232 
PA RK AND C EMETER V. 
FIG. 6. VIEW IN OLD STYLE BURIAL GROUND. 
tinder perpetual care — because if they al- 
low this mausoleum to be erected on this 
lot when it is sold under perpetual care, I 
do .not see how he is going to tear it down. 
It is a question in my mind whether he 
could do it or not. He sells the lot with 
perpetual care and still he has allowed 
them to go ahead and put up that mauso- 
leum and does not ask any condition for 
it.” 
I have lived in New England for nearly 
fifty years, and have naturally heard a 
great deal about the New England con- 
science, though I must confess my ac- 
quaintance with it is rather academic, 
never having seen it in practical opera- 
tion. I select these remarks of my brother 
from Salem not in a personal way, but 
because they, in the main, represent an 
idea which I often meet with. The theory 
that because a lot is sold under perpetual 
care, the rights and duties of the ceme- 
tery corporation as to structure, etc., are 
restricted, is to my mind illogical and, in 
truth, the emanation of a retroverted con- 
science. A lot is sold with an exact deed 
or contract, covering the perpetual care of 
the grass. Under proper provision, a 
mausoleum or other structure is erected 
upon it, but as should be well known to 
both the parties, no structure was ever 
made by the hand of man of such perfec- 
tion and of such material as to require 
neither care nor repairs. “The lapse of 
time, the ruthless hand of ignorance, and 
the devastations of war, have laid waste 
and destroyed many valuable monuments 
of antiquity, on which the utmost exertions 
of human genius have been employed.” 
How then can we, who do not agree as to 
the proper material for pointing the joints, 
or see eye to eye as to ventilation, expect 
to build a structure that will be sightly for 
even a limited period? If the owner of a 
lot permits a structure to continue in a 
dilapidated condition, I fail to see why the 
innocent party ; that is, the cemetery cor- 
poration which carries out its contract, 
should be made to suffer. There is no 
connection between the sale of the ground 
under perpetual care and the care or re- 
pair of what is afterwards placed upon it, 
and so far from the cemetery authorities 
having their hands tied, they would be 
lacking in their duty to the other lot- 
owners if they permitted any unsightly, 
or decaying object to disfigure the 
grounds. The majority of cemeteries pro- 
vide for this contingency. After I have 
fought with the beasts at Ephesus, I have 
often refreshed my spirit by reading the 
rules and regulations of Mt. Greenwood 
Cemetery, for which Mr. Rudd is, I be- 
lieve. responsible. Speaking of defects in 
monuments, on page 28 they say: ‘Tf the 
defects cannot be corrected, or if the lot- 
owner does not correct them within a rea- 
sonable time, the whole structure shall be 
removed at the lot-owner’s expense.” 
In the case of Mt. Auburn Cemetery, the 
possibility of having to remedy unsightly 
and neglected structures was foreseen in 
the early days, and a provision was in- 
serted in the by-laws, “that the secretary 
shall notify the proprietors of neglected 
lots of their condition — and in case of con- 
tinued neglect, — so as, in the opinion of 
the Trustees, to impair the general ap- 
pearance of the cemetery, any such lot 
shall be put in order by the Trustees at 
the expense of the proprietor thereof.” 
Under this rule, the procedure is, after 
the superintendent has sent out several 
notices to the owner of a lot without re- 
sult, he reports the case, in writing, to the 
President, when it is considered at the 
FIG. 5. RESULTS OP A THUNDER- 
STORM. 
next meeting of the Board, and if thought 
advisable, a condemnation vote is passed. 
This vote usually runs that after notifica- , 
tion by the secretary, the lot shall be put j ^ 
in order, or the offensive object removed, ji |ri 
by the superintendent under the direction ^ J- 
of the President, if no action has been | | 
taken by the owners within thirty days. 1 
Action has never been hurried, either in f 
passing the vote, or by removal, and ^ i 
usually the repairs are not carried out f; | 
until six months have elapsed, but hun- ; ' 
dreds of dilapidated fences, and other i f 
structures, have been removed in this way, .; ^ 
without difficulty, and so far without seri- , ! 
ous complaint, although I have no recol- j' 
lection of a single case in which the lot ■ 1 
owner paid for the expense of removal. ' ; 
The experience of every official here will 
supply instances in abundance of preten- t 
FIG. 4. DAMAGE TO CEMETERY AND i 
MONUMENTS BY PALLING TREE. h 
tious monuments and .other mortuary 
structures becoming ’dilapidated derelicts. 
The view shown in Fig. 2 covers a large 
area of ground ; all that architectural skill ■ 
and practical knowledge could supply was 
called to aid in its construction. It was 
made entirely by the day, and yet, in a few 
years became so unsightly that the upper |, 
ornaments have been entirely removed, and 
it is beyond a doubt that the whole fabric 
will, at some time in the near future be 
removed and the bodies buried in the 
ground. This is one of the cases where 
larger individual pieces of stone would , 
have secured more permanency. 
Fig. 3 shows a tomb which has given 
the cemetery authorities considerable ' ji 
trouble. One can see that considerable jj 
skill and taste was embodied in the de- j| 
sign. It was constructed before the Cor- 
poration either built foundations or gave 
them any particular inspection. The foun- 
dation below the front being of insuffi- 
cient depth, the doors have settled, the 
pediment is broken, and the pilasters, — as 
you see, — are falling out. 
We hear sometimes of the extraordinary 
cyclones from which our Western brethren - I 
suffer. It does not, however, require a « 
cyclone to do material damage, as may be 2 
i 
