USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Boston > Old Copp's Hill and Burial Ground : with historical sketches, March 1, 1882 > Part 10
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13
We have thus briefly endeavored to trace the history of intramural interments, and to present some facts perti- nent to the subject. It would seem that a natural feeling of love, and the dread of parting from those dear to him, has prompted man to keep the remains of his kindred and friends near him ; while, on the other hand, the dictates
1 Chadwick.
29
INTRAMURAL INTERMENTS.
of prudence warned him of the danger of so doing. In fact, the history of the subject shows a continual struggle between the affectional nature and sound reason, - a conflict between the head and the heart. The laws of nature cannot be violated with impunity. Nature ordains that, when life is extinct, the materials composing all living forms shall return to their natural affinities, to be assimilated, and spring into new life again. Any practice inconsistent with this order is resented. It would seem as though, in order to secure this result, the decomposing human body is made one of the most horrible and offensive objects that can offend the senses of the living. The only true way is to commit the body to the earth, and permit the repulsive process of decomposition to go on unseen. This can only be properly done in rural cemeter- ies, where the space will permit of allowing the dead to rest undisturbed until the body returns to dust. Within the city limits land is too valuable to be devoted to such nses. The wants of the living and the demands of business must necessarily encroach upon the dead ; besides, there is some- thing incongruous in associating the peaceful sleep of death with the din and bustle of city life. In the words of Dr. Jacob Bigelow : -
We regard the relics of our deceased friends and kindred for what they have been, and not for what they are. We cannot keep in our presence the degraded image of the original frame; and, if some memorial is necessary to soothe the unsatisfied want which we feel when bereaved of their presence, it must be found in contemplating the place in which we know their dust is hidden. The history of man- kind, in all ages, shows that the human heart clings to the grave of its disappointed wishes ; that it seeks consolation in rearing emblems and monuments, and in collecting images of beauty over the disappearing relics of humanity. This can be fitly done, not in the tumultuous and harassing din of cities, not in the gloomy and almost unapproachable vaults of charnel-houses; but amidst the quiet verdure of the field, under the broad and cheerful light of heaven, where the harmonious and ever-changing face of nature reminds us, by its resuscitating in- fluences, that to die is but to live again.1
The question of closing the Granary and King's Chapel Burying-grounds is not surrounded with any of the dis- agreeable circumstances which have attended like questions in the past. It is not pretended that the present condition of these grounds renders them dangerous to the public health. Burials are infrequent, and, although it has been shown that, under certain conditions, one decomposing body is capable of doing much harm, but little danger need be apprehended on this account. But, as long as the right of burial is main-
1 Modern Inquiries, Boston, 1867. Boston Pub. Lib., 4407.4.
30
CITY DOCUMENT No. 96.
tained the public safety is continually threatened. While the contingency is extremely remote, there is a liability that burials might become more frequent and the tombs be filled, in which case no one would pretend but that the health of the city would be endangered. In 1849 the Librarian of the Massachusetts Historical Society was compelled to close the windows overlooking King's Chapel Burying-ground, on account of the disagreeable effluvia which arose from the graves.1 Since history repeats itself, it is well to guard against such an occurrence in the future. Therefore, the committee believe that, as a prudential measure, it is advis- able to close the tombs at the present time.
The reports of the Board of Health have from time to time called attention to the dilapidated and dangerous con- dition of the tombs in our burying-grounds, and to the liability of accidents from this cause. Owing to the diffi- culty of tracing the ownership of such tombs, the expense of making necessary repairs has been borne by the city, and has amounted to no inconsiderable sum. It has been found that the rights of ownership are not apt to be very strenuously asserted when any expense is to be incurred. Aside from the questions of danger and expense, the neglected condition of these tombs is discreditable to the city and inconsistent with the respect due the dead.
The opposition to closing the tombs arises chiefly from an impression among the proprietors that it is but the first step towards removing the remains and using the grounds for other purposes. As far as the committee are concerned this view of the case has not influenced their judgment in the slightest degree. They believe that the historical value of these grounds, as mementos of the past history of the city, is too great to admit of their obliteration ; that while public sentiment would approve of closing the tombs it would not sanction the destruction of the grounds. Another objection is found in the desire of some descendants of the original proprietors to be buried with their ancestors. This, although a purely sentimental objection, is entitled to respect, for, with many, the wish to be laid after death with those who were dear to them in life, is a feeling too deep and sacred to be lightly treated.
