General Cemetery History
“A CITY CEMETERY.[1853]—A resolution was passed through both Boards of Aldermen, on Monday, authorizing the Committee on Health and Police, to inquire into the propriety of assigning grounds, and making the necessary outlay for a new city cemetery. When the original burial ground was established, on Powell street, it was supposed to be sufficiently distant from the centre of the city, and its founders never imagined that its occupants would ever be disturbed. Now a trace of it scarcely remains, and the still later established cemetery of Yerba Buena, is becoming closely pressed upon by our rapidly growing city. Indeed it is not in a proper location. In a few years, at most, the growth of San Francisco will require that streets shall run through the cemetery ground. The plan of allowing burial grounds within the population limits of a city, has nearly gone out of repute in the cities of the Untied States, and we hope that in the selection of cemetery grounds, a location will be made at the farthest verge of the city, or even if necessary, that property should be obtained for the purpose beyond the city limits. In connection with this matter, we observed that a resolution was adopted on Monday night, authorising the Committee on Land Claims to inquire into the title of the city to the Lone Mountain Cemetery grounds, now claimed by private individuals.”
Source: Daily Alta California, 7 December 1853, page 2.
“Pioneer Cemeteries.[1861]—Prior to the discovery of gold in California, in 1848, a Russian man-of-war put into the harbor of San Francisco, and whilst here a number of her men died. The bodies were buried on what has been since that period known as Russian Hill. The graves, some dozen or more, have, we believe, never been disturbed. Soon after, native residents and strangers were interred on Telegraph Hill, near the present corner of Vallejo and Sansome streets. Although within a stone's throw of the very heart of the commercial portion of the city, many bodies still rest here. After the exodus from every quarter of the globe, commenced pouring through the Golden Gate, it was found that, owing to the ravages of fatal disease, a larger tract must be set apart for the burial of the dead. Accordingly a site was selected near North Beach, on Powell street, between Filbert and Greenwich. Here, and at the old Mission Dolores grave-yard were most of the interments made until February, 1850, when the triangular plot of ground bounded by Market, McAllister, and Larkin streets, embracing thirteen acres, was procured. During the sickly season which followed, this new City of the Dead almost kept pace in population with the then distant city of the living, From the time that the Yerba Buena Cemetery was consecrated until the opening of the Lone Mountain Cemetery, the number of burials amounted to seven thousand. Here lie, side by side, the rich end the poor—no stately obelisk marking the resting-place of the former, but to the living world, reposing at obscure as the latter. This grave-yard is a most forbidding spot to all who take a melancholy pleasure in seeing the homes of the departed, beautiful by reason of natural scenery, and beautified by the hands of the faithful mourner. The cemetery is situated in the midst of sand-hills, and surrounded by sand-hills, through the ravines of which the bleak western winds sweep terrifically during a great part of the year; the only vegetation, the stunted oak or dwarfish chaparral, scarcely less repugnant than the sand itself.
The gigantic strides which the city has for a number of years made in this direction, were so vividly apparent to the city authorities, that an act authorizing a special tax of ten thousand dollars to be levied, for the purpose of removing the remains of deceased persons interred in the Yerba Buena Cemetery, was passed daring the Legislative session of eighteen hundred and sixty. The amount was duly raised, and now lies in the City and County Treasury, subject to disposition according to the terms of the act. But it is now stated that it is very doubtful whether the above named sum will be sufficient to disinter all bodies buried in this ground; but, at all events, the money will go far towards ejecting their removal, and a commencement should be made at once, for houses peopled with living tenants already cast their shadows down on these subterranean cabins of toe dead. The opening of the Market Street Railway has given a wonderful impetus to improvements hereabouts, and it behooves our City Fathers, therefore, to remove these remains ere the busy hand of enterprise invades the sacred precincts of the tomb.”
Source: Daily Alta California, 25 June 1861, page 1.
“CITY ITEMS. The Cemeteries of San Francisco. [1862]
THE MISSION GRAVE-YARD.
The oldest burial ground in the city of San Francisco is that connected with the Church of the Mission. This cemetery was, no doubt, consecrated in 1776, soon after the establishment of the Mission, and it was the only burial ground for Catholics, until within two years. Among the persons buried there, are many Spaniards, French, Portuguese, and Catholics from other countries. A few Catholics have lots, which have been consecrated according to the rites of the Church, in Lone Mountain Cemetery.
THE SANSOME GRAVE-YARD.
Protestants, Greeks and Jews, could not be interred at the Mission, and so when foreign ships began to visit the harbor frequently, another grave-yard was necessary. It was used by Protestants of various nations, and was located on the eastern slope of Telegraph Hill, at the corner of Sansome and Vallejo streets. About a hundred persons were buried there, altogether.
RUSSIAN GRAVE-YARD.
A Russian war-ship came into the harbor once, and while here, a large number of her men died, and, as they belonged to the Greek Church, they could not be buried with either Catholics or Protestants, and they had a grave-yard of their own. It was upon the hill which is now called Russian Hill, because of the Russian graves and the Russian cross there. The cross was still standing in '49 or '50. There may have been thirty or forty graves in the Russian Cemetery.
POWELL STREET GRAVEYARD.
When the population of the town began to grow in '46, the graveyards previously in use were considered inconvenient of access, and the dead were interred near the corner of Powell and Greenwich streets; and that was the chief burial ground till March, 1850, at which time objection was made that the place was too near the town, and that the land was private property, the owners never having consented to any such use of their lots. About nine hundred persons were buried there. The boxes were removed by the city about eight years ago, when the enterprise of cutting through the northern end of Powell street was commenced, under the influence of Alderman Harry Meiggs, who expected to become a millionaire by the rise of property at North Beach.
EARLY JEWISH CEMETERY.
In 1849, the Jews, who always have a separate burying place for people of their faith, established a cemetery near the line of Pacific street, several hundred yards beyond Larkin, and there they continued to bury their dead until within a couple of years.
YERBA BUENA CEMETERY.
In March, 1850, the people resorted to Yerba Buena Cemetery. For more than four years it was the only burial place for Protestants, and 7,000 or 8,000 corpses were buried there. The place looks very desolate now, but in 1854 there were some beautiful little spots in it. The soil is pure sand, with an undulating surface, covered by small evergreen oaks and bushes. When the undergrowth was cut out, the crooked trunks and limbs of the oaks gave a romantic appearance to the cemetery. Under the shade of the trees, were handsomely ornamented graves.
LONE MOUNTAIN.
Lone Mountain Cemetery, now the chief burial place of San Francisco, is a tract of 170 acres, nearly square in form, 2¼ miles west of Montgomery street, and three-fourths of a mile south of the Golden Gate. It was dedicated with public ceremonies on the 30th May, 1854, on which occasion, Bishop Kip and Colonel Baker delivered addresses, and Frank Soulé read a poem. The first interment there was made on the 2d June; and in that month the total number was 12. After August very few interments were made at Yerba Buena. At first, the usual route to Lone Mountain was by way of Pacific street; but, in the latter part of 1854, Bush street was opened, and is now used in preference to all others. The main entrance is on Bush street. The present proprietors of the Cemetery are J.H. Atkinson, C.C. Butler, and Nathaniel Gray. They think there is room in the Cemetery to bury all the dead of San Francisco for half a century to come. Twenty miles of avenues were laid out through the grounds, but many of them were not used for years, and they have been overgrown with bushes. The whole number of persons buried at Lone Mountain is near 7,000. About 75 persons are buried there monthly, on an average.
NAME, TOPOGRAPHY AND BOTANY.
The name 'Lone Mountain' is derived from a conical hill, the highest point in the vicinity, and a quarter of a mile distant from the Cemetery, though, when the name was adopted, it was expected that the owner of that peak would put his land in as part of the new necropolis. The soil is sandy, and the surface hilly. The lowest parts are about 300 feet above the level of the sea, and the highest 70 feet higher. Stunted evergreen oaks, ceanothus, fragrant yellow lupins, and other trees, bushes and herbs covered, originally, nearly the whole place. In the shady and moist spots is found a
fragrant mint, peculiar to California, and so abundant in this vicinity, that the little village which stood upon the beach, opposite Goat Island, from 1835 to 1847, was known by its name, 'Yerba Buena'—the good herb.
DEATHS BY VIOLENCE.
Many of the dead buried at Lone Mountain have died of violence. Among them are U.S. Senator E.D. Baker, killed in battle; U.S. Senator D.C. Broderick, Assemblyman Charles W. Piercy, and ex-Congressman Edward Gilbert, killed in duels; James King of William, Dr. Andrew Randall, and U.S. Marshal Wm. A. Richardson, shot by murderers; Deputy-Sheriff John Harrison, suicide; Alphonse F. Barbier, Samuel G. Baum and W. Louderback, killed while performing their duties as members of the Fire Department; and Arthur French, mate of the Northerner steamer, drowned while trying to save men from the wreck of the vessel of which he was an officer. The list might be very much extended. Many of the pioneers lie here, among them Larkin, Howard and Folsom.
MONUMENTS.
