USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Boston > Old Copp's Hill and Burial Ground : with historical sketches, March 1, 1882 > Part 13
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
GEORGE A. FISHER, member of the Common Council from Ward 24, in answer to Mr. Clarke, testified that he was present the other day when the tombs were opened in the chapel ground ; went into one of them, called the Johnson tomb. There was no percep- tible odor at all. The tomb seemed to be in good condition ; do . not know what it was opened for ; was in the Registry of Deeds at work; was in the tomb three or four minutes. There were four coffins, two on each side ; three of them were whole, apparently, the fourth was broken. There was no offence at all from the re- mains, so far as he could see ; is pretty sensitive to bad odors ; have been at the Registry of Deeds the greater part of the time for twelve years ; have not heard the slightest complaint of the burying-ground from the people who frequent that place ; think the people who frequent the Registry of Deeds are quite a healthy lot. (To Mr. Perkins.) Did not go into the other tombs ; stood close to the one by Tremont street ; it was the second tomb opened ; it was nearer the Registry than the Johnson tomb ; did not look into it ; detected no odor about the tombs at the time they were opened.
BABSON S. LADD said to Mr. Clarke, that he was present in the Chapel-ground when the tombs were opened last Tuesday. Have been in the habit of working at the Registry for the last sixteen years quite steadily, and also before that. Have noticed no special sickness among those who do business there. Conveyancers are generally healthy men. The light is poor and the air bad in the Registry, but not on account of the tombs. Went into the Johnson tomb with Mr. Fisher. Should call it dry and in good condition. (To Mr. Perkins.) Never lost a day, except one last June.
55
APPENDIX.
Dr. CHADWICK, a physician in active practice about six years, said to Mr. Clarke, that he was very well acquainted with the Chapel Burying-ground. Occasional interments at the rate of two to three per annum, such as took place in that ground, would have no effect whatsoever upon the public health. Never noticed anything about the burying-ground that was injurious or a nuisance in any way. (To Mr. Perkins.) Have lived in the neighborhood and passed the grounds daily. Formerly resided on Beacon street. In selecting a place for a residence he should avoid a graveyard he knew nothing about, on sanitary grounds. Know that many eminent physicians have testified in other cities of a prevalence of typhus and other diseases near graveyards, but think it depends upon whether the drinking-water in the neighborhood would be likely to be tainted by the surface-water from those grounds. As to whether such grounds would be likely to cause such diseases, each case would have to be considered separately. Do not think any one could express an opinion worth anything in that vague way ; at least he could not. Mr. Perkins stated that in the great ma- jority of these tombs the bodies were put in, a plank put over them and a little earth over that, and the plank soon rots out. He asked Dr. Chadwick whether he thought diseases were likely to prevail under such circumstances; and the doctor thought they would. (To Mr. Clark.) If the tomb was carefully cemented with brick and stone, and had a slab cemented over it, the escape of ef- fluvia could not be appreciably distinguished in that neighborhood. (To Mr. Perkins.) If the tombs were in the condition named, and were opened from time to time, the escaping effluvia would con- taminate the surrounding air for about twenty to thirty feet for about twenty minutes.
IRVING WINSLOW appeared as a representative of tombs 17 and 27. The proprietors of the tombs are satisfied from the evidence before the committee that no danger exists to the public health from opening them as they have been. Therefore, they feel free to plead the cause of sentiment. There is a feeling among the proprietors that if their legal rights are taken away, the next step will be to seize the grounds, remove the bodies, and use the land for more profitable purposes. It is unnecessary to touch upon the sanitary value of these open breathing-places. The evidence in that direction quite overbalances the evidence of the unwhole- someness of the ground. There is no practical use likely to be made of the tombs. All his family have burial-places at Mt. Auburn and other cemeteries, but desire to maintain these grounds as monuments to the memory of our honored predecessors.
Mr. MINNS read a letter from B. F. Smith, furnishing undertaker, 251 Tremont street, stating that in his business experience of twenty-five years he had never heard any complaint of the tombs in King's Chapel Burying-ground. For seventeen years he was associated with his father, sexton of King's Chapel Church, and was perfectly familiar about the ground. Do not believe there is any call for prohibiting the use of the tombs for sanitary reasons.
