66 
PARK AND CEMETERY 
Suggestions for Improving Country Cemeteries 
By Frank Eurich. 
Paper Read before the Michigan Funeral Directors’ Association. 
It is a well known and undisputed fact that many 
burial places are a reproach to the living ; this is the 
case more especially with country cemeteries, and we 
all have had occasion to notice the neglect, untidiness 
and desolation which is to be found in these places. 
They are as a rule unsightly, instead of being at- 
tractive, and everything connected with them shows 
an utter disregard and lack of the proper spirit to make 
them beautiful, and gives evidence to an indifference 
that is most deplored. 
It is strange and surprising to find such a state of 
affairs when we consider with how small an outlay of 
money their conditions could be much improved and 
made places of beauty instead of merely places of con- 
venience where a community can lav away the dead 
with as little expense as possible. There seems to be 
no organized effort to stimulate a pride in keeping 
these cemeteries in order and the consequence is they 
are neglected. What, then, ought to be done to arouse 
interest for the better improvement and better care 
of country cemeteries? In this connection we can do 
no better than to quote from an address delivered by 
Mr. A. H. Sargent, superintendent of Glendale Ceme- 
tery, Akron, Ohio. Some years ago before the Asso- 
ciation of American Cemetery Superintendents, Mr. 
Sargent said : “The principal cause of neglect is the 
want of adequate provision for their proper care. That 
is, no provision has been made for the sale of lots from 
which a fund could be established for their maintenance 
and consequently neglect follows, for it is impossible to 
have everyone who should be equally interested to take 
the same pains in the care of their individual interests 
that all would do collectively. To accomplish this 
end, I would abandon the private burying ground and 
only maintain the churchyard and village or township 
cemetery, in country places remote from cities, and re- 
model the form of management. In the churchyard I 
would make a charge per lot or per grave, which would 
cover the permanent care of each lot and then let the 
church make the investment in such manner as would 
insure care for all time. 
The village or township cemetery should be remod- 
eled and the present plan abandoned. Nearly every 
state in the union has a provision for the establishment 
of cemetery corporations which are composed of lot 
owners who have the entire control, which is as it should 
be. There is no sense in having a village or township 
cemetery set apart and paid for from the public funds 
and also controlled by the votes of the majority, who 
will never have an interest in or use for such a ceme- 
tery. Let those most interested by virtue of an interest 
therein, which they have paid for, run and control it, 
and then have a permanent fund set aside, as in the 
previous case, for its permanent care. The argument 
with our country friends will be the cost. Well, my 
dear friends, is not the price of a good horse and buggy 
a cost and do you not expect to see your wife or child 
at least decently buried, as you have tried to have them 
live at least respectably ? Our forefathers never 
counted the cost of a place for the burial of their fam- 
lies and why should we be avaricious on this point?” 
Continuing, Air. Sargent dwelt upon the precedent 
of over 3,000 years’ standing for a purchase of a place 
for the burial of the dead ; he very correctly proceeded 
to call attention to the advisability of selecting ground 
ample in area to plan for the possibility of future 
growth of the community and urged the selection of 
a pleasant place and naturally adapted location. The 
character of a cemetery large or small need not and 
should not be governed by its size nor its location. All 
the beautiful features of the lawn plan may as readily 
be adopted in the country burying ground as in the 
more pretentious cemeteries adjacent to large cities. 
The lawn plan aims to simplify the work of caring for 
the grounds. It prohibits the use of all needless en- 
cumbrances such as fences, hedges, stone posts or 
chains or any other possible lot enclosure; it provides 
that all sections be finished up to an established 
grade and that no individual lot owner can change the 
contour of his lot by filling higher than his neighbor. 
It prescribes that lots should be marked by perma- 
nent lot marks set level with the turf, that mounds are 
kept low, or, better yet, that graves are sodded level, 
and that only one marker is permitted for each grave 
and one monument to each lot. Alarkers to graves are 
also limited in height and the accepted view is that 
they, too, should be level with the turf. The only 
possible manner in which the lawn plan can be suc- 
cessfully carried on lies in the creation of a perpetual 
care system. 
There should be set aside from the proceeds of every 
lot sold a certain amount, either computed by the 
square foot or by a percentage of the amount which 
will form this fund, to be invested from time to time 
in approved securities under the direction of a special 
committee or trustees. There being such a wide dif- 
ference of localities and so much variation in the cost 
of land, cost of improvement and labor for the care 
of the ground, it is very difficult to give any reliable 
figures as to what percentage of the cost of a lot 
would probably constitute its share in the perpetual 
care fund. This must be carefully computed, taking 
into consideration all the attending circumstances. 
The first requisite will be an organized effort for the 
purpose of improvement ; then have a competent ceme- 
tery engineer visit the ground and engage him to sug- 
