John H. Francisco, Charles H. Barkhorn, Theodore F. Lemassena, Rev. Masheim S. Waters, Otto E. Schaeffer, Rev. Eugene E. Neudewitz, Rev. Elmer W. Fulper. By Halsey M. Barrett, attorney for the above-named applicants.

Dated April 5th, 1901.

A map of the site of the proposed cemetery was received and filed in the office of the board April 1st, 1901. Following is a copy of a letter acknowledging receipt of said map:

"April 1st, 1901.

"Halsey M. Barrett, Esq., Attorney-at-Law, Prudential Building, Newark, N J.:

"DEAR SIR-We have this day received a blue print of a portion of Belleville township. An inscription on said blue print, signed by you, states that it is a copy of a descriptive map showing the location in which it is proposed to establish a new cemetery, but nothing on said blue print indicates where said cemetery is to be located, nor does anything on said blue print indicate that any cemetery exists in the territory mapped.

"Very respectfully,

"HENRY MITCHELL,

"Secretary."

At the stated meeting of the Board of Health of the State of New Jersey, held April 9th, 1901, the foregoing application was referred to the standing committee on cemeteries, burial and transportation of the dead for investigation and report. On April 15th, Col. Olcott, of the committee, accompanied by Dr. A. C. Hunt, visited the site of the proposed cemetery. Following is a copy of a report by Dr. A. C. Hunt of the inspection of the locality:

"Board of Health, State of New Jersey:

“GENTLEMEN-In company with Mr. George P. Olcott, a member of the committee on cemeteries, burial and transportation of the dead, of this board, an examination was made, upon April 15th, 1901, of the site which has been chosen for cemetery purposes in the town of Bloomfield, Essex county, and I would report as follows:

"The cemetery company has purchased a farm which is located northeast from Bloomfield Center. The farm is one and a half miles from the center of the town. The proposed site is on the extreme northeasterly border of the town, and a portion of the farm extends into Franklin township, Essex county. The company has made application for the portion of the farm lying in Bloomfield.

"Location.-The site chosen consists of rolling hills, partly wooded. There are one or two places on the farm which have no outlet for storm water. These low, cup-shaped spots can be drained to the level along the Third river

"Soil.-The soil in this section consists of sand, gravel and red shale, and is porous in character.

"Relation to Water Supplies.—The drainage from the land finally reaches what is known as Third river, and thence into the Passaic river above Belleville. The waters of the Third river and the Passaic river, below the point where the Third river discharges into it, are not used as a public water-supply by any municipality. "Relation of Dwellings to Proposed Site.-There are but two houses within a quarter of a mile of the site chosen for the cemetery, and the immediate surr. unding country is sparsely settled.

"Cemeteries in Bloomfield.-There are three other cemeteries in Bloomfield. One is owned and operated by the Bloomfield Cemetery Company. This was examined, and from statements made by Mr. Olcott, who is acquainted with the lands owned by the company, and also from observation of the ground, it would appear that the cemetery is nearly filled with bodies, and that the unoccupied portions are controlled by private owners. The Catholic cemetery, located within the corporate limits of Bloomfield, is not available for the burial of persons outside of the church membership There is one other cemetery in Bloomfield, but I was informed that it is littte used for burial purposes. Montclair is located within two miles of Bloomfield, and the burial of the inhabitants of Montclair is made for the most part in Rosedale Cemetery. This cemetery is not available for the burial of persons dying in Bloomfield, except. in a few instances where lots have been purchased by residents of Bloomfield.

"Respectfully submitted,

"A. CLARK HUNT,
"Medical Inspector.”

Following is a copy of the record of a hearing given before the standing committee of the State Board of Health on cemeteries, burial and transportation of the dead, in the State House, Trenton, New Jersey, Friday, April 19th, 1901:

At a hearing concerning an application for the establishment of a cemetery within the limits of the town of Bloomfield, Essex county, New Jersey, given by the standing committee of the State Board of Health on cemeteries, burial and transportation of the dead, in the State House, Trenton, New Jersey, at 2:30 P. M, Friday, April 19th, 1901, Halsey M. Barrettt, Esq., of Newark, represented the parties desiring the establishment of the cemetery in the town of Bloomfield, and Robert H. McCarter, Esq., of Newark, represented those who are opposed to the establishment of the same. About twenty persons interested in the establishment of the cemetery were also present.