The necropolis at Lone Mountain is too new to rival, in its architectural monuments, the famous cemeteries attached to the great cities of the Atlantic coast. Many of those over whose dust magnificent tombstones will be erected in time to come, lie as yet in graves with nothing to mark their place, save a little mound of earth. The graves of Broderick, Baker, Folsom, Gilbert, Howard and Larkin have not even a slab of stone to show where they lie. The largest monument is that of Mrs. H.M. Newhall, made of California marble. The most beautiful as a work of art is that of Louisa Kohler, which has a marble figure representing the little girl as large as life. It is a very respectable piece of sculpture, and would do credit to any grave. The largest vault front is that owned by John W. Tucker, Esq. The monument of James King of William is tall and well designed. The most striking monument in the cemetery, by its allegorical suggestiveness, is the marble shaft representing a broken mast, surrounded by ropes and belaying pins, showing the honored occupation of Arthur French. Other tombs and tombstones worthy of a visit by those who go to Lone Mountain, are those of Harry I. Thornton, Mrs. Redington, Mrs. Hillman, Mrs. Topham, —— Laurencel, Mrs. James Whitney, Jr., and William J. Balley. The Chinese have a vault in which they deposit those corpses which are to be sent to China. The Protestant Orphan Asylum, the Typographical Union, several lodges of Odd Fellows, and the Firemen, have their respective lots in which their dead are to be buried. Most of the inscriptions are plain, brief and in good taste. One gravestone has a pun
for an epitaph. Mr. Albert Morgan was a minstrel, that is a member of a company of 'negro minstrels,' and after the statement of his name, age, etc., a legend adds: 'The last lay of a minstrel.' He amused the public while alive, and will not cease now that he is dead.
NEW JEWISH CEMETERIES.
Nearly two years ago two new Jewish Cemeteries were established at the intersection of Dolores and Eagle streets, about half-a-mile southward from the Mission. They are separated by Eagle street, and are the respective burial places of the two Jewish Congregations of this city. One is called the Navai Shalome, or the Peaceful Abode, the other the Giboth Olam, or Hills of Eternity.
CALVARY CEMETERY.
The newest of the cemeteries of San Francisco, is the Calvary, adjacent to Lone Mountain, and southward from it. Calvary Cemetery is owned by the Archbishop, as a sole corporator representing the Catholic Church of the diocese, and it is now the chief burial place for the persons of that faith in San Francisco.
Source: Daily Alta California, 22 July 1862, page 1.
“THE CITY'S DEAD [1878]
Where Shall Be Their Future Resting Place!
The Steady Encroachment at the City's Growth Upon the Cemetery Reservations—History of Our Various Cemeteries—Considerations of Public Health and Public Economy—Problems Which it is Time to Solve
The Golden City sits beside her magnificent landlocked harbor, which, situated equidistant from the bay of Panama on the south and snowy Alaska on the north, holds in its royal hands the scepter of empire over the western world. She has sprung up in scarcely three decades from an almost unknown cove whose landing place was visited only by those hardy mariners who sought for the oily wealth of the northern seas, and inhabited only by those earnest missionaries who came to this far off land to teach the true faith, and whose little flock gathered around to listen to their story of the Cross, and to assist them in erecting a temple to God, which stands to-day, one of the city's oldest landmarks—the Mission Dolores. Years might have rolled on were San Francisco made one step towards attaining her destined position as one of the commercial centers of the world, had not the magic, open sesame word “gold” been wafted from western shore to eastern shore and in a trice filled her harbor with winged messengers laden with swarms of eager, excited argonauts in search of the golden fleece, a glittering deity to be found in the wild and rugged gulches of the unknown land.
But thirty years have passed into time since Aladdin's vaults were thrown open to the world, and during that brief space San Francisco, from a mute, inglorious mission settlement, has developed into a city of magnificent proportions. Each year sees her growing in size and beauty. Elegant and palatial structures uprear their lofty crests from all quarters of the city, while far to the westward, in consecrated ground, on a gently sloping hill, rise the costly and grand mausoleums which mark the spot where many of the argonauts of old lie buried, smiling, perhaps, in their sleep of perfect peace, as the busy, restless hum of the city's teeming thousands comes floating o'er them, at the frail tenure of life held by those who must shortly follow. If San Francisco has been lavish in adorning and beautifying the homes of her living, she has been no less mindful of the claims upon her by
THE HONORED DEAD.
The history of the city's cemeteries truthfully tells the marvelous story of San Francisco's growth. In the early days of the peninsula those who were so fortunate as to die held no lasting title to their resting place. Various and widely separated have been the places chosen for the interment of the dead in the days gone by. Probably the first spot consecrated to the ashes of the old Mexican residents of Mission Dolores was the cemetery of that church. Interments of all who died in the true faith were made here for years. Another spot, selected at as early a date as 1842, was the eminence between Taylor and Jones streets, and north of Vallejo street. Here were buried several of the crew of a Russian vessel, stricken with some malarian disease, which occupation of the hill by them resulted in the name of Russian hill being applied to the spot. Not many additional burials were made there, however, as it as considered too inaccessible for funeral corteges, and in 1850 it was abandoned and the remains of those placed there were afterwards removed to other localities. Another location was secured at the corner of Sansome and Union streets, and there, within a few paces of the sea waves which sang their requiem over them, the pioneer departed of 1850 were laid away, to remain but a few years, however, for they were soon removed to another spot, just north of Washington square, at North Beach. Other burials were made on the ground now covered by the Mercantile Library [216 Bush Street, between Sansome and Montgomery], and also on First street. In the year 1850 the city purchased the property now known as the New City Hall ground, which was then on the very outskirts of the city, and dedicated it to burial purposes, naming it Yerba Buena Cemetery. To this retired spot, overgrown with chaparral and wild flowers, and far removed from the turmoil and bustle of the mining camp of 1850, were taken, with confiding assurance of their permanent rest, the earthly remains of the departed. But alas for all their expectations! five short years had elapsed, before
THE RAPIDLY ENCROACHING LIVING
Had built up to that sanctuary of the dead and again it was thought necessary to abandon that burial place, and in consequence, a tract of some 200 acres of land close to Point Lobos and within a short distance of the Golden Gate, was purchased and the dead of Yerba Buena removed there. Thus is shown how as the city kept constantly outgrowing the most sanguine expectations of her people, these pioneer cemeteries were one after the other abandoned and the remains interred there removed to more distant localities. But two cemeteries remain successfully withstanding the growth of a city around them. Those are the Home of Peace Cemetery, belonging to the Hebrew denomination, which is comprised within two blocks at the Mission, bounded by Eighteenth and Twentieth, Dolores and Church streets, and the Mission Cemetery. With far-seeing prudence Archbishop Alemany secured some 72 acres of ground for the Catholic Church just on the ridge which overlooks the city on the west and there the faithful Catholics lie buried to the number of some 35,000. To the north of Calvary Cemetery and with but a block intervening lies Laurel Hill Cemetery. This was founded by a few men who in 1853, anticipating to some extent the ultimate grandeur of proportion to which the young city was destined to attain, purchased the Lone Mountain tract of 75 acres and opened it as a cemetery with the appellation of Lone Mountain. In 1868 these gentlemen incorporated under the Rural Cemetery Act of 1859 and deeded the land to the new association, styled the Laurel Hill Association, for $125,000, taking the company's bonds in payment. Since that time
MANY AND COSTLY IMPROVEMENTS
Have been made by the Association and those who have purchased there, and to-day the cemetery and its improvements represent an outlay of millions of dollars, and within its inclosure sleep some 30,000 dead. Far away to the south, under the Lone Mountain cross, nestles to still and solemn quietude the Masonic Cemetery, which occupies 37 acres of ground, and is bounded by Missouri and Parker avenues and Fulton and Turk streets. The association controlling the cemetery is composed of prominent Masons and was incorporated in 1864. They pass title to members of the Masonic Order only. The improvements here are, also, of the most costly character, and would be valued, with the ground, at not less than $400,000. One of the most distant of the city cemeteries is that of the Odd Fellows. This is situated a little to the north and west of the Masonic Cemetery, and lies in a very irregular shape, containing about 30 acres of land, nearly all of which is well and tastily laid out in different sized lots, flanked and interwoven with innumerable walks and drives. The association builds its own walls and other minor improvements before selling the lots, which adds greatly to the uniformity of its appearances. A short distance from the Odd Fellows Cemetery, and on the Point Lobos road, the Greek and Sclavonic people have a small sepulture, occupying scarcely a block of ground, called the Hills of Eternity. The military plot is in the center of the Presidio reservation, and is devoted to the reception of the dead of the United States army. The cemeteries herein enumerated, together with the City Cemetery, in which the indigent and Chinese dead are buried, constitute the nine burial places of San Francisco.
