Trustees Records, Vol. 3, 1859 (page 062)

OverviewTranscribeVersionsHelp

Facsimile

Transcription

Status: Indexed

62

Report on Tomb under Park St. Ch. continud _

The Committee inquired of Mr Smith what was
the value of the tomb – and he replied "Nothing."

Therefore, as there is no inducement to attempt
a sale of the tomb and as the possession is attended
with no expense, and may be useful in cases of very
deep or drifted snow, rendering access to Mount Auburn
difficult, the Committee would suggest the propriety
of placing the name of Mount Auburn Cemetery
over the door – of fixing a time for which a body
may remain in the Receiving Tomb, and of appointing
the Sexton of the Church, who has the keys, or some other
suitable person to take charge of the tomb. It would
seem advisable also that the remains of Mr Lilly
be removed to a permanent resting place.

Respectfully submitted by
B. A. Gould for the Committee.

Boston .

Regulations of Interment in Tomb under Park St Church.

The following votes recommend by the
Committee in furtherance of the views contained
in the report were read, and adopted =

"That the same terms and conditions be required
for depositing bodies in the Park Street Tomb belonging to
the Cemetery as those required for depositing in the Receiving
Tombs
at Mount Auburn.

That application may be made to the Treasurer for
permission to deposite bodies in the Park Street tomb,
and that the fees for deposite may be paid to him:

Notes and Questions

Please sign in to write a note for this page

SegalJL

New to me: deposite is an archaic spelling of deposit!

MegWinslow

Thanks Joshua,I thought at first it could be a mispelling or distraction on the part of the author - but when I looked it up, it's in the dictionary! Thanks!

Elizabeth Casner

I find this report on the Park Street Church Tomb and the actions taken as a result interesting. That it was considered to hold little financial value and had not been part of the reworking of the receiving tombs at the Cemetery until this point. The lack of specificity of several of the names is unusual for the minutes as well

SegalJL

Based on what is said, I'm guessing that one of the founders of the Cemetery was a member of that church and there was a loosie-goosy relationship between the Cemetery and the Church.

I further surmise that whoever the contacts might have been, both on the Cemetery and the Church sides, have passed away; and the current Trustees are trying to figure out the relationship.

By this time fame, there is railroad access to the cemetery, so the need to have a Receiving tomb in Boston for those snowy winter days, is no longer needed.

Ergo, it seems that the purpose of this entire discussion is to find out who the contact point was on the other side so that the Cemetery and the Church could mutually dissolve the agreement legally.