276 
work of the Barre Entertainment Associa- 
tion. which was organized for the purpose 
of entertaining the visiting superintendents 
in August, 1917. W. G. Reynolds, presi- 
dent of the Board of Trade; A. C. Moore, 
of the merchants’ association : H. P. Hin- 
man, of the manufacturers; Robert Jones, 
of the quarriers, and Alex. Hanton, super- 
intendent of the city cemeteries, were act- 
ive in the movement that led to organiza- 
tion. 
Superintendent Hanton, who was active 
in persuading the National Association to 
come to Barre, was chosen directing 
PARK AND CEMETERY. 
chairman and secretary of the new associa- 
tion. Upon him will devolve much of the 
detail work to be done before plans for 
receiving the visitors are completed. Nat- 
urally. plans already formulated are wholly 
tentative, but the several committees do 
not intend to spare any pains in letting 
cemetery superintendents all over the coun- 
try know that Barre is out to show them 
a sample of its old-time hospitality in 1917. 
The committees are as follows : 
General Committee — A. P. Abbott, Alex 
A. IMilne, W. G. Reynolds, Allen Reid, 
Robert Jones, H. P. Hinman. 
Finance Committee — A. P. Abbott, Guy 
R. Varnum, H. J. M. Jones, William Bar- 
clay, R. Lucchini, H. C. Ladd, Alex. 
Duncan. 
Transportation Committee — A. A. Milne, 
F. H. Rogers, J. N. Gall, George N. Til- 
den, J. A. Healy. 
Entertainment Committee — W. G. Reyn- 
olds, E. M. Tobin, Robert Jones, H. P. 
Hinman. 
Publicity Committee — A. C. Moore, Al- 
len Reid, W. P. Scott, Henry A. Phelps 
and H. C. Whitaker. 
PROBLEMS OF PARK AND CEMETERY LAW 
A department of Legal Advice and Discussioti on problems that confront 
parks and cemeteries. You are invited to ask questions ivhich will be answered 
by an attorney zvithout charge. A. L. H. Street, Consulting Attorney. 
Peanut Husk Nuisance in Parks. 
Editor Park and Cemetery; Will you 
kindly tell me whether there is any state 
of municipal law dealing with peanut husks 
in the interests of cleanliness in public 
places? In this country peanuts are sold 
in the husk, and one finds children and 
grownup people with a bag or pocketful of 
peanuts, eating them at their leisure and 
dropping the husks on the paths of parks 
and gardens, making it practically impos- 
sible to keep the place tidy. I have been 
informed that in your country legislation 
has been introduced with the view of sell- 
ing peanuts wdthout the husks. Would 
you kindly favor me with any information 
on the subject? — M. J. H., Sydney, N. 
S. W. 
It seems that most cities have ordinances 
forbidding throwing of refuse on the paths, 
grass and gardens of parks, as well as 
other public places. Plainly this is a proper 
police regulation. For instance, in my own 
city ( Minneapolis ) there is an ordinance 
which provides: “No person shall throw, 
deposit or leave any paper, article or any- 
thing in any park or parkway except in 
receptacles provided for waste." 
In the United States such regulations 
are usuall\' left by the state legislatures to 
cities as a matter of municipal regulation. 
But since cities are mere agencies of the 
state, a state law on the subject would be 
proper. As to parks and cemeteries lying 
outside municipal limits, a state law would, 
of course, be necessary. 
I know of no law' or proposed measure 
intended to prohibit sale of peanuts with- 
out the husks removed. As an off-hand 
opinion, I feel sure that the courts would 
declare such a general law to be invalid, 
as constituting an unreasonable interfer- 
ence with the right to sell or use property. 
If, as it seems to me, casting of peanut 
husks in public places is not a necessary 
or natural result of selling peanuts with 
the husks on, the courts would not sus- 
tain such a regulation. There can be no 
doubt of the right to make it a punishable 
misdemeanor to throw banana or orange 
peels or peanut husks in public places, but 
there is good ground for doubting the right 
of a state or city to require bananas and 
oranges to be sold peeled, or peanuts to be 
sold without husks. 
1 do not mean, however, that an ordi- 
nance might not validly provide that un- 
shelled peanuts should not be sold in a 
park, for all sales there might be abso- 
lutely prohibited. And it is quite probable 
that venders catering especially to park 
visitors from wagons or stores near the 
park might be forbidden to sell unhulled 
peanuts, but I am convinced that a regula- 
tion could not validly go farther. 
“The municipal authorities may make all 
necessary and proper regulations with re- 
gard to the government and management 
of the property, and how it should be used 
by the public, such as are necessary to pre- 
serve the public peace and safety, the pro- 
tection of the property from injury, and to 
secure to the public its common enjoy- 
ment ; and so long as they act within the 
legitimate scope of their authority their 
discretion is not subject to outside inter- 
ference or judicial revision or reversal. 
They may prohibit public speaking or 
preaching in the parks, may regulate the 
speed at w'hich persons may ride or drive 
in parks and parkways, and exclude there- 
from, wagons and other vehicles for carry- 
ing merchandise and the like, or the use 
of bicycles or tricycles therein. Even the 
public right of access may be reasonably 
restricted, and whether a portion of a 
park may be set aside temporarily for the 
use of a particular portion of the public 
rests in the discretion of the authorities ; 
but the general public cannot be excluded 
for an unreasonable length of time. A 
power conferred upon a park board to 
regulate, control and protect the use of 
parks, parkways and public places gives no 
authority over private property adjacent to 
but outside of the limits of such parks 
and the streets and highways surrounding 
them.” — 28 Cyc., pp. 937, 938. 
Provisions in Wills for Monuments. 
Every firm or association extending 
credit to estates or on the faith of* a will 
in furnishing monuments will be interested 
in a recent decision of the New York Sur- 
rogate’s Court for Bronx County, handed 
down in the matter of Young’s Estate, 157 
New York Supplement, 494. 
Decedent left a will bequeathing $500 
to one daughter, $200 to another, and $100 
to a niece. She then provided that “the 
balance of my money on deposit in the 
Bowery Savings Bank and Seaman’s Sav- 
ings Bank shall be used to defray funeral 
expenses and the erection of a monument 
over my grave.” The total estate amount- 
ed to $1,471.95, leaving a balance of nearly 
$300 after paying the legacies, funeral ex- 
penses, costs of administration, etc. Under 
these facts, the executor asked the Surro- 
gate’s Court for advice as to disposition 
of this balance, and the following decision 
was announced by the court : 
“Even without testamentary direction to 
that effect, an executor has a right to pay 
the reasonable funeral expenses of the 
decedent, and a reasonable expenditure for 
a tombstone is regarded as a legitimate 
item of funeral expenses. 
“In matter of Boardman, 20 N. Y. Supp. 
60, it was held that a provision in a will 
that all of testator's property remaining 
after paying his debts should be expended 
for a monument, fence, etc., is to be con- 
strued with reference to the circumstances 
and situation in life of the testator, and 
only a reasonable portion of his estate 
should be expended thereunder. In Emans 
vs. Bickman, 12 Hun, 425, the testator left 
his entire estate to his executors for his 
funeral expenses and the erection of a 
monument. The estate amounted to $1,200, 
and the court held that it was the inten- 
tion of the deceased to devote an amount 
which was reasonable, in view of his po- 
sition in life and the extent of his prop- 
erty, and affirmed the decree fixing the 
sum of $150 as the limit to be expended for 
the monument. 