Mr. MINNS read the following : -
56
CITY DOCUMENT No. 96.
To the Special Committee on Interments : -
GENTLEMEN, - As I cannot conveniently attend the meeting on the 4th of September, I beg leave to make a brief communication in writing. I do not believe that any evil consequences happen from the very rare interments in King's Chapel Burial-ground, nor do I think any such use of it is likely to be made in the future, as to produce illness or inconvenience of any kind. On the contrary, I believe it has a positively beneficial influence, as an open breathing-space in a crowded part of the city. As one of our too few re- maining monuments of the past, I hold it, in common with many others, as of priceless value to a city which has a history like ours. I have sometimes heard " sentiment" spoken lightly of when it was a question of removing old landmarks, and destroying old memorials ; but what would not our friends of Chicago, or Cincinnati, give for one such monumental enclosure, with its records of two hundred years? I am one of those who have personal reasons for being opposed to any movement which there is good reason to believe looks to the eventual desecration of our ancient city church-yards, and as official estimates have been published of the money value of the ground where our forefathers are buried, the next step contemplated can hardly be doubtful. My maternal ancestors of two generations, and many of my family connections have rested, hitherto, undisturbed in the tomb marked No. 1, in the King's Chapel Cemetery. I say my ancestors, I mean their bodies, which is all we can cover with our tombstones. And yet not all, for affections and remembrances universally held sacred, follow them to what we fondly suppose is to be their last resting-place, and make its dust holy for those who love them. These are sentiments, but they are sentiments which the poor savages, whom our ancestors displaced, were human enough to cherish. When did a North American Indian ever fail to respect the bones of his ancestors? I ask the same respect for those of mine, and that no step may be taken which is likely to lead to their ejection.
I am, gentlemen, yours very respectfully,
OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES.
Sept. 1, 1879.
Mr. MINNS read the following : -
NEWPORT, R.I., August 28, 1879.
MY DEAR SIR, - I regret to be informed that the authorities of Boston con- template the taking of measures to prevent future interments in the Stone Chapel Burying-ground. As the oldest living member of my family, I protest against such proposed action. Among some old papers in my possession, is one of which the following is a copy : --
" At a meeting of the Selectmen of the Town of Boston, the 26th of October, 1719, liberty granted to Wm. Hutchinson, and Mr. Francis Brinley, to make a tomb in the old burying-place, on the same spot where Mr. Francis Brinley's relatives were formerly buried, for the interring of the seigneur of the family there.
A true copy is entered in the records of the Town of Boston.
Examined, P. R. JOSEPH PROUT Town Clerk."
This " seigneur" referred to was Francis Brinley, who came to America from England ; married and lived in Newport. His name and standing are well known to all who are acquainted with the colonial history of Rhode Island. He had estates in Boston, which he frequently visited. He died there at an advanced age, liaving survived his children; but there were two grandchildren, both of them born in England. They and their widowed mother came to America by his invitation. One of these grandchildren was a daughter, who married Wm. Hutchinson; the other was a son, Col. Francis Brinley, of Datchet House, Roxbury, Mass. They were the persons to whom liberty was given " to make a tomb." In it repose the remains of my great- great grandfather ; of my great grandfather and great grandmother ; of my grand- father and grandmother; of my father and mother, and of a sister; there I wish them to remain. I respectfully insist that there must be an overwhelming
57
APPENDIX.
indisputable necessity to justify a nullification of the vote of the selectmen, to which I have adverted; and I also insist that no proof of such necessity exists. To prevent interments in the Stone Chapel Burying-ground, cannot be from mere sanitary consideration; hence, a vote of the proprietors should be had before the city can be justified in undertaking a measure which will tend to depreciate a most valuable property, as is this God's acre, for the benefit of anybody but those whose feelings and interests are profoundly con- cerned. As I cannot be in Boston at the proposed hearing on the 4th prox., you are at liberty to use this as you shall deem proper and expedient.
Very respectfully your obedient servant,
FRANCIS BRINLEY.
THOMAS MINNS, EsQ., 14 Louisburg Sq., Boston, Mass.
Mr. MINNS also read letters from A. J. C. Sowden, and George W. Wales, protesting against the closing of the tombs.
