PARK AND CEMETERY. 
211 
A novel sight at Cape Henry were the 
great sand dunes that are gradually ob- 
literating a pine forest. Those who made 
the ascent of the dunes were repaid by see- 
ing a forest of pine trees fifty feet or more 
in height that will within a few years be 
completely overspread with sand carried in 
from the ocean by wind and tide. 
Mr. Falconer’s ability to tell the name 
of anything in the shape of plant life with 
his eyes blindfolded and his hands tied be- 
hind his back keeps him busy answering 
questions. He is also a first-rate news- 
getter. During the shore dinner, at his 
suggestion, three rousing cheers were given 
Mrs. W. B. Jones, wife of the secretary- 
elect, congratulatory of her birthday, and 
if we mistake not, it was from the same 
reliable source that announcement was 
made that Mr. and Mrs. Bassinger, of De- 
troit, were enjoying their honeymoon. The 
happy young couple were the recipients of 
warm congratulations. 
Visitors’ cards extending the priviliges 
of the Chamber of Commerce, of Norfolk, 
were given to the members of the associa- 
tion. This progresive body of the city’s 
foremost business men has a civic commit- 
tee that is planning constructive recom- 
mendations for the development of parks, 
playgrounds, boulevards, etc. 
The Convention Committee — J. M. 
Broughton, chairman, City Cemeteries, 
Norfolk, Va. ; J. R. Hooper, Hollywood 
Cemetery, Richmond, Va. ; Geo. M. Pain- 
ter, Westminster Cemetery, Philadelphia, 
Pa. ; J. H. Stanton, Chariton Cemetery, 
Chariton, la. — made a good record for 
themselves and provided a fine program 
for the convention, while the Ladies’ Aux- 
iliary Committee, composed of Mrs. J. M. 
Broughton, i\Irs. Wm. Etheridge, Mrs. J. 
R. Hooper, Mrs. Howard Hudgins, Mrs. 
Robert Parkinson, Mrs. Benj. Reynolds 
and Mrs. J. H. Stanton, saw that the ladies 
attending the convention were nicely enter- 
tained. Rain interfered with the arrange- 
ments for one evening that was to have 
SOME PROBLEMS OF GEM 
Taxation of Cemetery Property. 
Legal Editor, Park and Cemetery: Are 
cemeteries privately owned exempt from 
taxation, city, county or state? I have re- 
ceived letters from quite a number stating 
that they have never paid any tax what- 
soever. However, they have made the 
returns of the income tax. — M. J., N. C. 
The rules on this subject are the same 
throughout most, if not all, the states, and 
therefore the answer given below should 
interest readers of Park and Cemetery 
in general, as well as those residing in 
North Carolina. 
The policy of the law, as shown both by 
statutes and court decisions, is quite well 
summed up in the section of the North 
Carolina statutes which provides an ex- 
emption from taxation for such real estate 
“as may be set apart for graveyards or 
burial lots, except such as is held for the 
purpose of speculating in the sale thereof.” 
(Gregory’s Supplement to Pell’s Revisal of 
North Carolina, section S105e-72b.) 
In substance, this is the law throughout 
the country. That is, the real estate of 
cemeteries is exempt from taxation when 
not owned and used for profit, regardless 
of whether the ownership be private or by 
a municipality or association. And, as will 
be seen from decisions reviewed below, a 
religious society is no more entitled to ex- 
emption than a private individual if its 
cemetery be conducted for profit. 
The reason for according exemption to 
cemeteries is thus stated by the Louisiana 
Supreme Court in a case where an asso- 
ciation was held to be exempt from taxa- 
tion as to lands held for future use, as 
well as those actually occupied by graves 
(Metairie Cemetery Association vs. Board 
of Assessors, 37 Louisiana Annual, 32) : 
“What would be the security of those 
who venerate their dead if the taxgatherer 
might enter such sacred precincts and sell, 
at public outcry, the land adjoining their 
tombs to some publican who might build 
thereon a barroom or a brothel?’’ 
