PARK AND CEMETERY. 
329 
amended to create another class of mem- 
bers to he known as Patrons, with a fee 
of $200. without dues, and the first Pa- 
tron of the association, was elected at 
this session. The officers for the ensuing 
yetir are as follows : 
President. J. Horace McFarland. Harris- 
burg, Pa.; first vice-president. Dr. John 
Xolen, Cambridge, Mass. ; treasurer, Wil- 
liam If. Howland, New York City: secre- 
tary, Richard B. Watrous, Washington. 
\'ice-presidents : Mrs. Edward \^ . Biddle, 
Philadelphia; .Arnold W. Brunner, New 
Operating 
.\ cemetery superintendent in Illinois in- 
cpiires as follows : ''Will you he so kind 
:is to advise in what states the law does not 
l)ermit a cemetery to be operated for itrofit, 
and also specifically state whether a prop- 
erty can he handled for profit in Ohio.-'" 
P.\KK .\Mi Ce.metkuv's law editor regrets 
that the hihor involved in examining the 
statutes and law reports of d// the states 
would he so great that it is not practicable 
to deal so broadly with the subject in one 
article. However, we take pleasure in an- 
swering the specific inciuiry made by our 
correspondent, as well as showing the lead- 
ing court decisions on the general question. 
Should he or any other reader of Pakk 
.\xi> Cemetekv desire specific information 
as to the law on this iioint in any state or 
few states not mentioned in the following 
article, we shall he glad to give it on re- 
quest. 
.\n examination of the Ohio statutes 
shows that cemeteries may not he o])erated 
in Ohio for pecuniary profit. Sections 
10.098 and 10.109 reriuire the receipts and 
income of cemeteries to he applied to the 
payment of necessarv exiteiises and for 
the protection and embellishment of the 
grounds, etc. Section 10,109 contains this 
clause: "Xo part of the proceeds of land 
sold, or of the funds of s-uch a comptiny 
or association, shall ever he divided timong 
its stockholders or lot-owners. All its 
fuiuls must he used exclusively for the 
jiurposes of the company or association, as 
above herein siiecified. or inxested in a 
fund, the income of which shall he so used 
:ind appro[)riated. ” 
(thio does not appetir to have any such 
statute as is tfi lie found in Illinois Rev ised 
.Statutes, 1915-6, |). 6.56, rleclaring that "or 
ganizations for the purchase and sale of 
real estate for burial purposes only * * * 
may he organized anf! oi)erated under the 
[)rovisions of this act" — the Illinois act an 
thorizing formation of corivoratioiis for 
pecuniary profit. 
But it seems that even in Illinois a cor 
pfiration must he organized 'pecitically tin 
der that act, or a s()ecial act. before it can 
lie operated for profit, for another law 
( p|). 181 and 182) provides that "no divi- 
flends shall he declared or paid to any 
officer or other person from the funris of 
said cemetery association, hut tlte same shall 
York City: George B. Dealey, Dallas Tex.; 
J. C. Xichols, Kansas City, i\lo. ; J. Lockie 
Wilson, Toronto, Canada; Miss Wilson, 
Washington, F). C. ; Clinton Rogers Wood- 
ruff, Philadelphia. 
Executive Board : Harold A. Caparn, 
Xew York City; Hon. .A. T. Clearwater, 
Kingston. X. Y. ; Mrs. Josiah Evans 
Cowles, Los .Angeles, Cal. ; Hon. Charles 
M. Dow, Jamestown, X. Y. ; Dr. Henry 
S. Drinker, South Bethlehem, Pa. ; John 
H. Gundlach, St. Louis, Mo. ; Paul A. 
he kept inviolate and to he used only for 
purposes of said association and the care, 
preservation and ornamentation of said 
cemetery." I'his provision relates to asso- 
I'kitioiis organized under the chapter in 
which the iirovision appears, and does not 
seem to conflict with the first (pioted stat- 
ute which authorizes formation of corDini- 
tions for pecuniarv profit. 
To retich a conclusion whether cemeteries 
m;iy he operated for iirolit in any given 
state, it is necessarv to e.xamine the stat- 
utes of that state carefully. .\s a general 
rule, absence of a provision recognizing the 
operation of a cemetery as a legitimtite pri- 
vate enterprise will he fatal to the right to 
so operate one. 
The attitude of the courts on this suh- 
iect is indicated in several leading court 
decisions reviewed below: 
"There is nothing, so far as we are 
aware, in the nature or objects of a ceme- 
tery association which necessarily imposes 
upon its property, assets or revenues a 
trust charactei'." said the Illinois Supreme 
Court in the case of Bourland vs. Spring- 
drde Cemetery .\ssoci;ttion. 158 Illinois, 458. 
