PARK AND CEMETERY. 
303 
tendered the Mayor, the Park Commis- 
sion of Lowell and the Lowell Board of 
Trade. 
Among those present at the meeting 
were: George H. Hollister, superintend- 
ent of Keney Park, Hartford, Conn.; 
George A. Parker, superintendent of 
parks, Hartford; S. Wales Dixon, super- 
intendent of recreation, Hartford; Rob- 
ert L. Parker, supervisor of construction 
work, park system, Hartford; A. V. 
Parker, superintendent of parks, Worces- 
ter; Harold J. Neale, city forester, 
Worcester; Thomas A. Holland, super- 
visor of playgrounds, Worcester; War- 
ren F. Hale, superintendent of parks, Sa- 
lem; Willard B. Porter, park commis- 
sioner, Salem; Henry Frost, superin- 
tendent of parks, Haverhill; L. Walter 
Stevens, Haverhill; Isaac Kelley, super- 
intendent of parks, Lawrence; Edward 
P. Adams, engineer of the park depart- 
ment, Medford ; W. W. Colton, forest 
commissioner, West Newton; H. A. 
Reynolds, secretary of the Massachu- 
setts Forestry Association, Boston; John 
H. Donnelly, superintendent of parks, 
Cambridge; Herbert W. Headle, land- 
scape architect attached to the park de- 
partment, Springfield; John H. Dillon, 
chairman of park commission, Boston; 
James B. Shea, deputy commissioner of 
the park department, Boston; Frederick 
C. Greene, superintendent of parks, 
Providence, R. I.; Joseph McCaffrey, su- 
perintendent of playgrounds, Providence, 
R. I.; William E. Fisher, superintendent 
of Franklin Park, Boston; Thos. F. Mc- 
Kay, chairman, and Alexander E. Roun- 
tree, Harvey B. Greene and Clarence M. 
Weed, and Superintendent John W. Ker- 
nan, of the Lowell Park Commission. 
RIGHT TO PROHIBIT BURIAL OF NEGROES. 
if they ride much on them, are apt to be- 
come nauseated. 
James B. Shea, deputy commissioner 
of Boston, favored the merry-go-rounds, 
as twenty or thirty children may ride on 
them at one time. 
John W. Kernan, local superintendent 
of parks, asked Mr. McCaffrey if there 
are public baths attached to the play- 
grounds in Providence. Mr. McCaffrey 
said that in summer there are eighteen 
school baths for children. 
Harvey B. Greene, local park commis- 
sioner, asked; “What do you do in an 
industrial way?” 
Mr. McCaffrey: “For the girls we have 
raffia weaving, sewing and domestic 
science, and for the boys chair caning.” 
Mr. Greene: “One of the problems 
here is to find something for the boys to 
do besides play.” 
Mr. McCaffrey: “Chair caning is about 
the only thing I know of, although two 
or three boys have taken up sewing to 
my knowledge.” 
Questioned by W. W. Colton, of West 
Newton, Mr. McCaffrey said that a Mr. 
North made a survey of the playgrounds 
of Providence some years ago, and that 
the result was privately published. Be- 
fore that survey was made, however, 
the playgrounds were well established 
there, he said. 
Mr. Dillon said that the slides in Bos- 
ton had caused one very serious acci- 
dent, to which S. Wales Dixon, superin- 
tendent of playgrounds of Hartford, 
Conn., replied: “One accident of this 
kind should not cause the abandonment 
of slides altogether. It doesn’t seem as 
if there are many accidents on the 
swings either. The teeter ladder may 
have some. In fact, the children who in- 
cur accidents are those who break the 
rules. I believe in merry-go-rounds. 
Mr. Dixon said further that he be- 
lieves in sand games, even though they 
are not the most sanitary things in the 
world. He believed it did a lot of good 
to let the children come in contact with 
the soil. 