THE STORY OF THE CITY'S CEMETERIES is the history of the city itself. In early days San Francisco, all in ignorance of her glorious future, committed her dead to earth, as has been shown, within a few hundred yards of her business center. A short time served to convince the city of her shortsightedness, for as time rolled on the queen city of the west stayed not for cemeteries or for sandhills—they were alike removed to make room for the habitations of the living. Then the eminence at Lone Mountain was purchased, and there the present cemeteries were laid out. When they were first opened to the public they were considered to have been located out of the world, as it were, and the most farseeing of the people in those days would have thought the idea of the city's growing up to that far away spot too ridiculous to be mentioned. But facts are stubborn things, and the reality proves that had they so foretold they would have been true prophets, for not only has the city done so, but her citizens are reaching out even beyond all of the cemeteries, and have built up homes to enshrine therein their lares and panates. Nearly every block of land beyond those would-be barriers to the city's growth has been bought up by speculators, who are holding the same for the time which will ultimately come when they will receive good, round prices for their town lots. But a few years ago scarcely a residence was located to the westward of the first Point Lobos road toll gate, and not an avenue existed besides the Cliff House road. Now, that road is being rapidly built up with dwellings of all descriptions, and innumerable groceries, haberdasheries, bakeries and other branches of business line the thoroughfare. To the north and south of it broad avenues have been laid out, lots sold, and many of them have also been built upon, the whole forming a miniature city of itself. So far the reader has been contemplating the past and present only; now let the curtain vailing the future be uplifted. The history of the past, and its results, are perhaps as good an indication of
WHAT THE FUTURE HAS IN STORE
As could well be found. Twenty-nine years ago the city could have been gathered together in the few blocks now contained in the water front, and her inhabitants were numbered by the hundreds. In 1860 the number of the latter had increased to 56,835, and a corresponding growth of the city had been attained. Ten years later, in 1870, 150,000 was the estimated number of its inhabitants, while the returns of 1878 place the city's population at 308,215. Her environments have as rapidly been pushed out on all sides. Should the city continue growing in the same ratio—and who can doubt that it will—San Francisco will in the year 1900 have nearly 1,000,000 of inhabitants, and the lines of the city will then have been extended to the very shores of the Pacific. Every block to the westward will be reclaimed from the drifting sand, and made to bloom and blossom in eternal summer. Not many years will lapse before the city will realize the necessity of a huge stone breakwater being built along the beach, from the Cliff House down to the Ocean House, which will effectually prevent the constant throwing of sand on the shore, to be taken up by the winds in a dry condition and blown across the peninsula. Two lines of cable roads have already obtained franchises granting them the right to lay cables to the beach; and with cheap and rapid transit, men living even within earshot of the ocean's roar will not, in the 20th century, think that they live too far from the scenes of their daily toil. In the year 1900, then, San Francisco will be a compactly built city from the bay on the east to the ocean on the west. Where, then, will her cemeteries be located? In five years, at the latest, all of the unoccupied land in the Calvary, Laurel Hill, Masonic and Odd Fellow's Cemeteries will have been sold, and unless more land is added, they
WILL HAVE TO BE CLOSED TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC,
Only those owning plots there having the privilege of burying their departed in the future heart of the city. The opening of California street through Laurel Hill Cemetery has given that cemetery a frontage on the street of several hundred feet. It is the intention of the Cemetery Association to petition the Legislature to be allowed the privilege of taking up what few bodies have been buried in the northern part of the cemetery and to segregate that portion for building purposes. This would give them a depth on the southside of California street of 125 feet, and a frontage extending along the whole northerly line of the cemetery. This, with the westerly portion of the cemetery, where the Chinese were formerly buried, would make 30 acres segregated—far more valuable for residence property, what unoccupied land they have will, doubtless, at an early day be also segregated and held for residence property. If, not a question of to-day it certainly will become one of the near future as to where the Greenwood or Mt. Auburn of San Francisco shall be located? It is a difficult question to answer. Some ten years ago a tract of 400 acres of land in Visitacion valley near the Almshouse, was purchased by a number of gentlemen, and during the last session of the Legislature an attempt was made, presumably in their interest, to pass a bill prohibiting the entombment of the dead within the present cemeteries after a specified time. One of the reasons cited in the bill, was that the health of the city was being endangered by the breezes, which come from the westward laden with the various odors peculiar to places of sepulture. This bill from its nature was to a certain extent a selfish scheme engineered for the enrichment of the parties who had bought the Visitacion valley property, with the intention of locating a cemetery there just as soon as the law had been passed. To have passed such a law would have been equal to
THE ABSOLUTE CONFISCATION OF THE PROPERTY OF THOUSANDS
Of those owning plots, and who had spent, in the aggregate, millions of dollars to embellish them, preparatory to receiving the remains of their beloved departed. A law prohibiting general burials in the present cemeteries, and only permitting those who have already bought and improved their plots to bury there, would have been of vast benefit to the city, and the necessity for such a law will, at no distant day, be well understood. Such a law has been passed in nearly all of the cities of the Union at one or another stage of their existence. In just such a position as this city is placed in, New York, mindful of its rapid growth in the past, selected a spot on Long Island, nearly a mile square and containing about eight hundred acres, for the burial of the dead, and named it Greenwood. In all other large cities the same precaution has been taken to secure a spot so far distant from the turmoil and strife of mankind that not a whisper of it ever floats across the valley of peace, consecrated to those whom the reaper has garnered. The lessons taught by these cities should not be wasted on San Francisco, and she should lose no time in securing for the future some location where, far distant from the city, her dead can slumber on undisturbed until the sound of the last trump only shall awaken them. There are many such places to be found, if necessary, even outside of the county. San Mateo and Alameda counties have many choice spots amidst wooded glens or on rolling hillsides. Eighty thousand sleep upon the green slopes of Lone Mountain and at the Mission. In twenty years, if no other place is provided, three hundred thousand people will rest in death's slumber in the very center of a great city. Is it premature to suggest the prevention of the burial of the miscellaneous dead in the future heart of the city? These are questions that should be earnestly debated by those who have the welfare of San Francisco at heart. Regarding the
EFFECTS OF THE PROXIMITY OF THE CEMETERIES UPON THE HEALTH OF CITIES,
Authorities differ. Many intelligent people, well qualified to pass upon the subject, are found arranged on either side. Those who argue that the nearness of the cemeteries is injurious assert that no matter how well ventilated the vaults of a cemetery are, or how deep the graves are excavated, a certain indefinable, almost unnoticeable gas arises, and being borne on the air will prove delirious to the health of those who may breathe it. Yet it seems as though the westerly winds which prevail here many months in the year could scarcely be poisoned with odors that seldom affect the senses of those who breathe even in the cemetery itself. In many of the oldest and most populous cities of the old world, where the dead have lain for years, no cause for alarm has ever been found such as would be followed by an unusually large death rate, and while it is certain that the cemeteries cannot be conducive to health and longevity, they cannot be more a disease breeding source of evil than are the innumerable sewers that give forth their miasmatic effluvia from out the many manholes and corner cesspools. Nor can it be possible that the several cemeteries combined could affect the health of San Francisco to the extent that but one block of its Chinese quarters is capable of doing. Those who argue that the cemeteries are the breeding spots of disease and pestilence bring forth no evidence, no statistics, in support of their theory. The earth is a natural disinfectant, and rapidly absorbs noxious and offensive gases. Bodies placed therein in a few short months resolve themselves into the component parts from which they sprung, and if in the course of time it is found necessary to exhume them, only the bones or mineral portion of the remains are brought to light, and even this mineral portion of the body would pass into an inorganic state in the course of time. Remains placed in hermetically sealed vaults can give forth no token of their disintegration to offend the nostrils, or if they do it can only be by filtration through walls of masonry which
MUST WHOLLY DESTROY THE POISON
There. At the various city cemeteries the lodgekeepers and workmen on the grounds generally have good health, and the same can be said of those living in their immediate vicinity. Those living adjacent to the cemeteries express a general desire for their removal, more on account of the gloomy associations caused by their contiguity than a fear for their health. Should it ever become necessary to practice that strict economy of space that is in vogue in many of the European cemeteries, where one body is frequently buried over another, it would hardly be safe to say that the neighboring residents could be expected to enjoy the best of health. On the contrary, the changes would be much against that state of affairs. It has been supposed by many residing near the cemeteries that the water caught in their wells must have, while passing through the earth, become charged to a certain extent with the deleterious substances which it had met in its percolation, and such a reflection must have often sent a thrill of horror through them while partaking of the crystal beverage. Science, however, proves that the contrary is the case, and has established the fact that earth is the very best purifier of water, as well as the best disinfectant ever discovered, and investigations have revealed the fact that deleterious organic matter does not pass from the surface or below the surface into shallow wells, but remains in the earth. And while the most filthy of fluids can be purified by such passage, the particle or organic matter from the earth, no matter how contaminated, to carry it to any distance whatever. This being the case, then, the rain which filtrates the cemeteries cannot be affected by the substances through which it passes for more than a few feet at the utmost, for the earth would, as has been stated, quickly purify it of all foreign matter. The question of the future removal of the city's dead is not likely ever to hinge on the fact that their presence in the city in injurious to the public health, either through noxious gases or poisonous waters, but will turn more directly on the question of the vast benefits that will eventually accrue to San Francisco by having the boundaries of the cemeteries closely confined, which will enable the city to be built up the more compactly.”
Source: San Francisco Daily Evening Post. 16 November 1878.
“San Francisco Cemeteries. (1880)
“The following communication was received several days ago, but owing to the manuscript being mislaid, its publication has been delayed. Although the Board of Freeholders has adjourned, the letter is printed, as it relates to a matter of general public interest:
“EDITOR BULLETIN: When doctors disagree, who shall decide? Shall a few isolated instances of diphtheritic diseases in the neighborhood of one or two cemeteries in the old world prove the unhealthiness of all cemeteries? Shall the united efforts of a few large landholders make it appear to some of our medical fraternity that our cemeteries are a disease-breeding curse to our peninsula? Or shall facts prove to us the fallacy of all such representations? Legislative action has been tried and tried again on the subject of removing cemeteries, and failed. Failed for why? Because there never has been any real merit in the case—legislative action gotten up for the ostensible purpose of protecting the public against these death-dealing cemeteries, but, looked at from behind the scenes, for the real purpose of furthering some scheme, such as extending street railroads bringing large tracts of outside lands into market, and perhaps for the better inauguration of a new cemetery elsewhere.