The CHAIRMAN stated that there seemed to be a misunderstand- ing on the part of some of the remonstrants as to the duty of the committee, and at his request Dr. Durgin, on behalf of the Board of Health, stated that they had presented the communication to the City Government, simply from a sanitary point of view. It is not intended to disturb the open spaces or encourage the building of anything upon them ; on the contrary, he should certainly pro- test against any building being erected on those sites ; and said the feeling of the Board of Health was that the ground should be closed against further interments, and the tombs sealed up and. made secure, and the beauty of the place preserved as far as pos- sible, by the city of Boston. It is not the feeling of the Board of Health that the bodies should be removed from the tombs, unless it be the desire of the proprietors to do so at their pleasure.
Mr. CLARKE called Dr. Durgin's attention to the valuation of the ground, made in the report of the Board of Health of 1877, and the doctor denied that it was intended as a recommendation for the building of a court-house upon the site. The Board had tried in all honorable ways to stir up the City Council and people of Boston, and make them feel that the time had come when no more bodies should be placed there. The Board do not recom- mend the sale of the grounds. He should protest against their sale and against any building being placed upon those grounds. The present Board would not be willing to see any building placed thereon. He should prefer to have the remains removed, but the
Board do not ask for that. If the tombs can be sealed and remain closed, he should ask for nothing more ; but if they are left open and dilapidated, the Board would protest against it, and continue to do so. In reply to questions by Mr. Clarke, Dr. Durgin said he was not present when the tombs were opened, but it was done by permission of the Board of Health to show their condition to the committee. If anything had been improperly disturbed, he should be very sorry. He had no sickly sentiment about this matter, but he had as much feeling of respect for the grounds as any one else, and would do as much towards their beauty and pro- tection as any one else.
Mr. MINNS called Francis Parkman, one of the trustees of the Athenæum, who said there had been no complaint made by the
58
CITY DOCUMENT No. 96.
proprietors of the Athenaeum about the proximity of the Granary Burial-ground during the twenty-one years he had been trustee. He believed the trustees and the proprietors both regarded the presence of the graveyard as a positive advantage in supplying light and air. That is one of the advantages usually spoken of in regard to the situation of the Athenæum.
Mr. CLARKE, on behalf of the proprietors of the tombs fronting on Tremont street, said they were all built in 1738, by a special permit granted at a town meeting, under certain conditions which have been complied with. Mr. Clarke read extracts from the records of the town to corroborate this statement, and also further extracts giving the history of the tombs, the repairs made upon them by the proprietors, and the action of the town in relation thereto, all showing that the original conditions had been fully complied with by the proprietors. He said there were too few breathing- places in the city already. The proprietors were afraid that, if the tombs were closed, the next step would be to remove the remains and confiscate the property for private gain or public use. He did not suppose there was one of the proprietors living who did not feel the highest disgust and indignation at the proposal that the rights which his ancestors had purchased and paid for should be forfeited, when nothing whatever has been shown as regards any particular tomb that is a nuisance. Point to a syllable of evi- dence that authorizes the closing of one of the tombs on the ground that it is a nuisance. If you cannot do that, then when we come to our appeal to the Supreme Court, which we are authorized to make, that is the issue the city have got to try before a jury. Has anything been shown that tomb No. 15 is a nuisance? It had not been opened since he was born. It has been sealed up with a stone slab laid in cement since before he was born, and the proposition is to deprive him of a right in it, - whether or not he proposed to use it is nobody's business. The proprietors want that place kept open as a shrine. They know that the report of the Board of Health, coupled with the statement of the pecuniary value of the land, will tend to the creation of a sentiment in favor of using this land for building purposes. The remains of John Leverett and John Winthrop lie there. Those are names we ought to honor, and in behalf of the memories and associations clustered about such names the proprietors protest against this first attempt to encroach upon the rights of the people who own the tombs in King's Chapel Burying-ground. Not a single case of nuisance had been proved before the committee. We have a history in these little spots, and Boston cannot afford to have them tampered with. Boston cannot afford to lose them. Faneuil Hall is not very con- venient for a town-house or for public meetings of citizens, but does anybody want to sell it? Does anybody want to close it and seal it up? So we say to you, leave us this right. It has not been exercised within five years enough to cause any harm. Above all, whatever you do, do not lay the foundation for any use of those grounds which will not leave them open to God's light and air for the benefit of this neighborhood forever. We stand here to defend the rights of the citizens of Boston to have
59
APPENDIX.