It was decided in this case that the un- 
sold portion of a cemetery is not subject 
to taxation unless used for purposes of 
private or corporate profit or income, and 
the court said that in establishing this ex- 
emption the law concerns itself exclusively 
with the purpose and use of a cemetery, 
and not as to the nature of the ownership, 
whether by private individuals or other- 
wise. The decision also goes so far as to 
say that small profits will be disregarded, 
since some charge to cover expenses is 
usually exacted in selling lots. 
But in a later case the same court rec- 
ognized the principle that the moment 
amounts are collected for the purpose of 
profit, although under the guise of salaries, 
the exemption ceases. (State vs. Board of 
Assessors, 52 Louisiana Annual, 223.) 
Under a Maryland law, exempting from 
taxation lands owned and used as “grave- 
yards, cemeteries paying no dividends, and 
burying grounds set apart for the use of 
any family, or belonging to any church or 
congregation,’’ it was decided that a lot 
used exclusively for the interment of de- 
ceased pastors of a church was exempt. 
(Appeal Tax Court vs. St. Peter’s Acad- 
emy et al., 50 Maryland Reports, 321.) 
The New Jersey courts have subscribed 
their assent to the rule that lands lying 
within a cemetery and bought for future 
been spent by the ladies at Ocean View. 
A theater party was substituted and light 
refreshments were served after the show. 
■Among the representatives of the trade 
present were: Oscar Enrich, Harry Law- 
son and Harry L. Davis, of the Harrison 
Granite Co.. New York; Wm. Donker, sec- 
retary Frigid Fluid Co., Chicago, 111., and 
Thomas Van Gelder, of the same company ; 
S. B. Duffield, Vermont Marble Co., Proc- 
tor, Vt. ; Harry J. Raymond, Jr., secre- 
tary-treasurer Enterprise Iron Co.. Indian- 
apolis, Ind. ; W. S. White, general agent 
The Austin & Western Road Machinery 
Co., Richmond, Va. ; R. K. Russell, gen- 
eral sales manager. Memorials .Art Co.. 
Buffalo, N. Y. ; R. H. Bogle, .Atlas Pre- 
servative Co., New York; Robinson 
Farmer, The McDermott Stone Co., Co- 
lumbus, O. ; .Albert F. Meehan, Thomas B. 
Aleehan Co., Dresher, Pa.; T. J. Kennon, 
Philadelphia Lawn Mower Co., Philadel- 
phia, Pa., and C. W. Wellman, Oshkosh, 
Wis. 
ETERY LAW 
use for interments are not taxable, al- 
though not presently used for burial pur- 
poses. (Hoboken vs. North Bergen, 43 
New Jersey Law Reports, 146.) 
Under a New York law, exempting 
from taxation “the cemetery lands and 
property’’ of associations, it was declared 
by the Court of Appeals that land within 
a city, owned by a cemetery association 
and dedicated to cemetery purposes only, 
was not taxable, although under an or- 
dinance of the city no burials could be 
made in the land. (People vs. Pratt, 29 
Northeastern Reporter, 7.) 
In another New York case it was de- 
cided that land used for cemetery pur- 
poses is exempt from both general taxa- 
tion and assessment for local improve- 
ments. (In re Jerome .Avenue, City of New 
A'ork, 85 Northeastern Reporter 755.) 
But in Massachusetts it has been held 
that there must be more than mere inten- 
tion to put land to use as a cemetery ; 
there must be some active measure taken 
toward preparing the ground for that pur- 
pose. (Woodlawn Cemetery vs. Inhab- 
itants of Everett, 118 Massachusetts Su- 
preme Judicial Court Reports, 354.) 
The Kentucky Court of Appeals has held 
that even a city cannot claim cemetery 
property as being exempt from taxation in 
the absence of affirmative proof that the 
land was not held for profit. This de- 
cision was announced under the Kentucky 
statute which limits the tax exemption to 
cemetery lands “not held for private or 
corjiorate profit.’’ (Negley vs. City of Hen- 
derson, 55 Southwestern Reporter, 554.) 
Where a cemetery has been bought as 
an investment for a church society, and 
