64 
PARK AND CEMETERY 
varied attractions, and there is no phase of the work 
coming within the limits of the proceedings that will 
not receive an impetus from being brought within the 
range of public discussion. 
FUNERcAL 
REFORM. 
Reform in manner of and details of 
conducting funerals is a question 
that cannot be too often referred to, 
for the funeral is a fact, sooner or later, in every 
family, and is therefore of consummate importance to 
the community at large. But the observances con- 
nected with its absolute requirements and the methods 
and other details of conducting modern funerals have 
not progressed with the times and what should be 
invested with the greatest of dignity and decorous 
simplicity, too often is made an ostentatious and 
ridiculous display, apparently for the entertainment 
of observers not all at interested. The opening year 
of the 20th century should make a very positive ad- 
vance in the direction of modifying existing condi- 
tions and of reducing them to comport with the intel- 
ligence and dignity of purpose of the American citi- 
zen. It is gratifying to note that an increased interest 
IS being taken in this proper reform by the clergy, 
and is a prominent factor in the suppression, so far as 
health laws will permit, of the Sunday funeral. 
Among the clergy of all classes and denominations, 
there is scarcely a dissenting voice on this point, and 
to aid in the matter many of the leading cemeteries 
prohibit Sunday funerals except on absolutely nec- 
essary occasions. Simplicity and dignity should domi- 
nate the funeral ; every thought in connection with the 
sad occurrence demand these attributes ; ostentation 
and undue expense have no place in connection with 
the disposition of the dead, and while affection and 
respect must and should prevail, they can be expressed 
in far more appropriate terms than those that too 
often accompany the modern funeral. Agitation of 
the subject should be kept active and results will soon 
follow. 
cAN INTERESTING 
LEGAL 
‘DECISION. 
The New York soldiers’ and 
sailors’ monument has been a 
sort of bone of contention for 
many years ; every phase in the promotion and progress 
of the work having brought it prominently before the 
public. The hardest fight it has passed through has 
been perhaps the question of site, for after the au- 
thorities had finally decided to erect it in a promi- 
nent location at the junction of important thorough- 
fares in Riverside Park, certain of the property own- 
ers and taxpayers raised objections and carried the 
question into the courts. The outcome is a victory 
for the city authorities and in the recent discussion 
of the question by the New York Appellate Division 
of the New York Supreme Court the right of a city 
to embellish its public grounds is established. With- 
out referring to the claims of the plaintiffs, which 
may be inferred from the decision, the court declared 
that the monument would not interfere materially 
with the proper use of the park and that the money 
expended would be. for a proper city purpose. Cities 
should spend money, not only for public necessities, 
but in providing parks with necessary adornments 
and resorts of health and recreation and museums, 
botanical and zoological gardens, intended for edu- 
cational purposes. It was also of opinion that funds 
might also be spent for the objects which tend to 
beautify the city and to contribute to the welfare of 
the entire people. Referring to the fact of New York 
assisting in the construction of the underground rail- 
road, the court said : “In the same liberal spirit, we 
think the erection of a beautiful monument or me- 
morial is serving a public purpose. It is not only an 
expression of patriotism, it contributes to the educa- 
tion, the pleasure and the cultivation of the artistic 
sense of the citizens.” The court stated that it be- 
lieved the monument would result in not only an in- 
cidental but an actual benefit to the community, and 
that the expenditure for such an object is for a city 
purpose. A Massachusetts decision has been rendered 
practically in the same lines. 
' The subject of cemetery monuments 
cMONUMENTS. always a pertinent one in these 
days of a rapidly developing taste 
in the people at large. It is, nevertheless, a difficult 
one to discuss, because the relative conditions of com- 
munities differ considerably and where, as in one 
case, it may be quite feasible to encourage and con- 
duct a reform in such a matter, in another, it may be 
practically impossible to do so. However, after all, 
it is largely a matter of education and as education 
develops taste, the more rapidly this is imparted or 
acquired, the more rapidly will the requirements of 
taste in cemetery monuments be met. In our large 
cemeteries the last few years has witnessed quite a 
radical change on this question of monuments, both 
their design and appropriateness having to pass the 
criticism of the cemetery officials, and this method has 
amply justified itself in the improvement of cemetery 
memorials and their appropriateness for the site 
selected, — qualifications, which the present standard of 
landscape art absolutely demands. In this general 
improvement both the cemetery and the lot owner 
have abundantly profited. But we are only at the be- 
ginning of the era of improvement, for evidences are 
still too prevalent of duplication of design, and the 
two obtrusive signs of the “stock” monument. This, 
of course, is more especially true in the smaller ceme- 
teries, while in the average country grave-yard there 
is but far too few indications of activity in reform 
principles. 