“One of our medical men asserts that the seepage from our cemeteries is destroying the water of our wells for blocks away—that analysis has proved, as I understand the Doctor, the existence of animal matter in these wells. In the first place, most of the water used is from 'Spring Valley,' and in the next place, is the Doctor sure that these analyses show the existence of human, or simply animal matter? If the latter, might it not be that some four-legged animal—a cat, rat or gopher, for instance -had accidentally fallen into some of these wells, the water of which has been analyzed? I very much doubt if analysis can distinguish the source of impurities in water after it has been filtered through the earth for several hundred feet. I have always understood that the earth was the great purifier.
“Not far from our city lies a beautiful little suburb, really the great sanitarium of San Francisco. Right here, in the midst of this health resort, this most sheltered valley of our bay, a Doctor of Medicine has of late been laying out and adorning a rugged piece of ground which he calls a cemetery, and, as he advertises, for the burial of San Francisco's dead. And here comes the worst possible feature of it all, and so contrary to other medical authorities who have just had their say. Wells are being, or about to be, bored in this suburban cemetery, so our worthy doctor yonder has advertised, to supply San Rafael with pure, fresh water—i.e., as another of the faculty would have us believe, seepage from the dead. Think of this estimable doctor sending his water from the graveyard through this beautiful valley, for the people to drink! And for what? Think of his compelling the owners of the present water company yonder to abandon their pure mountain water, to drink of these life-destroying wells. Can it be that he wishes to fill his cemetery in this way? I can't believe this; I believe the doctor to be too honorable for any such scheme. I state these facts merely to show that even doctors will disagree.
“What a pity that any mercenary schemes should be brought to bear on that which is nearest our hearts—nearer and dearer to many than their own homes. The most of us know that this trying to close our cemeteries is done, not for the public health-some of our Freeholders have acknowledged that forbidding burials will ultimately enhance the value of adjoining property, and, hence, the public purse—but in the interest of private measures.
“At first it was proposed, contrary to the assertion of Dr. Mays in his late communication to your able journal, to give the Board of Health power after the year 1885 to remove any and all bodies interred in any cemetery within the limits of the city and county of San Francisco. This was going a little too far, and the Board of Freeholders wisely (it would seem to the public) expunged that section from their Charter.
“I merely mention this to show the absurdity of such a clause, and yet it is no more objectionable than the preceding one. Section 33 reads: 'No burial or interment of any human body shall hereafter be made in any place within the city and county of San Francisco, except in the cemeteries now organized and appropriated to burial purposes; and from and after 1885 no human body shall be buried in any place within the said city and county.'
“According to this we have only five years in which to be buried in Lone Mountain, which means the utter desolation of all these cemeteries, an eye-sore to adjoining property, and a resort for tramps and thieves. Instead of increasing the taxable valuation of property, it will depreciate all property lying near these cemeteries. From time to time, after 1885, as deaths occur in families owning lots in Lone Mountain, these lots will be abandoned, and the whole family placed together elsewhere. Years will elapse, aye generations, before the vicinity of Lone Mountain will be a fit place to live in, should this section 33 become a law.
“Better had it been wiped out than to allow 'Lone Mountain'—a name known far and wide—to become a standing monument of the folly of our generation.
“For purely sanitary measures, which course would be the most acceptable to our citizens, the least expensive and by far the most conducive to health—a clause in the charter giving the Board of Health the power to reconstruct the entire sewerage system of the city and county, or, contrary to to the wishes of nine-tenths of our people, to interfere with our cemeteries?—the sweetest (I use the word in both meanings) spot on the peninsula, and I defy any one to prove the contrary, be he a pupil of Esculaplus or a disciple of Blackstone. Our sewerage system is the curse of this community. Let any one actually prove a case of death from a cemetery. The wisest course, and that which would be acceptable to most of our citizens, would be for these fifteen Freeholders to make prohibitory, say after 1890, any further interments other than the immediate members of families owning burial places in these cemeteries. Let us keep these last resting-places of the dead where they are—free from all the intrusion of a city's civilization. Let it be said for all time to come to all schemers who wish to intrude upon this most sacred spot, 'Thus far shalt thou go and no further.' Let the sweet songsters have one little spot among the trees where they can warble unmolested. Thousands of these would, if their language could be interpreted by us poor mortals, in the sweetest tones beg not to be deprived of this the dearest spot to them. Can't we stretch the imagination a trifle and believe these notes but the echos of the dear departed?
“I would say to all interested against this desecration of our dead-and their name is legion to take up the strain of
A VOICE FOR THE DEAD.”
Source: San Francisco Bulletin, 29 June 1880.
“A GRAVEYARD AGITATION. (1885)
“Residents of the Eleventh Ward Protest Further Interments in the Mission Cemeteries.
“A mass meeting of residents of the Mission was held last evening at the Mission Opera House, for the purpose of taking such measures as may be necessary to prevent further burials at the Mission, especially that portion lying between Elizabeth [sic] and Nineteenth streets, on Dolores. F.W. Van Reynegom, who was chosen to preside, said that upwards of 3,000 bodies had been there interred, bringing disease, increasing the death-rate and doing more than all other agencies combined to depreciate property and interfere with the prosperity of the Mission.
“Dr. W.E. Weldon read a paper on the deleterious influences of graveyards from a a sanitary point of view. He said that in order to protest the living they must be entirely separated from the dead. It requires six years' time for a corpse to become entirely decomposed, and it is an unquestioned fact that the air around cemeteries is vitiated and dangerous to health and life. He quoted Pasteur in support of the germ theory, approved cremation, and closed with the statement that in his belief the disease and death-rate would be much diminished by proper protection from the dead.
“George Martin said these cemeteries were situated upon the sidehills and the drainage from them must inevitably flow down, to the serious detriment of the residents of the valley. During the past year $50,000 had been spent in grading the streets in the vicinity of the Mission, and the region was recognized as the most beautiful and naturally healthy of the city. The Board of Supervisors had the power to order the suspension of interments, and if the effort was made the residents could secure their demands.
“H.H. Mayhew spoke upon the subject, afterwards reading a paper upon the manner of burials in different ages. He favored the proposition that no more burials be allowed in the cemeteries, as population was increasing in that vicinity.
“The Chair read a petition to the Supervisors, asking that further interments be stopped in the burial grounds named. which he said had already been signed by 1,500 persons. A certificate, signed by a number of physicians, stating that cemeteries were detrimental to health, was also read.
“A.K. Hollis offered the following, which was adopted unanimousły:
“WHEREAS, The public health of a large extent of the most populous portion of the Eleventh ward of the city and county of San Francisco has become imperiled by the constant and frequent burials of the dead in the two blocks bounded by Eighteenth, Twentieth, Church and Dolores streets; and, whereas, said cemeteries, by reason of their situation and surroundings, are not only a source of disease and death by their drainage into the sewer system of the Eleventh ward. and their contamination of the air and water of the whole slope of the Mission Dolores, but are also the means of depriving the owners of property in their neighborhood from the free and lawful use and enjoyment thereof, therefore we, the residents and property-owners of the district injuriously affected by said cemeteries, do hereby, in mass meeting assembled.
”Resolve. First-That the further burials of the dead in said cemeteries is to us a dangerous and deadly nuisance, which we hereby pledge ourselves to use every lawful means in our power to abate.
“Second-That we hereby request the Board of Supervisors of this city and county to at once exercise the power in them by law conferred in the premises, and prohibit further burial of the dead in said cemeteries as a nuisance dangerous to the public health, and for the prevention of the permanent ills which are threatened by a constant accumulation of decaying bodies therein, in the midst of a large and growing resident population.
“Third-That an Executive Committee, of five persons, of whom the Chairman of this meeting shall be one, be appointed to represent the residents and property-owners in the premises; that said committee is hereby authorized and instructed to present a copy of these resolutions to the Board of Supervisors, and in our behalf to urge such measures as may be necessary to close said cemeteries, to consult counsel with reference to enjoining such interments by suit, and also to call such further meetings as the said committee shall deem advisable.
“A.P. Van Duser, while in sympathy with the movement, did not think anything could be done except with the consent of the trustees of the cemeteries. They had vested rights which could not be interfered with. He recommended a conference with the trustees to see if some understanding could not be arrived at.
“Ex-Supervisor James was of the opinion the Supervisors could give no relief; but the Board of Health could,. if the burial grounds were a danger to public health.
The committee called for in the resolution was named as follows: A.K. Hollis, A.J. Gunnison, F.M. Stone, J.J. Serivener and F.W. Van Reynegom.
The meeting adjourned to the call the Chair.
Source: San Francisco Bulletin, 15 December 1885.
“THE CEMETERIES [1887] . . .The Burial Places of Pioneer Days—Rude and Hasty Funerals of the Gold Hunters. . .In the early days, prior to the discovery of gold, when Yerba Buena, had a civil existence and the great city of to-day was in its infancy, the dead were laid to rest in the churchyard at the old Mission Dolores. Death then came but seldom, for the population was scanty and the funeral was respectfully attended by what might be termed a large number of friends and relatives. But when the news of the discovery of gold was heralded throughout the world and the great rush of emigrants occurred, the scene changed. Death became more frequent and the time was so golden that in a carefully prepared and well-attended funeral was something unknown. Few men would then spare as much time as was necessary to accompany the corpse of a stranger, nay, often a friend, to its last resting place in the little cemetery beside the old Mission Church. The distance, probably two miles was considered great and the roads at times were almost impassable. Under those circumstances the method of burial in consecrated ground was soon unheeded, and in consequence the bodies of the dead were sometimes hastily placed anywhere out of sight. In the bustle and incessant turmoil of the restless and continual change in the population the dead were not missed, and no one cared sufficiently to institute any inquiries to obtain any information about the absent one. Perhaps he had gone to the mines or home, would be the answer to any question. Any loose rumor seemed to satisfy the few inquisitive acquaintances of the deceased. Perhaps it would occasionally flash across their minds that their old friend had made a still stranger journey and crossed life's river never more to return. But they would shrug their shoulders with the remark: “Poor fellow, I'm sorry he's gone,” and without further thought apply themselves to the more pressing affairs of the moment that engrossed their attention.
