41 
PARK AND CEyAETERY 
were taking their rest in the cemetery, he told his 
hearers how the pioneers had first constructed the 
place to the best of their ability, and as years went 
by, the grounds were developed, till now skillful 
hands had created wonderful improvements. Nat- 
ure had been bountiful in supplying a beautiful lo- 
cation, but mans’ ingenuity had indeed so improved 
the spot as to be hardly short of marvelous and 
the citizens should feel proud of being possesed 
of such a burial place. It was gratifying to him- 
self to know that after his earthly career had 
been run, that he would be laid away in so lovely a 
place. He pointed out that it was the duty of all 
to aid the officers in the well being and proper con- 
ducting of the cemetery. 
This eulogy gave the writer a subject for 
thought. Why should not the ministers of the dif- 
ent churches aid in raising to a proper standard the 
management of our country burial grounds. No 
persons have such opportunities for witnessing their 
too frequently neglected condition. If the Ceme- 
tery Superintendents’ Association could enlist the 
aid of the clergy and induce them to point out to 
their congregations that in no place was cleanliness 
more akin to godliness than in the final resting 
place of our dead, they could stir up their hearers 
in a manner that no others could. The seed sown 
would surely bear good fruit. 
“God’s Acre,’’ in the great majority of oitr bur- 
ial grounds, what a misnomer ! . Stir the people 
up, good sirs ; stir them up. 
Legal . 
EXCHANGE SUSTAINED. 
Where the stock of a cemetery company is al- 
mosCwithout any market value the Court of Errors 
and Appeals of New Jersey holds that its exchange 
for an interest in land that may prevent disastrous 
competition is not so improvident as to shock the 
conscience, and lead in equity to an invalidation of 
the sale. In fact, the court pronounces such a deal 
beyond reasonable criticism. In reaching this con- 
clusion it reverses a decision of the Court of Chan- 
cery, from which appeal had been taken, and 
wherein the chancellor had come to the conclusion 
that the sale, or exchange, was effectuated l^y the 
directors to secure a continuance of their official po- 
sitions. 
VALIDITY OF ORDINANCE PROHIBITING SALE OF CEMETERY 
LOTS. 
“Whereas,the unlimited burial of the dead within 
the city and county of San Francisco is dangerous 
to life and detrimental to the public health; and, 
whereas, the right of those persons or associations 
who have already purchased lots or plots for their 
own use or for the use of their families or members 
in the cemeteries in the city and county of San 
Francisco should be recognized,” an ordinance goes 
on to provide that it shall be unlawful after the 
passage of this order to purchase, acquire, sell, lease 
or dispose of any land situated within the city and 
county of San Francisco for burial purposes. Nor 
shall any interment be made except in such lots or 
plots as may have been already purchased by per- 
sons, associations or corporations for their own use, 
or the use of their families or members; provided, 
the said lots shall not be used for general interment 
purposes. The effect of the foregoing ordinance, 
it will be seen, was in no respect to prohibit burials, 
but simply to limit the right to those who had been 
fortunate enough to secure a lot therefor before the 
passage of the ordinance. This leads the Supreme 
Court of California to say in the case of ‘‘ex parte 
Bohen,” December 17, 1896, that the fact that the 
“unlimited” burial of the dead within the city is 
“dangerous to life and detrimental to the public 
health’’ may be a sufficient reason for the enactment 
of an ordinance fixing a term after which such bur- 
ials shall cease within certain portions of the city; 
but, while burials are permitted within a district, 
the privilege cannot be limited to one class of citi- 
zens and denied to another class within the same 
district. The right to prohibit burials within 
a certain district rests upon the proposition 
that any burial within that district is injurious to 
the public health. And an ordinance forbidding 
the burial of human bodies within the city, or upon 
any designated portion thereof, cannot be sustained 
if such burial be permitted upon other lots similarly 
situated. Nor can the owner of lands be restrained 
from selling them for the purpose of being used as 
a place of burial, or any other use which in the fu- 
ture may become deleterious to health, and for that 
reason be forbidden, but which is not forbidden at 
the time of the sale. So the court holds that, while 
it may be conceded that if the burial of a human 
body within the lot purchased therefor had been 
made by a valid ordinance, the burial of the human 
body within the lot would have been an offense for 
which Bohen, the president of the Odd Fellows’ 
Cemetery Association, that sold the lot, might have 
been charged as an aider and abettor in executing 
the deed; yet, until the offense of such burial had 
been committed the sale and purchase of the lot 
could not be made the basis of a crime or misde- 
meanor. And as the ordinance in question by its 
terms, as well as by its operation, discriminates in 
its operation between individuals similarly situated 
the court holds that it is upon that ground unrea- 
sonable and invalid, and the petitioner, Bohen, who 
had been convicted of a violation thereof, should 
be discharged. 