But, in dealing with questions concerning the public health, objections founded upon sentiment should have no weight. Even hereditary rights must conform to the changes which time brings about. The hereditary right to be buried iu a tomb does not include a right to poison the air and endanger
1 Dealings with the Dead, vol. 1. L. M. Sargent, Boston, 1856. Boston Pub. Lib., 2406.12.
31
INTRAMURAL INTERMENTS.
the health of the survivors, and, from a purely practical stand-point, to insist upon any such right is to display a selfish disregard of the public welfare.
Believing, therefore, that the practice of intramural inter- ment is a relic of antiquity, which it is desirable, for many reasons, to abolish, the committee. respectfully recommend the passage of the following order.
JOSEPH A. TUCKER, JOSIAH S. ROBINSON, GEORGE T. PERKINS, JAMES J. BARRY, GEORGE H. WYMAN.
Ordered, That the Board of Health be directed to grant no permit to bury or inter any dead body in either the Granary Burying-ground, or the King's Chapel Burying- ground, after January 1, 1880.
1
APPENDIX.
ABSTRACT OF THE STATEMENTS BEFORE THE JOINT SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE SUBJECT OF CLOSING THE TOMBS IN THE KING'S CHAPEL AND GRANARY BURYING-GROUNDS.
THE GRANARY BURYING-GROUND.
TUESDAY, July 15, 1879
The committee met at three o'clock, P.M.
PRESENT. - Alderman Tucker, Chairman ; Councilmen Perkins, Barry.
W. H. WHITMORE called the attention of the chairman to the fact that the names on the list were those of the original grantees of the tombs ; that the tombs have been transferred from time to time, and by reading the names on the printed list the chairman would be apt to mislead some of those present.
GEO. WM. PHILLIPS suggested that those present be heard ; and if they could satisfy the committee that no tombs should be closed, that will settle the decision of the whole. There are two hundred and four tombs. Some one who is away might be willing to have his tomb shut ; and another, for a satisfactory reason, would pre- fer to let his remain open. He desired the inquiry to be a general one.
The CHAIRMAN said the statute required that if any parties present represent any particular tomb, that number should be taken up; and it is not necessary to go through the whole list.
JAMES M. ENGLISH, representing tomb No. 1, on behalf of himself and Dr. Bethune, grandson of the gentleman who built the tomb, objected to its being closed. They had taken care of it for a number of years. They expect and desire to be buried there. They inherited it from the builder. It has been abandoned by all the other heirs ; and the present owners cannot conceive of any public necessity for closing that tomb. There has not been au interment in it for ten years.
In reply to questions by Mr. Whitmore, Mr. English said he could not state by what title the tomb is held at present. All the other descendants had abandoned the tomb to Dr. Bethune and himself. There are many other persons in the country belonging to the family. He presumed the tomb was held by family inheri- tance. The city passed an ordinance some years ago, and at- tempted to prevent interments there. He and his sister and Dr. Bethune made an application to the court, in the nature of an appeal, but before it came to trial the order was repealed.
33
APPENDIX.
In reply to questions by Mr. Perkins, Mr. English said all but two of the family had abandoned it; that not long ago it had been cleaned out, and everything put in order, for which they paid the undertaker. Everything offensive was removed; the skeletons were put into boxes, and properly marked. Dr. Bethune and himself had looked after it for the past twenty years. Should think there had been no interments there for about fourteen years. . John Bethune was put into the Faneuil tomb about fourteen years ago. The tomb is at present in perfect order. It is an old family tomb ; his ancestors had been buried there, and he should like to lie with them unless it is injurious to the health of the city ; and ir it is the owners will submit. It is supposed by persons interested in the tombs that the ultimate object is to use that ground for other purposes ; and if the use of the tombs can be prevented all their value is gone, and the city may take it for any public use, without being obliged to make compensation. He did not think there is any foundation for that, because it struck him as scandal- ous to suppose that the city would get possession of the ground for nothing, to prevent its use by the present owners when that use is not injurious to the public health.