"'riiat, manifestly, must depend upon the 
terms of the charter or other instrument 
under ;md by virtue of which its iiroiiertv, 
assets :ind revenues are acquired and held. 
If a trust exists, it is conventiomd : and 
whether one e.xists in the iiresent case, and 
its nature and terms, must de])end upon the 
jirovisioiis of the act of the Genertd .\s- 
semblv by which the defendant association 
was incorpor.'ited." 
The act referred to was a special one. 
and the court fotind that its f;iir interpre- 
tation entitled the shareholders to divide 
any net profits rcmainin,g after making 
proper iirovision for the iirc'Crvation and 
embellishment of the cemeterv grounds. 
'I'he court concludes : 
"It is clear, from all the provisioiis of 
the ;ict. that .after the portion of the pro- 
ceeds of the sales of lots necesstirv for the 
jiurposes aforesaid i' jiaid out or appro 
priated. the surphu belongs to the mem- 
bers. as repre-enting their sluire or interest 
in the corporation. Xo other aiipropriation 
fif such surplus is made by the charter, 
.and that it may he lawfully p.iid over t' 
the members sufticiently aiipears from the 
(irovisions of isection 14" 
Harsch, Toledo. C). ; Hon. .Morton I), Hull. 
Chicago, 111.; George B. Kessler, St. Louis, 
Mo.; Hon. Henry B. I'. Alacfarland, W'ash- 
ington, D. C. : Enos Mills, Estes Park, 
Colo.; Mrs. Philip X-. Moore, St. Louis, 
Mo. : Lee J. Xinde, Fort Wayne, Ind. ; 
Frederick Law Olmsted. Brookline, Mass.; 
Airs. John Dickinson Sherman. Chicago, 
111.: Howard Stron.g, Minneapolis, Minn. ; 
Rev. G. W . Tebbs, Hamilton, Canada; 
Rev. John V'an Schaick, Jr., Washington. 
1). C. ; Professor Frank .A. Waugh, .Am- 
herst, Alass. 
In the .Minnesota case of Brown vs. Ala- 
plevvood Cemetery .Association. 89 Xorth 
western Reiiorter, 872, the Alinnesota Su- 
preme Court decided that in view of the pub- 
lic nature of the use of cemetery .grinmds, 
a corporation organized for the jiurpose of 
"establishiiyg a ])ublic cemetery," zcitlioul 
capital stock or cdiitributions from the mem- 
bers. could not be adapted to the acquisi- 
tion of jirofits and emoluments by the di- 
rectors and incorporators. It will be noted, 
however, that this decision is not inconsist- 
ent with the ri,ght of a stock corporation, 
organized by persons furnishing money to 
establish the enterprise, to operate a ceme- 
tery for private profit. 
But the Alinnesota court does inrlicate 
disfavor against the commercializing of 
cemeteries in the following lan.guage ; "AA'e 
had not siqiposeil that public burial places 
had become in this state the subject of ir- 
responsible sjieculation and profit, or that, 
under legislative authority, a corporate en- 
tity might be established throu.gh which 
land could be secured for a small jirice, tei 
be devoted to cemetery purposes, whereby 
its value would be .greatly enlumccd, and 
thus secure to the jiromoters of the scheme 
the entire usufruct therefrom, without jier- 
sonal investment, contribution, risk or ac 
countability. Lnless we have gravely mis 
apprehended the enli.ghtened public senti- 
ment which has largely made the mortuary- 
law in this country, the fierce race for 
wealth, even in this commercial age, re- 
strains its trafficking hands at the [lortalsof 
the .grave." 
The hitest decision on the subject was 
handed down by the Oklahoma Supreme 
Court in the case of Street vs. Ftiirlawn 
(.'emefery Association, 15.1 Pacific Reporter, 
6,17. I I ere it wtis decided that ;i contract 
whereby hind was deeded to an associtition 
on condition th;it the seller should share in 
the proceeds of burial lots was invalid, un- 
der the ( )kl,-ihoma sttitute-'. After citing 
various statittes in force in Oklahoma, c.x- 
empting cemetery lands from taxtition, re 
ipiiring reveime- to be U'cd in m.-iintenance, 
etc., the court s;i\ ^ : 
"It is now. and has been at till time^. the 
dechired policy of the Itivv in thi' jnrisdic 
tioii that the aff.airs of ,a cemetery associa- 
tion ^h.ill not be conducted for the purpose 
of proiit to the Corporation ..r its member' 
Cemetery For Profit 