that breathing-space, and to defend it against the insinuation of the Board of Health in 1877 that it can be sold. The Board of Health say they did not recommend it and do not believe it should be sold. Oh, no; they didn't recommend it; but they said if it could be sold, a piece of land could be bought somewhere else with the money. We have got them on record finally that it ought not to be done ; but they say that sooner or later the remains must be removed. He stood here to prevent the desecration of those graves under the orders of the Board Health. They are here to resist this first step which the city has no right to take unless each and every tomb is shown to be a nuisance and injurious to public health. That is what must be proved to a jury on appeal.
In the course of his remarks, Mr. Clarke dwelt upon the fact, as appeared from the records, that the city tomb known as the Charnel Tomb had been in bad condition, and he strongly con- trasted the neglect of the city authorities with the care which the private owners had exercised over their property.
ARTHUR T. LYMAN, representing the proprietors of the King's Chapel Church, said the society are entirely opposed to such a use of this burial-ground as would tend to allow it to be built upon, and they are opposed to further interments there. The vestry of the church last spring unanimously expressed the wish of the congre- gation that interments should be prevented. Nearly every one having an interest in the tombs has a place of interment provided elsewhere. The church has spent a good deal of money in keeping the tombs in perfect order. Although no nuisance has occurred under the chapel as yet, it is simply because the church looks after the tombs. If any neglect occurs they are liable to become a nuisance. A large number of the tombs near the chapel have been opened a good deal of the time last spring and winter. £ A year or two ago, in the winter or spring, when the frost was in the ground, a burial took place in the north part of the chapel. It was filled in when the ground was frosty ; a heavy rain washed it away, and the surface water poured freely into the tomb. Such things are apt to occur in the burying-ground where there are no individuals con- stantly attending the tombs, and no public body to look after them. Such a case is sufficient to constitute a nuisance. In London fur- ther burials have been prohibited in many of the city cemeteries. In many cases the tombstones have been removed, and the bury- ing-grounds turned into public gardens.
GEORGE E. LINCOLN, representing tomb No. 7, said the proprie- tors very seriously object to any steps being taken to close the tombs, and he thoroughly indorsed the remarks of Mr. Clarke.
E. H. DERBY stated that in 1819 he came to reside in the vicinity of those burial-grounds at No. 1 Park street, next to the church, and lived there eight years, part of the time attending the Latin School and part of the time at Harvard College. It was always a healthful spot. The health of the family was excellent, and he remembered no fever or disease of that character during the time he resided there. He appeared for two tombs -No. 16, that belonged to his maternal ancestor, Enoch Brown, a prominent merchant of Boston before and during the Revolutionary War; the other tomb
60
CITY DOCUMENT NO. 96.
was the resting-place of John Arnold, a prominent man in his time, having command of the militia during the war with England. Mr. Derby spoke at length of the rights of the proprietors, the respect which should be shown to the memory of those who were buried in the tomb, and said that from the evidence he could see no adequate reason for closing the tomb. If he could be assured that no build- ing would be placed upon the ground in the future, he would be inclined to acquiesce in the closing of the tombs ; but he was very fearful he could not get an assurance on that subject. He thought it best to stand on the title which they held.
Mr. DERBY filed the following with the committee : -
To the Hon. the City Council of Boston : -
The undersigned, E. Hasket Derby, respectfully states that he has been for many years the sole owner of tomb No. 16, near the centre of King's Chapel Burying-ground, with rights in the land adjacent. That it contains the dust of his maternal ancestors; that he has repaired the same from respect for the honored dead. That there have been no interments in it for nearly half a cen- tury ; that he wishes to keep it inviolate and in proper repair. He therefore respectfully protests against any action of the city government that shall im- pair the value of his estate in said tomb and land.
ELIAS HASKET DERBY.
ABIGAIL C. LLOYD, representing tomb No. 26, said it had always been taken care of, and was in good condition. She is the only one remaining of her mother's family, and would like to be laid there. The last interment was abont a year ago last Angust. There are four more likely to be buried there. She would prefer to be buried there rather than accept another place offered by the city.
