- 
dure forever. That’s quite a long time. 
No building erected by the hand of man 
has even endured for the present short 
span of history. 
If there should be a legitimate demand 
for such forms of burial, let the Cemetery 
Board supervise the erection, thus becom- 
ing legally responsible in every way. 
Princeton, 111., Turns Down the Tene- 
ment Mausoleum. 
A decree enjoining the International 
Mausoleum Co., of Chicago, from erect- 
ing one of their community mausoleums in 
the Oakland Cemetery, Princeton. 111., was 
granted by Judge Joe A. Davis in the Cir- 
cuit Court there on April 15. The state 
was represented in the matter by State’s 
Attorney C. N. Hollerich, and the com- 
plainants were represented by Attorneys J. 
L. Spaulding and Watts A. Johnson. This 
action on the part of the circuit judge 
practically kills the mausoleum proposition 
so far as the city of Princeton is con- 
cerned, and the contract entered into by 
the city of Princeton and the company is 
null and void. 
The facts in the case are still fresh in 
the minds of the people of the city. Sev- 
eral representatives of the company made 
frequent visits to the city, during which 
time various matters were brought to bear 
upon the aldermen and the mayor in order 
to try and induce them to cast their votes 
in favor of the mausoleum, so it is said. 
At first it was proposed to erect a ce- 
ment building in this cemetery, and then 
the concern decided that the proper thing 
to do was to put up a 240-crypt mauso- 
leum, built out of Bedford stone. When 
the matter was first brought before the 
council it was not thought much of ; a ma- 
jority of the aldermen were against it. S. 
W. Holmes, who was then in the city, rep- 
resenting the company, took a number of 
the aldermen to Galesburg, where they 
had just completed a Bedford stone mau- 
soleum. The building was thoroughly in- 
spected, and after that trip several of the 
aldermen changed their minds as to the ad- 
visability of allowing the company to erect 
a similar one here. 
At the meeting which was held in the 
council chamber last August the company 
was granted an option on the desired tract 
of land. At a later meeting a petition, 
signed by some reputable citizens of the 
city, was presented to the council, asking 
that they refuse to grant the company the 
option which they desired. This was not 
recognized by the council, and, as a last 
resort, Mayor Russell vetoed the matter, 
and in a lengthy written statement set up 
his ideas of why he thought the mauso- 
leum was not a desirable building to be 
erected in the cemetery. The council voted 
to give the company the option, however, 
which was sold for one dollar, and gave 
the company one year in order to start 
work on the building, and nothing more 
has been done with it. 
Attorney C. A. Trimble represented the 
Mausoleum company in their first battle 
in the council, but in the Circuit Court 
recently Mr. Trimble told the court that 
he had withdrawn from the case and was 
not acting as counsel for the company any 
more. 
Indian’s Community Mausoleum Law. 
A bill has recently been passed by the 
Indiana Legislature giving the State Board 
of Health jurisdiction over all community 
mausoleums erected in that state. The law 
reads in full as follows: 
Section 1. Be it so enacted by the general as- 
sembly of the State of Indiana, that, hereafter, 
when any person, firm or corporation, shall desire 
to build, construct or erect any mausoleum, vault 
or burial structure, the same to be built or con- 
structed entirely above the ground, or partly above 
and partly by excavation, and to be built, con- 
structed and erected so that the same may con- 
tain twenty or more deceased human bodies for 
permanent interment before proceeding to build, 
construct or erect such mausoleum, vault or other 
structure, shall present all plans for such construc- 
tion to the State Board of Health of the State 
of Indiana, and if approved by such board, may 
proceed with the construction and erection of such 
mausoleums, vault or other structure. 
Sec. 2. All crypts, or catacombs, if any be placed 
therein, in such mausoleum, vault, or other struct- 
ure, shall be so constructed, that all parts therof 
may be readily and easily examined by the State 
Board of Health or any other health officer, and 
such crypts or catacombs, shall be hermetically 
sealed, after such deceased body or bodies shall 
have been placed therein, that no offensive or un- 
healthful odor or effluvia may escape therefrom. 
Sec. 3. Should any person, firm, or corporation, 
fail to hermetically seal such crypt or catacombs, 
so placed or constructed in such mausoleum, vault 
or other burial structure, and by reason of such 
failure offensive odors or effluvia arise therefrom, 
such State Board of Health, or any other health 
officer of the state or county, in which such mau- 
soleum, vault or other burial structure shall be 
situated, shall, upon the complaint of any resident 
of the township, where such mausoleum, vault or 
other burial structure may be situated, compel the 
sexton or other person in charge of such mauso- 
leum, vault or other burial structure, to imme- 
diately remove said deceased body or bodies there- 
from and properly inter the same, at the expense 
of the person, firm or corporation, owning such 
mausoleum, vault or other burial structure. And 
if no such person, firm or corporation can be found 
in county where the same may be located, then 
such interment shall be at the expense of the town- 
ship, where such mausoleum, vault or other burial 
structure may be situated. 
Sec. 4. Any person, firm or corporation, who shall 
fail or refuse to comply with the provisions of this 
act, may be fined in any sum, not exceeding five 
hundred dollars, to which may be added impris- 
onment in the county jail, not exceeding six 
months. 
New York Cemetery Legislation. 
After hearing representatives of both 
sides of the controversy concerning the 
proposition to establish a cemetery and 
mausoleum at Herricks, Long Island, N. 
Y., Governor Sulzer signed the Maloney 
bill preventing any more cemeteries in 
Nassau county, on March 27. The bill is 
designed specifically to prevent the erec- 
tion by the Repose Mausoleum Company 
of a large mausoleum at Herricks, near 
North Hempstead. The bill has been fa- 
vored by the wealthy residents of Nassau 
county, who have taken the position that 
there was no public necessity for the mau- 
soleum, inasmuch as there are now sixty- 
nine cemeteries in the county. 
A number of bills have been brought 
before the New York legislature, the ob- 
ject of which is to give the city of New 
York the authority to extend streets 
through Brooklyn cemeteries. 