GEORGE W. PHILLIPS, representing tomb No. 60, appeared and objected to its being closed. In it are buried his father, the first mayor of Boston, his wife, and nearly all of his children, and the wife and children of himself. In 1853 a movement similar to this was made, and Dr. John C. Warren, a high authority on sanitary matters, who lived on Park street, headed the remonstrances, and scouted the idea that there was anything unhealthy in continuing burials there, and who, rather than have the graveyard closed, would be willing to have another in front of his house. Mr. Phillips had looked through the records of the past few years, and found that from 1873 to 1879 there have been only fourteen inter- ments ; in 1873, seven ; in 1874, two ; in 1875, one ; in 1876, four ; in 1877, four; and in 1878, two. If this were a nuisance the Tremont House, with its broadside toward that graveyard, would have been heard from a hundred times; the residents of Park street would have been here. He had lived near the Athenaeum many years, and never heard a word against the burial-ground as being mischievous. It does not average three burials a year. In the early history of the town these tombs were laid out, and by actual grant the owners had given them an easement, and the right to bury in that yard. The ground is used for the purposes for which it was granted. The tombs are worth from fifty to two hundred dollars each, and the city will hear from it if the closing is finally decreed. Every man has an attachment for the burial-place of his kindred. He desired to be buried where his kindred were laid. The new blood that comes down to Boston from New Hampshire and Vermont brings many people who do not appreciate this feeling. Here are a few tombs opened twice a year to receive the remains of those on that long list who ask to be buried there. Ten to fifteen years, at the farthest, will close the list. What he said is not a mere sentiment, but a regard for that feeling which is imbedded in every man's heart, that the burial-place of his
34
CITY DOCUMENT NO. 96
ancestry shall be respected. He asked the New Hampshire and Maine men to decide upon this thing just as they would upon the breaking up of their own burial-places. He did not believe they are prejudicial to public health. If so, why has it not been heard from before? If they are a nuisance the Board of Health is bound to come forward and show it before the hearing was opened. The fact that in this dense population no complaint has been heard for the last twenty years calls for some justification more than has been hinted at. St. Paul's Church is opened a hundred times to the Granary ground once ; and yet nobody has ever suggested that that was an unhealthy use of the ground. Tomb No. 60 has been opened thirteen times in sixty-four years, and may be opened three or four times more. Unless the committee see reasons other than those named they should allow it to be used a few years longer.
Mr. WHITMORE called attention to the legislation expressly pro- hibiting burials under St. Paul's Church ; and more than that all the remains are to be removed, which is more than has been suggested in regard to the Granary Burial-ground. He desired to know of Mr. Phillips, whether the large number of occupants who paid nothing for the tombs had any claim for damages in case they are closed. He asked this, because he knew that a great many of the tombs are not in the possession of the descendants of the persons who received the grants, and that no regard was paid to the feelings of the original owners. At the time of the Revolution a number of the loyalist families owning the tombs in various city grounds were exactly in the position of Mr. Phillips at present ; the tombs were not only confiscated, but the contents were thrown out, and other persons received the tomb as a free gift. Governor Hutchinson's tomb was despoiled, and was occupied by others, - a well-known historical fact. There are others who desire to be buried in the city with their relatives, and why is there any par- ticular reason why the owners of tombs are to have their feelings in that respect, if contrary to the public interests, any more con- sidered than those who are buried in graves? Yet in 1796 the town forbade further interments in the graves, and none have taken place in the city since. It is a great hardship to prevent a person from depositing his remains with those of his relatives; but it is no greater to those who own tombs than to those who expect to be buried in graves. Since the laying out of Mt. Auburn many per- sons preferred having the remains of their friends transferred from the city yards to the new tombs and graves in Mt. Auburn. But the question he desired Mr. Phillips to explain is in regard to the pecuniary interest of those who claim rights in the tombs.
Mr. PHILLIPS. It is a mere bagatelle. I shall not claim any damages. But can anything be clearer that a man who has a right of burial in a certain spot has a pecuniary interest? Mr. Whitmore has been in Judge Paine's office long enough to know that a man who squats on a place has a title to his position. The town having given them the right, for which they paid, how is it possible to say it is not property, for which the constitution gives an indemnity ? He did not understand the Hutchinson case, as presented by Mr. Whitmore, to be correct. The Board of
35
APPENDIX.