HENRY E. HOLLAND said his mother is buried in a tomb marked and belonging to Mr. Martin Smith. He had also four infants buried there, and his father and great grandfather were buried there. He did not want to have their remains disturbed, though if the city would give a good lot and remove the remains there he would not object.
MARY A. NIMS spoke in regard to the Wm. Moore tomb, and said she had a brother who wished to be buried there. The tomb was used about three years ago. She would prefer that the tomb remain as it is.
O. L. FERN, representing tomb No. 24, said there were many people who are likely to be buried there. He had not so much ob- jection to the closing of the tomb as other members of the family had, if a suitable place is provided at the expense of the city. He would prefer to have the tomb remain as it is on the whole. If the city provided a place acceptable to him he would not object.
This closed the public hearing.
Dr. DURGIN explained to the committee that the paragraph so often quoted from the Board of Health of 1877, in regard to the valuation of the land, was never intended as a recommendation that the land be sold or built upon. The Board had been endeav- oring to attract the attention of the City Council to this subject, and this was one of the means used to accomplish that end. The Board had never contemplated selling or building upon the burial- ground.
61
APPENDIX.
A
ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER TWENTY-EIGHT OF THE GENERAL STATUTES IN RESPECT TO CLOSING TOMBS IN CITIES.
Be it enacted, etc., as follows : -
SECTION 1. The City Council of any city may, upon report of. the Board of Health thereof that the public health requires it, and after public notice and hearing in the manner hereinafter provided, forbid future interment in any tomb or tombs within the city limits.
SECTION. 2. The report of the Board of Health above mentioned shall specify the tomb or tombs to which its action refers, and name the owner or owners thereof if the same be known; and thereupon the city clerk shall give notice to such owner or owners as are known and reside within the Commonwealth, and shall likewise publish a notice at least twice a week for four consecutive weeks, in two or more newspapers published in the city, or in the county wherein said city is situated. The said notice shall recite the report of said Board of Health, and shall notify all parties interested in the premises to appear before a Joint Committee of the City Council, at a time not less than two nor more than three months from last publication of said notice, and show cause why the report of said Board of Health should not be accepted, and the tomb or tombs therein mentioned be closed. After such hearing, the City Council may, upon a vote of both branches thereof, and with the approval of the Mayor, declare said tomb or tombs to be closed, and no interments shall thereafter be permitted therein.
SECTION 3. Whenever in the judgment of the Board of Health of any city. any tomb therein needs repair, it shall give notice thereof to the known owner, or if there be more than one, to one of the known owners thereof, requiring that said tomb be put in a proper state of repair within three months from the date thereof ; and if the owner or owners of said tomb be unknown, then the Board of Health may publish notice in the manner provided in section two, requiring the owner or owners to repair said tomb within the time above mentioned ; and if the owner or owners do not repair said tomb within the time mentioned, then the Board of Health may enter upon said tomb and make the repairs needed, at the expense of said city. If the public health requires immediate action, the Board of Health may make the necessary repairs, the cost of which shall be refunded upon demand, by the owner or owners of such tomb. If the city shall incur any expense in re- gard to any tomb, in the manner before specified, the said tomb shall be held by said Board of Health, and no further use shall be made of said tomb until the owner or owners thereof shall pay the expense of said repairs and interest thereon ; and after twenty years' possession under this act for non-repairs, all interest and right of burial in any such tomb shall vest in the city in which the same is situate.
62
CITY DOCUMENT NO. 96.
SECTION 4. The provisions of section three of chapter twenty- eight of the General Statutes shall apply to all tombs in public cemeteries in cities, and the boards of health in cities shall exer- cise, in regard to such tombs, the powers granted by said section to trustees or directors of certain corporations.
SECTION 5. Any person aggrieved by the action of the City Council or Board of Health under this act, may appeal therefrom in the manner provided by sections nine and ten of chapter twenty- eight of the General Statutes.
SECTION 6. The provisions of section eighty-nine of chapter forty-three of the General Statutes shall apply to the erection of any building upon any burial-ground or cemetery belonging to ar city in the Commonwealth.
SECTION 7. This act shall take effect upon its passage.
Approved May 4, 1877. 1
3
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 3 9999 06664 991 2
SEP & G 1909
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.