265 
rendered by park authorities through their 
own employees and not through conces- 
sions : that all drinks and foods should be 
served in the best possible manner and 
must be of the best quality, and that they 
should be sold at a reasonable profit to the 
board. 
The following reasons, I believe, will sus- 
tain my views and claims in this matter : 
First : Park authorities should not enter 
PARK AND CEMETERY. 
into unfair competition with others who 
have to make their living in that business. 
Second : The profits so earned can be 
used to advantage in the betterment of the 
service, equipment, and in other improve- 
ments by which the public will be benefited. 
I am of the opinion that in charging rea- 
sonable fees for such and similar services 
rendered, as herein described, we accom- 
plish at least three distinct desirable things : 
First: We gain the means not otherwise 
obtainable of rendering additional de- 
sirable service. 
Second : We secure those means through 
taxing people who make use of that serv- 
ice and are thereby directly benefited. 
Third: We are better able to determine 
what service is really needed, wanted and 
appreciated, and consequently we are less 
liable to spend labor and money uselessly. 
ENDOWMENT FUNDS FOR PRIVATE MAUSOLEUMS 
Some cemeteries require maintenance funds for family 
mausoleums; others considering it; some of the rules. 
Editor Asked and Answered Dept., Park 
and Cemetery: It is my intention that 
lot owners who wish to erect mausoleums 
should set aside with the cemetery asso- 
ciation a certain sum of money to maintain 
such structures. I should like to hear 
from officials of cemeteries who have such 
regulations what sum they require for 
maintenance of a mausoleum, and whether 
it is a fixed sum or based on a percentage 
of the cost of the structure, and what reg- 
ulations they have governing this matter. 
— B. C. H, Mich. 
The maintenance of vaults has not hith- 
erto had our serious attention. We ask 
that a sum be placed in our perpetual 
maintenance fund that will pay for the 
following items : 
(a) “At all times keep the vault clean, 
■wiped, swept, and, if any, brass shining.” 
(b) “Maintain and renew flowers and 
shrubs/' 
(c) “Locks and hinges to be oiled, main- 
tained and, when necessary, renewed.” 
(d) “Cement examined annually and re- 
pointed when necessary.” 
We find $1,000 covers these requirements 
on a vault costing not to exceed $10,000. 
The writer realizes these provisions fall 
far short of the ideal, and do not antici- 
pate the gradual deterioration of or perma- 
nent and perpetual reparation of the struc- 
ture. 
All vaults are more or less vanity and 
are built more to impress the present gen- 
eration with the importance and wealth of 
the builder than to create architectural 
achievements that will last through the 
ages. 
There are features now in vogue in the 
maintenance of these vaults that can be 
vastly improved. 
First : The cemetery company is not the 
proper party to hold the funds for main- 
tenance. In the dim future it will become 
contractor, auditor, payer and payee, and 
self-interest will so far outstrip the client’s 
interest, for he then has no representative, 
and it would be more than human if the 
cemetery company gave the client a fair 
deal. 
Second : A trust company as a neutral 
party seems to lie the modern custodian of 
such a fund. Empowered to check up the 
cemetery company to see that all of its 
obligations are complied with, alive at all 
times to the changing conditions in securi- 
ties, a trust company seems the very best 
medium in which to place a sacred trust 
of this nature. 
Third : It is customary in some ceme- 
teries to place a lump sum in the main- 
tenance fund, say 10 per cent of the cost 
of a vault, for the vault’s maintenance, 
and on which sum the cemetery company 
proceeds to draw the interest annually. I 
believe this is wrong, because the interest 
provides a larger, sum than is necessary 
for the first period of twenty years, and 
is altogether inadequate for the third and 
fourth periods of twenty years. 
Fourth : I suggest an improvement on 
this feature, a plan that will provide the 
funds as they are needed and not sooner ; 
funds sufficient to prevent the ruin of the 
structure and rebuild it after 100 years 
and every hundred years if necessary with- 
out being a burden on the builder, as fol- 
lows : 
On a vault and lot worth $25,000 have 
the builder place in the perpetual main- 
tenance fund $5,000, of which 
$2,500 be invested for immediate care; 
$500 be placed on deposit to compound 
16 years ; 
$500 be placed on deposit to compound 
32 years ; 
$500 be placed on deposit to compound 
48 years; 
$500 be placed on deposit to compound 
64 years ; 
$500 be placed on deposit to compound 
80 years. 
At 4J/2 per cent interest the deposit 
doubles in 16 years. 
This would yield an income during the 
first period of 16 years on $2,500 of 
$112.50; second period of 16 years on 
$3,500 of $157.50; third period of 16 years 
on $5,500 of $247.50; fourth period of 16 
years on $9,500 of $427.50; fifth period of 
16 years on $17,500 of $787.50; sixth pe- 
riod of 16 years on $33,500 of $1,507.50. 
These figures may not be correct and the 
initial annuity may not be ample, but the 
idea is submitted as an improvement on 
present methods, on the theory that as a 
vault deteriorates the income increases ; 
the means are provided to meet constant 
erosion and decay, and, if necessary, to 
rebuild it and then repeat. Geo. Law, 
Secretary, Forest Hill Cemetery. 
Kansas City, Mo. 
* * * 
Regarding the question of endowment 
of mausoleums, we have so few of them, 
the question of endowment has never been 
seriously considered by our trustees. It is 
a question that we shall be obliged to go 
into very soon, however, and I shall await 
the results of your investigation with con- 
siderable interest. 
Arthur W. FIobert, 
Secretary, Lakewood Cemetery Assn. 
Minneapolis, Minn. 
* * * 
We have no rules pertaining to the main- 
tenance of mausoleums. So far we have 
managed to get a better price for the 
ground upon which a mausoleum is to be 
constructed than we do for an ordinary 
burial lot. Personally, I believe there 
should be quite a sum added to the price 
of the lot and the extra money set aside 
for the maintenance of the mausoleum. 
Theo. E. Anderson, 
Supt., River View Cemetery. 
Portland, Ore. 
* * * 
We do not require a lot holder erecting 
a mausoleum to give us a certain sum of 
money in trust to maintain such structure, 
but we do try, however, to influence them 
in this direction. In a great many cases 
we have been successful, but in others the 
owners pay no attention to our requests. 
Geo. M. Painter, 
Supt., Westminster Cemetery. 
Philadelphia, Pa. 
* * * 
We have the following rule governing 
this subject: No private vault shall be 
erected in the cemetery without a sufficient 
sum of money as an endowment for the 
permanent maintenance of same having 
first been deposited with the Cave Hill In- 
vestment Co. The amount of this fund 
will be governed by the size of the lot and 
vault and the type of construction. We 
discourage the building of all private mau- 
soleums in Cave Hill Cemetery, however, 
on account of the structural difficulties in 
erecting a thoroughly permanent building. 