James B. Shea, for twenty-five years 
deputy park commissioner of Boston, 
was next introduced, and made a fine ad- 
dress, which is printed in full on an- 
other page in this issue. 
The meeting adjourned shortly after 
4 o’clock, the members of the Institute 
taking automobiles for a trip through 
Fort Hill and Shedd parks and out the 
Andover street boulevard. Later they 
went to the Kasino for the industrial 
exhibit, and at 6 o’clock dinner was 
served at the Richardson Hotel. 
At the conclusion of dinner, Mr. Parker 
gave an address, outlining the park sys- 
tem in Hartford, Conn., and suggesting 
what might be done in Lowell. On mo- 
tion of Mr. Shea a vote of thanks was 
In the case of Leathers vs. Odd Fellows’ 
Rest, 69 Southern Reporter 858, the Louisi- 
ana Supreme Court decided that, under 
the facts there involved, defendant could 
not be required to restore the body of a 
colored person to a grave from which it 
was removed in a “white” cemetery. 
Plaintiff owned a burial plot, measuring 
six by nine feet, in the cemetery of de- 
fendant, for the purpose of burying a col- 
ored servant therein, with the express in- 
tention of making the same use of the lot 
for herself and husband, that, as plaintiff 
claims, they might “lie in the same grave, 
so that even in death they would not be 
separated.” The colored servant was bur- 
ied in the place indicated on Saturday. 
On the following Monday morning the de- 
fendant removed the body of the colored 
servant to a neighboring cemetery. Plain- 
tiff brought suit on the ground that such 
act on the part of defendant’s agent caused 
“petitioner great mental anguish and pain ; 
that petitioner has greatly suffered through 
the illegal acts of the defendant, and has 
sustained a severe nervous shock by the 
acts of defendant in removing the said 
body, and on account of said suffering, 
physical and mental, she has been dam- 
aged in the full sum of $10,000, which she 
is entitled to recover from defendant; that 
petitioner expended $176 for the burial of 
Harriet Blade, all to no purpose now, a 
useless expense, caused by defendant’s ille- 
gal, willful act and violation of petition- 
er’s rights, which sum petitioner is also en- 
titled to recover from defendant.” 
She prayed for a mandatory injunction, 
requiring the defendant to replace the body 
of Harriet Blake in the Odd Fellows’ Rest 
Cemetery, in petitioner’s lot, or that the 
defendant be enjoined from preventing or 
interfering with her in placing the body in 
said lot, and for judgment for damages. 
In affirming judgment dismissing the suit, 
the Supreme Court said: 
“Plaintiff does not hold a formal title to 
the plot of ground over which this contro- 
versy has arisen ; she paid $25 on account 
of the purchase price, and was to have 
paid the remaining $25 within 60 days. 
She therefore has no title to the property. 
Had title been issued to her, there would 
have been no question as to the right of 
burying a colored person in the lot, for 
the title distinctly recites : 
“ ‘The lot of land shall not be used for 
any other purpose than as a place of burial 
for only white people and of good char- 
acter.’ 
“But plaintiff, who is a white person, 
represents and testifies that she informed 
the agent of defendant that the lot was to 
be used as a burial place for a colored 
servant, and she claims the right to use it 
for such purpose. The secretary of the 
defendant, with whom the transaction was 
had, testified that he was not informed 
that the servant referred to was a colored 
person ; that he supposed that she was a 
white woman ; that he could not have, and 
would not have, sold the lot for the pur- 
pose of burying a colored person therein ; 
and that plaintiff consented to the removal 
of the body. 
“The testimony in the case on behalf of 
the respective parties is totally irreconcil- 
able. The trial judge, who saw and heard 
the witnesses, was of the opinion that 
plaintiff had failed to make out her case 
with legal certainty, and his finding will 
not be disturbed. 
“The body of the colored woman was 
removed by the defendant on Monday 
morning after the burial into an adjoining 
cemetery, where it may rest in peace; and 
the removal of the remains from a recently 
purchased burial plot to another newly 