Anxious friends, in the far-off New England home might write a score of letters of inquiry but who could give them accurate information as to the fate of the missing emigrant? To search for any particular individual in California at that time would be fruitless labor. In many cases no one paid any heed of the dying, save the inmates of his own tent, or if, perhaps he dwelt alone in some small shanty, the dwellers most adjacent to him. Often the corpse of some unknown would be discovered lying in a retired spot, hidden in the bushes or chaparral, or in a secluded tent, and sometimes in the public street. The cause of death, whether by his own hand or by the violence of another, was a mystery frequently unsolved. His fellows or nearest neighbors, or those who discovered the corpse, would generally dig a hole in the ground behind or near the deceased's late abode, and there the body would be buried. Sometimes the more intimate acquaintances of the deceased would bear the remains to the summit of Russian hill, where there was a small uninclosed space that many years previously had been used as burial ground by the Russian settlers of the town and bay. Or, if they lived near North Beach, they would inter the body on the rising slope of Telegraph Hill, in a dreary spot between Powell and Stockton, Chestnut and Lombard streets, which by common consent had been set apart for burial purposes. Often the deceased would be buried near the spot where he died, and when the dry sandy soil that covered the tomb was leveled by the winds and rain, nothing remained to mark the place where rested the bones of one of the pioneers of civilization in this far Western land.
In 1850, however, a piece of ground a little to the westward of North Beach began to be regularly used as a graveyard. No permission was ever granted by the authorities for such purpose, but after one funeral had taken place, another and another followed to the same place until it began to be regarded as a cemetery.
In the summer of 1850, a large tract of land, situated nearly midway between the town and the Mission, was appropriated as a place of public burial. It was named Yerba Buena Cemetery , and the site is now occupied by the new City Hall. At that time the distance from the city and inaccessibility prevented the place being utilized to any great extent for burial purposes. For nearly two years people preferred the other irregular place, but finally, in 1851 the property near North Beach became desirable for business purposes, and the bodies there interred were exhumed and removed to Yerba Buena. In this same year, 1852, it was formally opened as a cemetery. . .”
Source: San Francisco Morning Call, 14 February 1887.
“Disinterment Inspector's Report. [1893]
San Francisco, July 1, 1893.
…Disinterments took place at the following cemeteries, viz.:
City (white) …26
City (Chinese) …72
Laurel Hill (Chinese) …14
Laurel Hill (white) …47
I.O.O.F. …29
Calvary …137
Masonic …30
Home of Peace …816
Giboth Olam …115
Mission Dolores …31
Greek …1
Total …1,318.
Removals were as follows, viz.:
City Cemetery …14
Laurel Hill Cemetery …11
I.O.O.F. …14
Calvary Cemetery …1
Masonic Cemetery …10
San Mateo County –
- Holy Cross Cemetery …144
- Home of Peace Cemetery …813
- Hills of Eternity Cemetery …113
- New Salem Cemetery …16
- Cypress Lawn Cemetery …30
Oakland, Cal. …31
[Other cities throughout the U.S.] …[36]
China …85.
Total …1,318.”
Source: San Francisco Municipal Reports, 30 June 1893, pages 783-784.
“SUTTER-STREET EXTENSION. [1896]
”…a resolution was adopted calling for the closing of the cemeteries in the City; also for a strict enforcement of ordinance 2950 [sic], approved January 31, 1896, prohibiting the sale of burial lots in those places of interment…”
Source: San Francisco Call, 28 November 1896, page 8.
“THE CEMETERIES. [1896]
“The question of closing the cemeteries will be one which will probably force itself upon your attention. The Supervisors, in their general order No. 2,930, prohibited further sales of lots for burial purposes within the limits of the city, and also provided for further burials being made only in lots theretofore acquired. The Supreme Court has recently decided that this ordinance is unconstitutional, because it discriminates in favor of those who were prudent enough to buy cemetery lots before the ordinance went into effect. This decision is unfortunate, for the rule laid down by the Supervisors had been operating satisfactorily, and, in the language of one of the Justices who dissented from the opinion, 'the cemetery evil will now be greatly increased and its suppression made accordingly more difficult.' As the law now stands, there is no restriction upon burials in the city limits, although the city, no doubt, has power, under an Act of the Legislature of April 25, 1863, to forbid all burials, discriminating in favor of no one, as a measure for the preservation of the public health and the prevention of contagious diseases. But even if there were no questions of the public health involved, the presence of large cemeteries is a drawback to the city, for they are obstructions to suburban progress. They lie across the path of the city's growth to the west and retard its development. The city can only grow south and west on account of its peculiar topography, and fair notice should be given to the cemetery associations that the time will speedily come when they will have to remove to more remote quarters. I would recommend an ordinance fixing a term after which burials shall cease within the city limits, so that no unfair advantage shall be taken of the associations owning cemeteries. The only question involved here is the growth and development of the city, and I refrain from discussing the sentimental side of the question.”
Source: San Francisco Municipal Reports For The Fiscal Year 1896-97, Ending June 30, 1897, Published by Order of the Board of Supervisors, San Francisco, The Hinton Printing Company, 321 Sacramento St., 1897; Appendix, pages 11-12.
“ORDINANCE NO. 25. [1908]
”(Approved March 30, 1900.)
“Prohibiting the Burial of the Dead Within the City and County of San Francisco.
“Whereas, the burial of the dead within the City and County of San Francisco is dangerous to life and detrimental to the public health; therefore.
“Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco as follows:
“Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, association or corporation, from and after the 1st day of August, A. D. 1901, to bury or inter, or cause to be interred or buried, the dead body of any person in any cemetery, graveyard or other place within the City and County of San Francisco, exclusive of those portions thereof which belong to the United States, or are within its exclusive jurisdiction.
“Sec. 2. Any person, association or corporation violating any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred ($100) dollars, nor more than five hundred ($500) dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
“Sec. 3. Order No. 1961, and all Orders or parts of Orders in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.”
Source: Health laws, rules and regulations and ordinances of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. Compiled by the Board of Health, 1908.
“SUPERVISORS VOTE 16 TO 1 TO REMOVE CEMETERIES [1912]
“Adopt Resolution in Face of Opposition by Clubwomen and Native Daughters.
“The Supervisors yesterday adopted by a vote of sixteen to one, Koshland being absent, the resolution of intention declaring the purpose of the board to remove the cemeteries on ground that their further maintenance is detrimental to the public health, and notifying persons interested to remove their dead within the next six months. In taking this action the board disregarded the opposition of the women of the California Women's Club and the Outdoor Art League and their alternative proposition that the cemeteries be preserved as memorial parks.
Supervisor Murdock, who opposed the resolution, explained that he “did so merely because he did not care to admit that the maintenance of the cemeteries was detrimental to the public health.
“No Decisive Action Yet.
“The adoption of yesterday's resolution does not mean that the cemeteries. must necessarily be done away with at the end of the six months, but it opens the way for further action at that time. tending the final removal of the bodies. Following this will come the opening of streets through the tracts and, in due time, the division of the blocks into lots and the placing of the property upon the market as home and business sites.
“Attorney Hugo Asher was the chief speaker for the removal project. noted, he said, that there had been no particular outcry against the removal of the nameless dead from the old City Cemetery-sentiment seemed only to be felt in the case of the graves of the rich. As to the cemeteries being beauty spots, as had been asserted, he noted in all of them great evidence of neglect. Plots were uncared for, especially those of the poor, the paths were not in proper shape and here and there were open graves, he said.
“Opposes Park Plan.
“Attorney Asher opposed the park proposition on the ground that the part of the city where the cemeteries are located already has plenty of park space, while other sections were greatly lacking. There was also to be considered the fact that the taxable value of the cemetery land was at least $20,000,000, on which the city should. have an income of $400,000 or more.
“C. Williamson, secretary of the Devisadero-street Improvement Association, also representing the Civic League of Improvement Clubs, favored the removal of the cemeteries. He declared that the project had the support of all the improvement organizations of the city, given after full study of the subject. It was a practical question, he said, and not one of sentiment.
” 'We are striving,' he said, 'for a better San Francisco—a better San Francisco to live in, not a San Francisco to lie dead in.'
“Club Leader Talks.
“Mrs. Lovell White, who followed Williams, deprecated anything like a joke being made on the subject under discussion. She declared that the project for the creation and maintenance of the proposed memorial park was supported by many thousands of the children of the pioneer men and women buried in the cemeteries.
“Mrs. George T. Marsh, chairman of the Outdoor Art League, read resolutions adopted by that organization advocating the memorial park proposition for Laurel Hill Cemetery especially, after which she urged that, if all the cemeteries must go at least a memorial plot in each of them should be preserved.
“Cost Would Be Million.
