12 
PARK AND CEMETERY. 
the law if one’s right to recover damages 
for mental anguish resulting from disturb- 
ance of the remains of his dead should be 
made to depend upon whether, in commit- 
ting the act, defendant also committed a 
technical trespass upon plaintiff’s property. 
The real injury is the indignity to the dead, 
and not injury to property. (Larson vs. 
Chase, 47 Minnesota Reports, 307.) 
I quote the following extract from the 
case of Fox vs. Gordon, 16 Philadelphia 
Reports, 186, as giving a concise view of 
the reasons which prompt the courts to 
sanctify graves against inexcusable dis- 
turbance, and an idea of the antiquity of 
the law on this subject: “Questions which 
relate to the custody and disposal of the 
remains of the dead do not depend upon 
the principles which regulate the possession 
and ownership of property, but upon the 
considerations arising partly out of the 
domestic relations, the duties and obliga- 
tions which spring from family relation- 
ship and the ties of blood; partly out of 
the sentiment so universal among all civil- 
ized nations, ancient and modern, that the 
dead should repose in some spot where 
they will be secure from profanation ; 
partly out of what is demanded by society 
for the preservation of the public health, 
morality and decency, and partly often out 
of what is required by proper respect for 
an observance of the wishes of the de- 
parted themselves. * * * Roman 
law gave a civil remedy to the relatives 
for any unlawful disturbance of a sepul- 
chre. * * * j|. often been decided 
to be an indictable misdemeanor to disturb 
a dead body without proper authority. * * * 
By the Roman law a body after it had 
been interred could not be removed with- 
out the consent of the Pontifical College.” 
A. L. H. Street. 
The Cemetery and Burial Vault Sales. 
An Iowa court has recently decided that 
a cemetery may not restrict lot owners to 
the purchase of a particular burial vault 
made by the cemetery, in the case of W. J. 
Shadduck. plaintiff, vs. Oakland Cemetery 
Association, of Clinton, la. The decision 
is as follows : 
Now, to-wit : On the 25th day of June, 
1914, being one of the regular judicial 
days of the June term, A. D. 1914, of said 
court, this cause came on for hearing on 
the application of plaintiff that judgment 
be entered against the defendant upon the 
refusal of the defendant to answer or 
plead over after the overruling of defend- 
ant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s petition, and it 
appearing to the court that said defendant 
refuses to answer or otherwise plead, but 
has elected to stand on its demurrer, and, 
the court being fully advised in the prem- 
ises, finds that the defendant in adopting 
its resolution of March 10, 1914, to-wit : 
“That on and after this date all burial 
vaults used in Oakland Cemetery shall be 
furnished by the Oakland Cemetery Asso- 
ciation” acted in excess of its power and 
illegally assumed to exercise the franchise 
of reserving to itself a monopoly on the 
business of furnishing burial vaults to lot 
owners and burial permit holders. 
The court further finds that in adopting 
the following part of its resolution becom- 
ing effective January 1, 1914, to-wit: 
“Burial vaults obtained from other sources 
may be used only by the consent of and on 
terms prescribed by the Board of Direct- 
ors.” The defendant acted in excess of its 
lawful power and authority. 
The court further finds that the defend- 
ant has no power or authority to enforce 
said resolutions, rules or regulations, and 
that any attempts to enforce said resolu- 
tions the same are usurpations of power 
not conferred upon the defendant and are 
the exercise of a franchise not conferred 
upon it by law. 
It is therefore ordered and decreed by 
the court that said resolutions and rules 
be and hereby are annulled and held for 
naught and that said defendant be and 
hereby is ousted, excluded and forever re- 
strained from the exercise of the franchise 
and power of making said rules and regu- 
lations and from making any rules or reg- 
ulations which create in defendant a 
monopoly of the business of furnishing 
burial vaults to its lot owners and burial 
permit holders or restrict the use of vaults 
procured from sources other than the de- 
fendant. 
It is further ordered and decreed that 
the defendant be and hereby is ousted, ex- 
cluded and forever restrained from exer- 
cising the right, power or authority to en- 
force the resolutions, rules and regulations 
hereinbefore annulled and that an injunc- 
tion issue accordingly. 
It is further ordered that plaintiff have 
judgment against defendant for costs. 
MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL PARKS 
Your Committee on National Parks, re- 
cently appointed, have the following report' 
to make: 
We wish to say in the outset that we are 
not well enough informed as to the gen- 
eral situation to recommend to the society 
for adoption a policy concerning National 
Parks or to offer recommendations. 
We are presenting some facts concerning 
the parks and their administrations and 
some impressions that are gained from a 
study of recent reports. 
The action of the committee has been 
taken chiefly with reference to the prep- 
aration of a National Park Service Bill. 
Its members have conferred together with 
officers of the American Civic Association, 
who have actively supported Secretary 
Lane’s recommendation for such a bill, as 
suggested by his predecessor, and approved 
by President Taft. We have examined 
carefully the several early drafts of the 
bill and arranged for a conference in Bos- 
ton on December 14, 1915, at which were 
present all members of the committee (ex- 
Report of Committee of .4mcrican Society of 
Landscape Architects, by JVarren H. Manning 
cepting Mr. Child), Mr. Enos Mills and 
Mr. Frederick Law Olmsted. The draft 
of the bill prepared at that time is the 
accepted draft, with a few minor modifi- 
cations. 
The bill provides for a National Park 
Service, a director to be appointed by the 
Secretary of the Interior, who shall have 
control of the National Parks, National 
Monuments, Hot Springs Reservation of 
Arkansas, and like reservations to be here- 
after established. It provides for an ap- 
propriation of $100,000 for the expenses 
of the service. It provides that the Sec- 
retary of the Interior shall make public 
rules and regulations, the violation of 
which shall be punished. He is permitted 
also to dispose of timber when necessary 
to control pests or conserve scenery; grant 
permits for periods not exceeding 20 years 
in such a way as to prevent the impairment 
of the reservations in any manner, funds 
secured from privileges to be expended for 
the holdings under his jurisdiction. 
The use of the words Expert and Divi- 
sion were omitted because it was made 
clear at the conference that their inclusion 
would reduce the chance of passing the 
bill. 
The following summary and impressions 
are offered for the information of the 
members. The figures given are in round 
numbers. * 
Of the two billion acres in the United 
States between Mexico and Canada, our 
government holds title to about one-fourth 
(500,000,000 acres). Two-fifths of these 
holdings are set aside in Public Forests 
(185,000,000 acres), and National Parks 
and Monuments (6,200,000 acres), and this 
leaves 8,800,000 acres for other purposes, 
presumably for bird preserves, which Sec- 
retary Lane refers to as “reservations or 
public lands for public use”; for National 
Military Reservations, Cemeteries, Light- 
house and public building sites, and the 
like. This, of course, does not include 
lands held by railways and highways for 
the use of the public, or state and town 
public reservations. 