Upon invitation from Dr. Murray, chairman of the committee on cemeteries, burial and transportation of the dead, Mr. Barrett opened the discussion. He stated that he represented persons who desired to establish a cemetery in Bloomfield, and that he would briefly recite the steps which had thus far been taken in the matter. At this time Mr. McCarter asked if he might interrupt, as he wished to make a statement. In the course of his remarks he said that he appeared on behalf of certain citizens of Bloomfield, some 300 in number, who signed an objection which was presented to the local board of health of Bloomfield. He stated that he did not think conditions existed at this time which gave the State Board of Health the right to consider an appeal in regard to the establishment of the cemetery, but that the application for the establishment of the cemetery must be refused by both the town council and board of health of Bloomfield before action is taken by the State board while in this case it had been granted by the town council and refused by the local board of health. He said he did not wish to stand on technicalities, but wished to have the matter right, and that the people of Bloomfied were prepared to meet the question on its merits at the proper time. He said, if necessary, the question could be presented to the courts, but that he did not want to take this course. Mr. McCarter read from the law in regard to obtaining consent of municipal authorities, and contended that the proceedings should be referred back to the local authorities, in order that they might all concur or object to the matter.

Mr. Barrett said if there was a legal question relating to this matter it was then a question for the courts to decide, and that the suggestion that it be referred back to the local board of health seemed to have no practical merits He said neither the State Board of Health nor any other tribunal had the right to make either of the municipal corporations reconsider their action. He stated that the town council had been asked to reconsider their consent and they had refused to do so, and that the local board of health had also been asked to reconsider their refusal and they had refused to do so. Mr. Barrett said that the spirit of the statute requires an appeal to the State Board of He lth upon failure to get the required consent from the local board of health and council. The committee decided that the precedent had been firmly established that such appeals as the one in question could be heard by the board.

Mr. McCarter then said he wished to make the following statement: "On behalf of the parties whom I represent, I object to this scheme, and notice is given that application will be made to the Supreme Court to go over the whole matter. The mere fact, with great respect to the committee, that they have acted does not make it right, and I give warning that we will ask the court to reconsider this matter."

Mr. Barrett then took up the discussion of the case, and in the course of his remarks made the following statements: "On December 24th, 1900, John H. Francisco and others presented an application to the local authorities of the town of Bloomfield for the location of a cemetery within the limits of said town. The premises desired for the cemetery are a part of the Gillespie estate, located in the northeasterly corner of the town, adjoining the township of Belleville, and contain about thirty-six acres. This section is sparsely settled, there being not more than half a dozen houses located within one-half mile of the premises. On December 24th the application was referred to a committee of the town council, and action was deferred until January 21st, 1901, when, there being no objection, it was granted. The petition was presented to the board of health on February 21st, 1901, and was laid over until March 5th. At this meeting a remonstrance against the location of the cemetery, signed by about two hundred citizens of the town, was presented, and only three or four persons who had signed such remonstrance were present. It was admitted by H. E. Richards, Esq., counsel for the persons who signed the protest, that there was no objection to the cemetery from any sanitary consideration. The objections were purely sentimental. The board of health, without any discussion or argument and without stating individual views, passed a resolution that the application be denied. Subsequently, I got an opinion from Attorney-General Grey as to the jurisdiction of the local board of health in this matter, and I asked the local board to reconsider, in order that they might correct their unjust action. At the next meeting Mr. Richards presented an opinion by Mr. Robert H. McCarter, opposing that by Attorney-General Grey. No reason for objecting to the cemetery was given at any time except that they did not want another cemetery in Bloomfield. I have lived in Bloomfield for thirty-five years, and venture the assertion that there are only seven or eight persons in Bloomfield who object to the establishment of this cemetery. Only two have come to me with objections and they are not here to-day. At the present time Bloomfield is very much restricted in its cemeteries. There are only two incorporated cemeteries in the town, and one of these is a Catholic cemetery. The old Bloomfield cemetery contains a tract of about twelve acres, but only four acres of this cemetery are located within the limits of the town of Bloomfield. This cemetery is full and it is almost impossible

to obtain a good plot for family use, unless you can persuade some family to sell part of a plot that they obtained some years ago."

In reply to a question from Mr. McCarter as to whether any of the applicants lived in Bloomfield, Mr. Barrett stated that they did not and that the law did not require that they should.

Mr. Barrett further said: "I have here a consent signed by property-owners living in the immediate vicinity of the proposed cemetery, some in Franklin and some in Belleville township, which shows that there is no local objection to the matter. The land desired for the cemetery is drained by Third river. Mr. Francisco's wife is the owner of the land, and it is a matter of great importance to her whether this application is refused or granted. Mr. Barkhorn and other gentlemen connected with the Lutheran denomination are also petitioners in this case."

In response to a question from Col. Olcott, member of the committee on cemeteries, burial and transportation of the dead, as to whether the application was made to the local board of health with the understanding that they were to consider the case only from a sanitary point of view, Mr. Barrett stated that there was no distinct understanding, but that it was his view of the case that it should be considered from a sanitary standpoint, and that the local board of health also took this view until after they held a meeting at which Mr. Richards, counsel for the board, advised them that they were not obliged to give a reason for their action.