“Mrs. M.P. Sorbier also argued against the proposed removal of the bodies. She said there were 90,000 bodies to be removed, and the cost would be more than $1,000,000. She did not know where this money would be found, and also foresaw difficulty in the securing of new interment space for so many bodies. There was also danger of an epidemic should so many graves be opened at one time.
“Mrs. Romie Burnett Hutchison of the Women's Political League declared the project to abolish the cemeteries was simply the result of a real estate deal. She knew this, she declared, being herself in the real estate business.
“Miss Eliza D. Keith, former president of the Native Daughters of the Golden West, declared that if the rage for cemetery removals continued there would soon be nothing left to do except to throw the bodies of the dead into the the ocean, unless universal cremation or quicklime and the pit are preferred as alternatives.
“The people who bought property about the cemeteries knew what they were doing, and should not complain now of their neighborhood, she said. Her grandfather, she said, had been a member of the old-time Board of Supervisors whose legislative action had made the ownership of real property in this city feasible. He and his associates had been buried in the cemeteries in which it was now proposed to deny them further rest.
“Miss Keith closed by warning the board that the circulation of a report that between 75,000 and 90,000 bodies were to be exhumed here would not tend to draw Exposition visitors.
“Alleges Crooked Dealing.
“George Renner protested against the proposed removal as an injustice to plot owners. He took occasion to refer to anti-cemetery legislation once had in Sacramento as having been engineered by by men who were 'too crooked to be still,' which caused Attorney Asher to declare with some heat that he, personally, had had nothing to do with such legislation.
“George E. Gallagher, chairman of the Street Committee, which had recommended the removal resolution, declared that the only object in view was the desire to secure the general good. He referred to the letters of Edward H. Hamilton, published in 'The Examiner,' showing the efforts in the line of progress made in other cities, and declared that San Francisco could not afford to be backward.
” 'I believe,' he added, 'that if these same pioneers of ours who are buried in our local cemeteries could know that their continuance there would serve to hinder the progress of the city they builded, they would not want to wait for the Last Trumpet before. moving on.'
“The vote was then taken with sixteen ayes to one no.”
Source: San Francisco Bulletin, 20 August 1912, page 3.
“$12,000,000 Huge Cost of Removing Dead From Graves. [1913]
“City's Decision to Remove Cemeteries From City Limits Puts Heavy Burden on Surviving Relatives, Who Must Pay Cost.
“By FREDERICK W. ELY.
“THE high cost of living is a mere bagatelle in comparison with the cost of caring for the dead, according to figures furnished by officials of the various cemetery associations of San Francisco, which estimate hat the removal of the bodies from the cemeteries within the city limits will cost the relatives of the decedents approximately $12,000,000, which does not include the cost of removing and reconstructing the costly headstones, monuments, vaults and tombs, which, it is estimated, will cost millions of dollars additional.
“With these figures in mind, the tragedy of Hamlet reads like a farce. Had Shakespeare resided in San Francisco in this day and generation he would never have written the famous soliloquy of Hamlet. That poor, love-sick youth would have had no cause to seriously contemplate suicide in the belief that death would end all. He would have known that it was easier, or cheaper at least, 'to be' than 'not to be.'
“That is the conclusion arrived at by those who have investigated and are in a position to know just what it is going to cost to remove the bodies of their departed friends and relatives from the cemeteries in San Francisco to cities of the dead across the line into San Mateo county.
“COST OF REMOVAL.
“The lowest possible cost for removing an individual body from one of the local cemeteries to San Mateo county is about $75. This includes various items of expense. For instance: disinterring body, $10; cemetery road tax, from fifty cents to $1; San Mateo county road tax, $1; undertaker's fees, $30; cost of single grave in new cemetery, $30; cemetery road tax in San Mateo county cemeteries, $1, etc. This estimate is for a single body and provides for only the cheapest kind of a funeral. You can go as high as you like or your bank account will permit. If cremation is desired the cost of same will be $15 for a single body cremated In the crematory at Cypress Lawn cemetery.
“As to the removal and reconstruction of the costly monuments, headstones, vaults and tombs, officials of the various cemetery associations claim that it will cost more than the original price, which runs into millions of dollars, and that in some cases it will be impossible to reconstruct the monuments and tombs once they are removed. Some of the monuments and tombs are the handsomest and most costly to be found in any cemetery in the country. There are about 155,000 bodies to be removed from the various cemeteries in the city, distributed as follows: Calvary, 50,000 bodies; Laurel Hill, 40,000 bodies; Odd Fellows, 40,000 bodies; Masonic, 25,000 bodies. The cost of disinterment 1s practically the same in each cemetery—$10 per body, this amount going to the cemetery associations, making a total sum of $1,550,000 that the various cemeteries will receive for this service alone.
“TO EXCHANGE LOTS.
“The directors of Calvary cemetery have agreed to furnish burial plots in Holy Cross cemetery free of charge to those owning property in Calvary cemetery, owners to bear the cost of removing the bodies and to pay $75 for perpetual care of plot in Holy Cross cemetery.
“Free exchange of lots is provided by the Masonic Cemetery Association for members and their families, providing they are willing to relinquish all claims to lots in cemetery within the city limits. A similar arrangement has been made for transfer of lots by the Directors of the Odd Fellows' Cemetery Association. No definite plans have as yet been formulated by the Laurel Hill Cemetery Association.
“UNCLAIMED BODIES.
“The cemetery associations have their own troubles, too, as well as owners of individual lots. It is estimated that at least twenty-five per cent of all bodies now interred in the city cemeteries will be unclaimed and that the associations will have to bear the expense of removing these bodies. In Calvary Cemetery alone, it is believed that the number of unclaimed bodies will exceed 25,000. Such bodies will have to be removed at the expense of the association and Archbishop Riordan has determined that each body shall receive individual burial and that there shall be no wholesale disinterring and burial of bodies.
What disposition will be made. the property after the bodies have been removed from the cemeteries, which now occupy seventy city blocks in the heart of the residence section of the city and are valued at millions of dollars, 1s still a matter of conjecture. It is understood that the lots in Calvary Cemetery were leased, not sold, and will revert to the association in exchange for lots in Holy Cross Cemetery. The lots in the other three cemeteries were sold outright and the owners or their heirs will receive so much per square foot for the land when all bodies have been removed and the property sold.
“CITY LOTS CROWD OUT THE DEAD [1913]
“Cemeteries Removal Order Is Heavy Burden on Surviving Relatives.
“DECENT BURIAL.
“That every body unclaimed should receive a decent burial at the cost of the various cemetery associations, is the opinion of George Skaller, manager of the Masonic Cemetery Association, who says that the selling price of the land will more than compensate the associations for any expense incurred in disposing of the remains of the dead. He strenuously objects to the suggestion that all unclaimed bodies be cremated, as the cheapest and quickest means of clearing the property of the cemetery associations.
“CEMETERIES MUST GO. That the bodies in the various cemeteries in the city must be removed, and that speedily, is the opinion of most of the officers of the cemetery associations, although Archbishop Riordan is opposed to their removal, it is said, and will fight the matter in the courts, if need be.
“Just when the removals must be effected is a question which the cemetery directors are not prepared to say. However, they are unanimous in expressing the opinion that the ordinance passed by the Board of Supervisors, which calls for the removal of the bodies by February 19, next, cannot be enforced. They believe that the bill now before the State Legislature, which will give the people nine months from date of passage to cause the removal of the bodies, will become a law, and that the cemeteries now within the city limits will be eliminated before the expiration of the present year. Manager Skaller of the Masonic Cemetery Association is advising owners of lots in the local Masonic Cemetery to lose no time in effecting the transfer of bodies to the burial place in San Mateo county.”
Source: San Francisco Bulletin, 1 February 1913, pages 1,3.
“CEMETERY REMOVAL OPPOSED. [1913]
(By Cemetery Protective Organization.)
Following are extracts from the argument of Sydney Van Wyck before the law and legislative committee of the Labor Council:
If the bodies of the dead now reposing in the cemeteries of San Francisco are a menace to health, then it will be a hundred times more dangerous to exhume the bodies, and carry them through the streets of San Francisco to the cemeteries in San Mateo County. Data shows that where wholesale removals of the dead have been made, pestilence had followed in its wake. As in 1868, when the old Yerba Buena Cemetery was removed, smallpox broke out, the toll of death by smallpox alone being 940 that year, besides hundreds of deaths by other contagious diseases. The year before there had not been one case of smallpox recorded (these figures are taken from our city records), and every time there has been a wholesale removal of a cemetery we have paid in a toll of death. While, on the other hand, in proof that the local cemeteries are not a menace to health he cited that the people living in the vicinity of the cemeteries got their water supply from the burying grounds following the fire of April, 1906. He also called attention to the fact that a large number of hospitals are located in the vicinity.
Mr. Van Wyck ridiculed the argument that the cemeteries are needed for residential purposes. That is a fallacious argument that will not bear investigation. In the city of San Francisco there is enough real estate on the market to provide homes for a population of 2,500,000.
He scoffed the idea that the cemeteries have retarded the growth of the Richmond district. Go out into the Richmond district and see how densely it is populated. Compare the price of real estate in that section of the city today with the prices that prevailed six years ago. You will find that they have increased many hundredfold. Certain so-called improvement clubs are being used by land speculators to further their schemes to get possession of the cemetery lands.
In speaking of the provisions of the cemetery removal bills, which cause the titles of the lots to revert to the cemetery corporations after the bodies have been removed, Van Wyck said: The real object of this clause in these bills is to get possession of the land. The bills might just as well have said that the titles to the lots should revert to the land speculators back of the scheme.