Health cannot say that opening the ground four times a year can injure the public health, and it is absurd nonsense to talk about it. Think of the cesspools and open vaults which have had no pro- tection for years ; and here they come squalling about three inter- ments a year.
FRANK W. BIGELOW, representing tomb No. 70, objected to the closing of the tomb. Hon. Thomas Hubbard was the original owner, and it was inherited from him. There have been no inter- ments since 1874 ; it is in thorough repair, and not a nuisance. He had it repaired himself, and stopped up with suitable flag-stones ; it is covered up to a depth of three feet. He did not think his fam- ily would use it, but they are certainly not willing that the rights granted by the town of Boston should be taken away.
Mrs. CAROLINE M. SHUTE, representing tomb No. 39, the Capt. Thomas Adams tomb, objected to its being closed. It descended to her from her father, who inherited it from his grandfather, Thomas Adams. She has a father, mother, brothers, and sisters, and four children buried there. She has three more children, and hopes herself to be buried there. From childhood, she has been taught that that is her future home, and would feel very bad indeed to know that she is to be deprived of being laid there to rest with her relatives. Twenty years ago it was opened for her father, and on the 20th of last February for her child, - the only interments in twenty years. There are only four more to go into that tomb. She had a letter from Col. Staples, who has a right in the tomb, and decidedly objects to its being closed. She had no other home to go to when she dies. It may be years, and it may be a very little while ; but she hoped to go where her father, mother, and children are laid. It has always been kept in repair ; there is nothing about it which can be considered a nuisance. Nobody can bear the idea of being separated from relatives ; we all want to go to one place ; those who have nice places outside can go there. She had no home to go to except this. She hoped the committee would think how hard it will be to be separated from a father and mother in that home. Her father taught her, from a little bit of a girl, that she was to go there when she died. The idea that it is going to be closed up, and that right taken away from her, had grown upon her so that she could hardly sleep. She wanted to be put there, and have the rest of her children put there.
L. H. BEAN, representing tomb No. 3, objected. It is one of the original tombs granted, by the town of Boston, to his ances- tors and others, provided they built the tombs satisfactory to the town and maintained them for purposes of burial, and so long as they maintained them in good order they were to have the use of them. It descended to him from the original owner, in 1721. He had had the custody of the tomb for forty-five years, - had kept it in repair. It had been cleaned and whitewashed, and there is nothing about it detrimental to the public health. It is many years since it was last opened. But three persons will probably request to be interred there, and it may be that circumstances will be such that they will not. His immediate family have been
36
CITY DOCUMENT No. 96.
removed to Forest Hills, but this is kept as the family tomb ; he protested against his rights being taken away. The tomb is directly in the rear of the house formerly occupied by Hon. Abbott Lawrence. A large window opens directly upon the grounds. He had never heard any complaint from the family, or from the Union Club, as to its being a nuisance. When the hearing took place, some years ago, on the intention of the city to close the tombs, Dr. Warren, residing on Park street, Dr. Gardner, and all the gentlemen on that street, joined in testifying that they never considered it a nuisance. They did complain that one or two of the tombs had gone into the hands of speculators, and were opened oftener than they ought to be. Where they are used for family purposes he could not see any objection. The last inter- ment there was ten years ago, and the one previous to that was six years before. All his ancestors, from the time of the Revolu- tion, with the exception of his own family, are buried there. He protested against any infringement of his right to use it for family purposes. He did not intend to be buried there himself, nor to have his children buried there. .
Mr. BEAN also spoke in regard to the Thomas W. Sumner tomb, No. 99. The only three persons who will ever be placed in it are very aged,- one over ninety-five, and another about seventy-eight ; they reside in New Bedford. The tomb was opened a number of years ago to bury an army officer ; the last interment was three years ago, when it was covered with flag-stones and sealed with cement. It is nearly opposite the Tremont House, well up in the yard, and it would be impossible for any effluvia to escape from it ; besides, it would be very difficult to get it open.