Col. Olcott also asked if the local board of health was given plenty of time to investigate before a report was demanded from them, and Mr. Barrett stated that they were given ample time to investigate.

Dr. Murray asked if the cemetery was intended solely for the use of the Lutheran Church, and also how many cemeteries were located within five miles of Bloomfield. Mr. Barrett replied that it was not for the use of the Lutheran Church alone, and he mentioned six cemeteries located within five miles of Bloomfield. In reply to ques-tions from Dr. Murray as to whether Mount Hebron and Rosedale cemeteries, which are located near Bloomfield, are full, Mr. Barrett said that they were not quite filled up, but that both were old cemeteries.

Mr. McCarter, in his argument against the establishment of the cemetery, stated that the people whom he represented supposed that the hearing would be given before the State Board of Health, and that this hearing before the committee on cemeteries would only be a preliminary skirmish, and, therefore, those who objected to the establishment of the cemetery were not present at this time. He said the enterprise projected here is a stock-jobbing enterprise; it has already sought a loca-tion in Westchester county, New York, and in Belleville township, New Jersey, but has failed to obtain consent in those places; it claims to have a capitalization of $50,000 preferred stock and $200,000 common stock; it calls itself the Teutonia Lutheran Realty Company, and offers tempting bribes to those who will go into the enterprise. Mr. McCarter said that he was told by Mr. Waters, pastor of one of the Lutheran churches in Newark, that the Lutheran body had no authorized connection. with the cemetery, and that the enterprise has an advisory committee consisting of five clergymen, none of whom are located nearer than Jersey City, and some live in New York and, therefore, the enterprise is not to get a cemetery to meet the local needs of Bloomfield. Mr. McCarter stated that he had no interest in the matter except in a professional relation, and that he had no connection with the application when it was before the local council in Bloomfield, but was told that the reason why there was no objection was because nobody knew anything about it. He said the

people of Bloomfield did not want the cemetery, as it would not be a benefit to them, but to New Yorkers and others.

Rev. M. S. Waters, pastor of the Grace English Lutheran Church of Newark, said that he had filed a paper with the State Board of Health, giving his reasons why he had withdrawn from the enterprise, and he further stated that he objected to the project because he thought it was a wrong to the Lutheran Church.

Rev. J. Fred. W. Kitzmeyr, a Lutheran clergyman, stated that he wished to say that all of the Lutheran clergymen had not withdrawn, and that the corporation which wanted to establish a cemetery in Westchester county, New York, was under the control of entirely different men. He said this cemetery has the Lutheran Church behind it to some extent, and Mr. Waters was with us until he consulted an attorney, who made it clear to him that his connection with the cemetery was im-proper.

Mr. Jacob Post stated that he had lived in Bloomfield forty years, and, although he had no interest in this cemetery, he thought they needed another cemetery in Bloomfield.

Mr. Wood stated that he expected to move to Bloomfield, and was interested in the project.

The hearing was then adjourned.

The following papers have been filed with the committee, and are herewith submitted as a part of our report: 1. Argument of Halsey M. Barrett, attorney for applicants, together with statement of facts. 2. Opinion of Hon. S. H Grey, Attorney-General. 3. Petition by 32 residents in the locality of the site of the proposed cemetery, with map. 4. Statement by three Lutheran clergymen. 5. Map of Essex county. 6. Opinion of R. H. McCarter. 7. Communication from Rev. M. 8. Waters. 8. Notice of application by R. H. McCarter to the Supreme Court for review of proceedings of State Board of Health in the matter relating to the application for reversal of the action of the local board of health of the town of Bloomfield

We also call attention to the opinion of Hon. J. W. Griggs, which was presented to this board in the case of the appeal of Abraham Vermeulen from the decision of the local board of health of the township of Saddle River. This opinion deals with questions of jurisdiction, which are also raised in the case now under consideration. The foregoing statement places before the board all facts bearing upon the questions involved in relation to the proposed establishment of a cemetery in Bloomfield, as far as your committee has been able to obtain them.

Respectfully submitted,

WM. H. MURRAY,
GEO. P. OLOOTT,

Dated May 14th, 1901.

Committee.

6. COPY OF OPINION OF HON SAMUEL H. GREY, DATED MARCH 20TH, 1901.

TRENTON, N. J., March 20th, 1901.

Halsey M. Barrett, Esq., Prudential Bldg., Newark, N. J. :

DEAR SIR-You desire my opinion upon the question as to whether the board of health of the town of Bloomfield, in passing upon the question as to whether a new cemetery or burying ground shall be located within the town, can determine that