In answering the argument that the land is needed in order to continue the streets through to the Richmond district, he said: This is not true. Those back of the scheme do not contemplate continuing the streets through the cemeteries into the Richmond district. Their plan is to convert the land into residential parks, with avenues winding in and out, which will make the property a residential park for the rich. A place cut off from the rest of the city, an exclusive residence district for the so-called higher-ups. Don’t deceive yourselves into believing that the aim of the people back of this scheme is to provide a place for the poor to build their homes; nothing of the kind. If this scheme goes through, the bodies of the poor now resting in their graves will be tossed aside to make room for the homes of the rich, where the wealthy will build their mansions in which they will hold brilliant functions and display their wealth. It is safe to say that the bodies of many of the poor will never be removed. That has been true in every case where a cemetery has been abandoned. If it be true in this case, when the rich will make their homes on these sites, and when they give their elaborate balls, they will be literally dancing on the graves of the poor. The rich will see that the bodies of their dead are removed. Is organized labor, representing the poor, going to stand for such a thing?”
Source: Labor Clarion, 21 March 1913, page 7.
“CEMETERY REMOVAL LEGISLATION. [1914]
On August 19, 1912, the supervisors passed a resolution of intention to remove the four cemeteries—Laurel Hill, Calvary, Masonic and Odd bellows. The Dolores cemetery was not included.
The resolution was opposed by many citizens, but to no purpose.
It was found that under the State laws it would be impossible to carry the resolution into effect. Therefore bills were framed and introduced into the legislature of 1913 which, had they passed, would have smoothed the way for the removals. To show the iniquity of some of the provisions of these, the so-called Boynton and Cassidy cemetery bills, we point out a few significant provisions of said bills.
Section 3 of the 1911 act, which is the existing law relating to removals and on which the referendum ordinance is founded, provides that notice of intention to exhume bodies from a certain cemetery must be served personally upon the lot owners in the same manner as summons in a civil action is served. Senate Bill 323, section 3, provided that such notice may be given to all persons interested by simple publication in a newspaper of general circulation. Section 6 of the same bill provided that one of several joint owners of a plot might give consent to the removal of the bodies from the plot without filing the statement and record required in the 1911 act. This bill further provided that the remains might be deposited in a mausoleum or columbarium erected for the purpose. (The present ordinance provides also for depositing bodies in a mausoleum within the limits of the city and county, which is clearly in violation of the 1911 act, and therefore inoperative.) Hence instead of going to the expense of buying graves in a cemetery, a cemetery corporation or the city might remove and place all unclaimed bodies in a mausoleum. Inasmuch as many people, for reasons sufficient to themselves, are opposed to that kind of re-interment, the legislation is violative of civil rights. The act of 1911 provides that each body must be deposited in a separate grave and each grave provided with a headboard, and the record of the removal filed in the recorder's office. The object of Senate Bill 323 and the other bills was to do away with these requirements founded upon proper respect for the dead and for the benefit of descendants or relatives who might afterwards desire to reclaim the remains.
The Civil Code provides that the funds of cemetery corporations are to be used exclusively for the improvement, embellishment and preservation of the cemeteries. Section 9 of the bill in question provided that such funds could be used for the removal of bodies, for the dismantling of the cemeteries and for the improvement of the ground by construction of sewers, streets, grading, etc. Section 10 empowered the cemetery corporation to sell portions and “receive and accept for any such conveyances, under such terms and conditions as to the value or price thereof as to the directors may seem equitable.” In other words, lot owners would be at the absolute mercy of the directors in fixing the value of lots in the old and the new cemeteries.
By section 12, the directors were empowered even to transfer the funds to other corporations. Under present laws they arc trustees for the lot owners and their powers are very limited. Section 6 of the 1911 act specifically provides that the act shall not be interpreted as conferring any power to take away private property before due compensation is made. This section was specifically repealed in Senate Bill 323.
Senate Bill 324 was drawn for the purpose of overcoming section 573 of the Penal Code, enacted in 1911, forbidding directors or officers of the corporation to borrow from the funds thereof. Another bill, Senate Bill 325, gave widest latitude possible in expending the funds of the cemetery corporation.
Senate Bill 326 sought to avoid the effect of section 613 of the Civil Code which provides that after a body is interred, the cemetery lot becomes inalienable, or not subject to legal transfer.
Senate Bill 327 defined those who would be able to share in the surplus of the assets of the corporation after all bodies have been removed and the land disposed of. This bill was drawn to induce lot owners to make their own removals with the prospect of being subsequently reimbursed. These and other bills which would have permitted the wholesale removals and the transfer of the land to private parties, that is, the wholesale looting of the cemeteries for the benefit of owners of cemeteries in San Mateo county and real estate sharks in San Francisco, happily did not pass the legislature, although tremendous pressure was brought upon the Assembly to enact them into law.
After the defeat of the bills, the supervisors planned another ordinance which was approved by the city attorney. It was passed, but the mayor refused to sign it. After being amended it passed again, and was this time approved by the mayor. On account of the emphatic protest by citizens and a number of civic organizations, among which were the San Francisco Labor Council, the Building Trades Council, the Cemetery Protective Organization, the Society of California Pioneers, and others, the mayor graciously submitted the ordinance to the referendum at the coming State election.
We are informed that it will appear in such form on the ballot that those who are opposed to the wholesale removal of bodies will have to vote No on the proposition, which is to be No. 50 on the ballot.
The ordinance to be voted on, briefly, provides that the removal of bodies shall take place immediately after the taking effect thereof and completed within a period of 14 months, and if not then completed that the Board of Health shall within three years and six months remove all bodies from said cemeteries, reinter them or otherwise dispose of the remains in accordance with law.
In our next article we will consider the details of this ordinance. It must, however, at this time be borne, in mind that if, as is very likely, a considerable number of bodies remain unremoved, it will fall on the taxpayers of the city and county to shoulder the expense of removing them before it may be reimbursed for the outlay.”
Source: Labor Clarion, 9 October 1914, page 7.
“HASTY ACTION ON CEMETERIES NOT PLANNED WITH NEW LAW. [1921]
No move will be made immediately to put into effect the provisions of the cemetery removal bill, signed last night by Governor Stephens, according to a statement today by George Skaller, secretary of the Masonic Cemetery Association and leader in the Civic League of Improvement Clubs.
'The removal bill is simply an enabling act,' said Skaller. 'It will take some time for the cemetery associations and others interested to work out a plan for the removal. The cemeteries occupy 205 acres of land. The proceeds from the sale of this land must be used to meet the costs of the removal, which cannot be done at any expense to the plot owners. There must also be a favorable vote of the majority of the plot owners.
'To properly organize the work will take six months at least. It will probably be undertaken as is matter of civic development and improvement rather than as an undertaking of the cemetery associations alone.'
The removal bill was introduced in the last Legislature by Assemblyman Clarence Morris. The measure, which provides for the removal of cemeteries upon legal action by lot owners, does not necessarily end the prolonged fight in connection with the proposed removal of Masonic, Laurel Hill, Calvary and Odd Fellows' cemeteries in San Francisco, owing to the fact that it is only an enabling act. Although the bill affects the entire state, it was introduced primarily to take care of the situation existing in San Francisco.
The fight for the passage of a law which would permit the removal of four San Francisco cemeteries, which have been closed for more than fifteen years, was started in 1913. At that time a bill was introduced in the legislature, at the behest of San Francisco civic organizations which sought the removal of all burial plots outside the city limits.
Under the provisions of the law which became effective today no action can be taken regarding the removal of any cemetery without a majority vote of the lot owners. The Morris bill was passed by the Assembly by a vote of 53 to 16 and by the Senate by a vote of 25 to 12 in the face of one of the strongest lobbies to appear in the state capitol within recent years.”
Source: San Francisco Call, 21 May 1921, page 1.
“FIGHT STARTED ON CEMETERY MOVING. [1921]
Plans for a campaign against the removal of the San Francisco cemeteries under the Cemetery Removal Act, recently signed by Governor W.D. Stephens, were under way today by the Cemetery Beautifying and Anti-Removal Association, following its meeting in the Palace Hotel yesterday.
William F. Cashman, who was active in previous fights against removing San Francisco cemeteries, addressed the meeting, outlining the campaign. He stated that 75 per cent of the bodies in the four San Francisco cemeteries affected by the removal act are unclaimed, while 15 per cent are represented by persons desiring removal and 10 per cent opposed.
Mrs. James Ellis Tucker, in replying to a statement by Mrs. Mary Gamage that removal of bodies from cemeteries automatically surrendered the rights of the lot owner in the cemetery associations, said that the deeds to lots in the old cemeteries are titles in fee simple and that removal of bodies does not affect the owners’ titles.
Reports were read by Mrs. Gamage, Mrs. Tucker and Miss Eleanor Croudace. Madame Sorbier, president of the association, presided.”
Source: San Francisco Call, 20 June 1921, page 2.
“Cemetery Removal Bill to Be Tested In Legal Battle [1921]
The legality of the law enacted by the last Legislature, providing for the removal of bodies from cemeteries, will be tested in the courts, Assemblyman William B. Hornblower, who fought the cemetery removal measure at the last session, said today.
Hornblower has filed a suit in the Superior Court to enjoin the Masonic Cemetery Association from moving the body of his sister, which, he says in his complaint, has been buried for twenty-five years.
The suit followed the action of the Masonic Cemetery Association in adopting resolutions authorizing the removal of bodies from the old Masonic Cemetery to the Masonic Cemetery in San Mateo.
