PARK AND CEMETERY. 
231 
In front of them are written the names 
“of the estates which they represent,” 
such as “Figs of the Companion, Perneb,” 
“Onions of the Companion, Perneb,” 
names made up apparently of the word ex- 
pressing the product for which the estate 
was chiefly noted, and “Perneb,” to dis- 
tinguish the estate as belonging to him. 
To quote again: 
“For several generations, at least, the ' 
mortuary priests and Perneb’s descend- 
ants fulfilled their pious duty of visit- 
ing the tomb and providing the neces- 
sary offerings of food and drink for his 
sustenance. Then gradually the care 
ceased, and as neglect fell upon the 
tomb it was visited by thieves and plun- 
derers who searched it for whatever 
could be found of value.” 
Nearly all of the modern cemeteries 
have funds alike for the care of the gen- 
eral, or ornamental, grounds, as well as 
for the care and beautification of the indi- 
vidual lot. In the cemetery which I have 
the honor to serve, we have three funds : 
The General Fund, which is practically 
working capital and which is called upon 
to pay for the improvements made from 
time to time. The Permanent Fund, which 
is made up of one-third of the amount 
from the sales of lots, the principal of 
which can never be diminished, but the in- 
come used for the upkeep of the avenues, 
paths, buildings, etc. The Perpetual Care 
Fund, which is used for the care of the 
turfing, planting, etc., on the individual 
lots. In this paper I will not discuss the 
question of the amount needed for the per- 
petual care of the grass, except so far as 
to point out that because a particular sum 
is set aside by one cemetery, it does not 
fdlow that a like sum should be provided 
for a cemetery in some other section of the 
country. The number of days in the year 
when grass should be cut will vary very 
much in Portland, Maine, from that in 
San Francisco, Cal., and the cemetery in 
Montreal, Canada, with its long Winter, 
will suggest different conditions to those 
here in Norfolk. 
There is one other difference I will 
touch upon, and that is the method of 
laying out lots. The idea of Dr. Bigelow 
in laying out Mt. Auburn was to have a 
space for twelve graves entirely sur- 
rounded by spaces averaging about three 
feet on three sides, and from six to eight 
feet on the front side, in which no inter- 
ments could be made. For a lot of 300 ft. 
of interment space sold in this way, there- 
fore, an area of about 550 ft. is needed, 
while in other cemeteries (Fig. 1), the 
whole land from the edge of the avenue 
to the boundary of the adjoining lot is 
sold for burial space, so, for a foot of 
interment space, — the unit we figure by — 
you can understand that other cemeteries 
can charge about one-half of what Mt. 
Auburn is supposed to do, and yet have 
the same return per acre. It has some- 
times occurred to me that if these snips 
could be consolidated into areas of an acre 
or so, the effect of planting would be very 
much enhanced. You can understand that 
if, of 1(X) acres of space, 45 acres, or even 
less, were laid out in planting, the effect 
might be more striking, and the question 
of trees interfering with monuments less 
likely to be raised. But if laid out in this 
way, care must be taken so that, when the 
available burial space has been used, future 
generations cannot trench on the orna- 
mental grounds, and no ordinary “vote of 
the Board” will prevent this. A few acres 
of purely ornamental ground were laid 
out in Mt. Auburn, and the practice was 
to insert a clause in each deed given for 
the sale of a lot. so that any one of sev-i 
eral thousand people can prevent encroach- 
ment on a place so set aside. That, how-, 
ever, is rather apart from the question I 
am charged with discussing. * 
I think I have sufficiently indicated my 
opinion that the grounds themselves and 
the permanent planting are likely to be 
appreciated and cared for by coming gen- 
erations. But what of the structures? 
One may take up the reports of the 
proceedings of this Association and study 
the papers and discussions of the past with 
considerable profit. Ideas which are the 
product of years of experience are often 
brought out apparently through the spur 
of debate, but because so brought out, they 
are not always stated in as exact language 
as one would care to use if time was given 
for thought and consideration. In the re- 
port of the proceedings of the Milwaukee 
Convention of 1912, in discussing a mo- 
tion made by my brother Creesy, I find 
I said : “It is a very good thing to have 
these mausoleums under perpetual care, 
but give the cemetery full power to re- 
move any structure that is broken and 
dilapidated.” I assume that it was this 
remark which led Mr. Rutherford to say 
in the year following: “A member told 
us he would not take endowments because 
he wanted to reserve the right to tear 
down these mausoleums should that ever 
be considered necessary.” This led Mr. 
Creesy to remark, “I think our brother 
made a little mistake, — if he sells his lots 
FIG. 1. ARRANGE.vrENT OF LOTS AND 
SPACES. FIG. 3. TOMB THAT HAS NEEDED MANY REPAIRS. 