ROBERT TREAT PAINE, Sr., representing tomb No. 88, objected to its being closed. He is the grandson of the man to whom it was granted, - to him and his heirs forever. He inherited it from his grandfather who died in 1814. He was at his house on the pre- vious thanksgiving day ; all the family were there, and of all those present none are now living but himself, and he had been hoping to be buried there with them. Mr. Paine also represented No. 148, belonging to the father of his wife. who opposes any change. The stone is covered four feet deep, and he could not believe there are any injurious exhalations from it.
ALBERT PARKER SIMPSON objected to the closing of No. 117, en- dorsing what had been said. It had belonged in the family ever since the original grant, and had always been intended to be used by those now living. It is in the rear of the yard, about in the middle. One interment was made the first part of this year. Per- haps there are three or four more to be buried there. In the last fifteen years there have been but five burials. He and all the par- ties likely to be buried there are residents of Boston. Should think there were perhaps a dozen or fifteen bodies in the tomb.
EBENEZER GAY appeared for tomb No. 124, built in 1772 by his grandfather. The last burial was two or three years ago. Buri- als have occurred there in the last sixty years, and some bodies have been recently removed to Forest Hills. His grandfather was buried in 1809. He endorsed what Mr. Phillips and Mr. English
37
APPENDIX.
had said as general considerations. He had no other burying-place for himself and family. If the scope of this inquiry is limited to the sanitary use of the grounds, he hoped the committee would give time for the remonstrants to present reasons and opinions of judges and experts. He thought it could be shown that as a sani- tary measure the tombs need not be closed.
Mrs. EMILY A. BELL, representing tomb No. 164, said it is in good condition and has always been attended to. It is in the arena back of the monument. It was opened about two years ago, and there are about half a dozen more who claim a privilege there. There are only a few bodies there belonging to her family. There are six more to use it.
JOHN B. OSBORN, representing tomb No. 91, said he adopted the sentiments of the gentlemen who had spoken, and protested against closing the tomb.
HENRY F. JENKS, representing tomb No. 177, said it was put down in the name of Fitch & Freeman ; but he thought the Free- mans had sold their part to his grandfather. Probably only one person more in the family will be buried there. There has been no burial for fourteen or fifteen years. He objected to the tomb being closed. He would be likely to remove the bodies if the tomb was closed. If any tombs are left open he wanted the same privi- lege.
ANDREW GEER appeared for tomb No. 72, in the name of John Endicott. His family had had a right of burial there as far back as 1830 down to within twelve years. His sister and himself are the only two remaining of the family. It has not been opened for twelve years ; it cannot be much of a nuisance, and he protested against having it closed. His father, mother, brothers, and sisters are buried there, and perhaps he might want to go in there some day himself. The last interment was made twelve years ago. In 1860 his mother was buried there ; in 1856 or '57 his sister, and in 1840 his father. He didn't think it had been opened for any other parties except his family for forty years.
Miss MARY C. OLIVER, for tomb No. 26, objected to its being closed. Her parents and brother are buried there, and she wanted the same right if she chose to exercise it.
The committee received a request from Messrs. Phillips, English, and others representing various tombs, for a further hearing, that they may offer evidence on the general question.
Adjourned to Thursday, July 31, at two o'clock, P.M.
THE SECOND HEARING.
THURSDAY, July 31, 1879.
The committee met at two, P.M.
PRESENT. - Alderman Tucker, Chairman ; Councilmen Perkins, Wyman, and Barry.
JAMES H. MUNROE, representing tomb No. 113, said there had been only two interments in it for the last fifteen years. The
38
CITY DOCUMENT NO. 96.
name Hayden is down for this number ; but he did not know what interest that man has. The interment previous to the one men- tioned was seven years before, and the previous one was twenty years earlier. He examined the tomb thoroughly in 1871; it was as perfect as when built in 1810. There is nothing detri- mental to health in it. He strongly opposed its being closed, and endorsed the sentiments of Mr. Phillips and the other remon- strants at the last meeting. He objected on the ground that these tombs and monuments should be preserved. If another satisfac- tory place was given him he might not object individually, but could not speak for the other owners who have other places of interment.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.