Mount Auburn Cemetery

161

33 School St. Boston, Aug. [8?] 1864.

Mrs Elizabeth T. Green Worcester Mass.,

Dear Madam,

The widow of the late Ezekiel Hallet Jr, husband of your daughter the ^^late proprietor of lot 2603 in Mount Auburn, has just called at my office, supposing that she had an interest in said lot by reason of her husband and child's decease, and wished to make her interest appear by deed. I at once remembered the transfer to you, and went to my record, and showed her the evidence of the transfer to you. She was greatly surprised -- had never heard anything about the transfer -- supposed that the lot, upon the decease of Mrs Elizabeth D. Hallet, went to her husband, and she is therefore apparently in some trouble of mind for what has occurred, which adds to her affliction. She recently came from her father's in Vermont, with her child and went to the Cape to visit your and his relations. While there her child died. As she was confined just before Mr Hallet's death, he asked her, in case the child should not live, that it might be laid in the same grave with himself. She therefore went to Mt Auburn last Saturday, with the body of the child. She says she knew nothing of the transfer to you, and asked to have the grave opened. Our employees at the gate knew nothing of the transfer to you, as we have not published a new catalogue for four years, and naturally presuming from the facts stated to them, of the burial of her husband in the lot, they obeyed her order to open a grave -- and by her wish in the

162

matter was accomplished, her child was buried with the father. Today, in the same ignorance of facts, she went to a marble worker and engaged a ^^marble tablet to erect over the grave, to the memory of the father and child, but had not given him the inscription, and was to go again to him. Meanwhile she called upon me, and learned, to her surprize, of the transfer to you, and stated all the circumstances. She has, innocently and ignorant of the legal facts, buried her child without your order. I told her it would be best to acquaint you with the facts and circumstances and obtain your consent, and she [then?], desired me to write you.

She expects to leave for Vermont next Tuesday noon: and I shall, therefore, feel obliged if you will reply at once, and state what you are willing should be done, so that I can receive your letter as early as Monday morning.

As I understand the matter -- there are now three graves in the lot -- one occupied by your late husband, Mr Collins, one by Mrs Hallet -- one by Mr Hallet and this child. There are also, I learn, some bones or remains [few?] of a brother of Mr Collins, Mrs, or Mr Hallet, (I did not notice which,) in one of the graves. This leaves space for two graves, and, I am told, if the interments had been properly made, there would be three graves.

I do not remember what ^^spaces you wished to be reserved for grave or graves: but remember that you said your sons would never desire any resting place there. I don't remember whether you wished to reserve a place for yourself or anyone else, but have the im-

163

pression you wished only one grave. --

My view of the matter is this. The legal title is in you, and the legal right to say who shall ^^may be interred there -but I think there was an equitable right to place the child with the father -- especially if he requested it. Mrs H. says that Mr Hallet told her that the lot was taken in his wife's name, but that he actually paid for it. I do not find that any right has been taken from you, as the child was placed in the same grave with the father. We should, however, have preferred to do this on your order: and our agents at the Cemetery would have so required, if they had promised the means of knowing the lot to be yours. It still stood, with them, in Mr Hallet's name, and this lady told them ^^that Mrs & Mr Hallet were both dead, and she supposed she had the right to order the interment.

I have taken so much pains to give you the facts that you may see that blame appears to attach to no one.

Mrs Hallet says she does not wish to wrong you or anyone else in the matter. She loved dearly this little child of 20 months, and would like the privilege of being laid beside it and her husband: but if you do not feel perfectly free to accord that to her, she should prefer to remove them both from the lot. -She will stop the work on the marble tablet and pedestal until she hears from you. If you have no particular use for more than one grave, I should think it would be well to grant her this privilege, if she dies the widow of Mr Hallet. Indeed, if he paid for the lot, I think it would be her moral right. But, as you have the legal right, it is for you to say. I advised her that it was

164

better for her to know your wishes now, than to defer the subject, when a renewal of it might be less pleasant, especially, if you obtained the impression that there was a careless disregard of your rights, which I cannot perceive is now the case.

Please state your views and wishes as fully as you have time to do. I have never seen or heard of Mrs H. before, but should infer from her appearance her entire respectability. Upon inquiry of her, I find she is the daughter of G.W. Stone, Esquire, a lawyer in the town of Cabot, Vermont.

If you consent to the interment of the child, please sign the accompanying order, and send me. --

I am very resp.y your Ob^t Serv^t

A.J. Coolidge

P.S. The questions are -- 1^st Shall the child remain? 2^d If not, do you consent to the removal of father & child? 3^d Do you consent that Mrs Esther Hallet shall have burial there?

165

33 School St. Boston Aug. 10, 1864 Mrs Esther Hallet, Cabot, Vt.

Dear Madam,

Mrs Green called at my office last evening, the day of your departure, while I was writing to her at Worcester. She was in Boston or Winchester, and consequently did not receive my letter. She came in as soon as her husband wrote her that my letter had been received.

Mrs Green, although evidently having strong feeling in reference to matters alluded to by yourself, appeared to hear what I had to say with calmness, and came to her conclusions with deliberation.

She is perfectly willing that the remains of the child should lie in the lot (2603) or be removed from it, as you prefer.

She is unwilling -- and will never give her consent -- to have the body of Ezekiel Hallet Jr. removed from the lot.

Upon the 3^d point, whether she would consent to your having a personal right there for yourself, I do not think she is yet prepared to give you any pledge for it, or to absolutely deny you that right.

She says she does not wish to carry animosities beyond the grave, and, so far as she personally is concerned, it would make no difference: but she thinks there are others who would object, at least as matters now stand. She cannot tell what she