Source: San Francisco Call, 27 September 1921, page 2.
“CEMETERIES REMOVAL ACT WINS COURT 0.K. [1922]
The cemetery removal forces today won their first court victory when Judge E.P. Shortall held constitutional the removal act, known as the Morris bill, and at the same time denied a permanent injunction to the opposing side.
By agreement between the disputants Judge Shortall granted a temporary injunction prohibiting the removal of bodies from the Masonic Cemetery until the issue can be carried to the Appellate Court for rehearing on an appeal.
The suit was one brought by William B. Hornblower, assemblyman from this city; F. E. Edwards and Martin Kelly, against the Masonic Cemetery Association.
The three men are lot owners in the Masonic Cemetery and sued to prevent the moving of the bodies of relatives buried there.
Judge Shortall held that the Morris act is constitutional and that it gives full legal authority to the cemetery association for removal of all bodies within the cemetery.
The request for the temporary injunction was made after the decision had been rendered by Attorney Frank E. Powers, representing the plaintiffs. Attorney R.M.J. Armstrong, for the association, acquiesced in this motion to facilitate final decision in the higher courts.
Source: San Francisco Call, 31 January 1922, page 1.
“BILL SIGNED FOR REMOVING CEMETERIES [1923]
“Bitter Fight Transferred to City Hall in San Francisco by Action of Gov. Richardson
“SACRAMENTO, June 5.-Assembly bill 1361, known as the 'cemetery bill,' which directs that bodies in certain old and abandoned cemeteries in San Francisco may be removed from the cemeteries, has been signed by Governor Richardson, it was announced today at the governor's office.
“It also was announced that the governor has signed Senate bill 585 appropriating $50,000 for building greenhouses at Berkeley for the college of agriculture of the University of California.
“The controversy over the removal of San Francisco's abandoned cemeteries in the Park-Presidio district will be transferred from the legislature to the city hall in San Francisco, as a result of the Governor's approval of the Morris Act, in the belief of local spokesmen for associations favoring and opposing removal.
“Unlike the first Morris Act, which was held unconstitutional on April 27 by the State Supreme Court, the second act, drawn to conform to the Supreme Court opinion, makes the Board of Supervisors, and not the cemetery associations, the judges of whether a cemetery is detrimental to public welfare and therefore removable by legislative action on the part of city authorities.
“In line with the provisions of the new statute, a petition will be filed shortly with the Board of Supervisors, asking for the removal of the cemeteries on the ground that they are detrimental to public welfare, according to spokesmen for improvement associations.
“This petition will be opposed if the fight must be carried to the United States Supreme Court, it was announced yesterday by Miss Margaret B. Curry, 615 Buchanan Street, president of the Cemetery Beutifying and Anti-Removal Association, which has fought removal for twelve years.
“The four cemeteries affected are Calvary, Laurel Hill, Masonic and Odd Fellows, which were abandoned in 1921. They comprise 195 acres in the heart of a populous district, and if subdivided, would make 70 blocks of homes. Thousands of bodies have been removed in the past decade by consent of plot owners, but 120,000 bodies remain.”
Source: San Francisco Examiner, 6 June 1923, page 10.
“ACT FOR CEMETERY REMOVAL [1924]
“The Haight-Fillmore-Divisadero Improvement Club yesterday, petitioned the Board of Supervisors to enact legislation providing for the removal of the four cemeteries within the city limits of San Francisco. The petition, with similar ones from various organizations, was referred to the Public Welfare Committee.”
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 5 December 1923, page 17.
“OWNERS FIGHT CEMETERY BAN [1924]
“Running behind at the rate of $4,000 a year, crippled by law suits among plot owners and directors, the Public Welfare Committee of the Board of Supervisors was told yesterday by Thomas E. Haven, vice president of Laurel Hill Cemetery Association, that if the five-year removal ordinance is passed as to Laurel Hill Cemetery the city of San Francisco will have to undertake the removal of the 34,000 bodies new [sic] there.
“When Assistant Assistant City Attorney Milton Marks reminded Haven that the banks of San Francisco stand ready to lend 'plenty of money on your choice thirty acres of valuable land,' Clark Sargent, a plot owner, interrupted:
” 'They will not; for I own a plot there and I will fight till my last breath and up to the Supreme Court of the United States to retain my title to it. I've got 'em before the State Supreme Court now and I haven't really started yet.'
“Mrs. C.E. Grosjean, reinforcing Sargent, told the committee she is forming a junior cemetery protective association to continue the fight 'for the next 100 years.' Mrs. Leonore Kothe confirmed this.
“Opposition to similar ordinance applying to Calvary Cemetery was voiced by Attorney Louis V. Crowley. Crowley joined with Haven in asking the committee to let Calvary and Laurel Hill cemeteries alone until after the ordinances, passed last Monday, providing for removal of Masonic and Odd Fellows Cemetery have been first tested in the courts.
“At conclusion of five hours debate the committee announced that it would take under advisement what recommendation it would make to the Board of Supervisors next Monday.”
Source: San Francisco Examiner, 25 April 1924, page 10.
“Cemetery Removal Ordinances Okehed [1924]
“Ordinances providing for the removal of Masonic and Odd Fellows' cemeteries within the next five years were okehed [sic] yesterday by Acting Mayor McLeran, following their final passage several days ago by the Board of Supervisors. The bills will go into effect immediately. Attorney George Clark Sargent, representing the Cemetery Protective Organization, stated that court proceedings to prevent the removal of the old burial grounds will be instituted when any of the cemetery removal associations begin the removal of bodies. Bills for the removal of Calvary and Laurel Hill cemeteries in ten years will come up for final action at Monday's meeting of the Board of Supervisors.”
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 3 May 1924, page 13.
“LAUREL HILL IS ORDERED MOVED IN TEN YEARS [1924]
“Supervisors, in a 15 to 1 Vote, Against Retention of Cemetery
“Laurel Hill Cemetery was yesterday ordered removed within ten! years by a fifteen to one vote of the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor James B. McSheehy voted no.
“The question of removal of Calvary Cemetery was held up, after Attorney Louis V. Crowley, representing the Roman Catholic Arch bishop of San Francisco, had placed leading San Francisco medical men on the stand to testify that the cemeteries as they now stand constitute no menace to public health and safety. …
“EXPERTS TESTIFY
“The exports included Drs. John Gallwey, W.B. Coffey. Fred W. Lux, W.W. Wymore and A.P. O'Brien, president of the Board of Health. Each, when cross-examined by Milton Marks, attorney for the city in the cemetery removal matter, stated that they knew of no instance where removal of bodies had led to an epidemic, as claimed by opponents of the removal, but declined to state positively either yes or no on that question.
“Marks read telegrams from health officials of several Eastern cities, denying that epidemics would result from removal of bodies.
“Many citizens were present at the hearing, including Mrs. C.E. Grosjean and Mrs. Leonore Kothe of the Cemetery Protective Association, opposed to the removal measures. …”
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 6 May 1924, page 3.
“CALVARY DEAD REMOVAL IN 10 YEARS LAW [1924]
“Mayor Rolph Allows Ordinance to Become Effective Without His Signature
“Although the ordinance providing for the removal of Calvary Cemetery within ten years was allowed to become a law last night by Mayor Rolph without his signature, the people of San Francisco will be given an opportunity at the next general election in November to decide whether or not, they are in favor of the policy of cemetery removal.
“In a communication to be sent to the Board of Supervisors today, the Mayor states that in view of the serious nature of the question, he believes an expression should be had from the general public.
“FAVORS POPULAR VOTE
“He declares that 'one of the basic principles of popular government is to give the people a voice in important matters which directly concern them. And no one will gain-say the fact that the removal of the cemeteries is one of the most important problems confronting San Francisco today.'
“The Mayor declared it was his intention to prepare the necessary, legislation at once to place the entire proposition on the ballot. He asserted that, his authority to place, the proposition on the ballot is conveyed by the city charter in a provision that matters of policy mạy thus be given by the chief executive to the electorate for a decision.
“REMOVAL ORDINANCES LAW
“Ordinances for the removal of Laurel Hill, Odd Fellows and Masonic cemeteries were recently finally acted upon by the Board of Supervisors, and approved by Acting Mayor Ralph McLeran, who occupied the Mayor's chair during the absence of Mayor Rolph. This left the Calvary ordinance the only one to be considered.
“All four ordinances became law after midnight last night. Whether or not the Board of Supervisors, in case of vote of the people against cemetery removal, would repeal the ordinances. or otherwise take cognizance of the vote, would rest with the Board. The ordinances are now law, and the vote of the people would not repeal them. A vote of the board would be necessary to repeal them.”
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 7 June 1924, page 3.
[1924]
“The following are the rechecked semi-official returns of San Francisco on the city charter amendments:
”…43. Repeal Cemetery removal — Yes, 71,065 [,] No, 64,063”
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 7 November 1924, page 3.
“Cemetery Removal To Be Issue Again [1925]
“Way Reported Open for Proposal on Ballot
“Cemetery removal, defeated at the last San Francisco election, will be an issue again in the November election, it became known yesterday at the City Hall. George Skaller of the Civic League of Improvement Clubs and one of the leaders in the former campaign, was said to have succeeded in bringing the matter to the fore.
“It also became known that the proposal next time will call for the removal of only the Laurel Hill, Masonic and Odd Fellows' cemeteries, excluding the Calvary Cemetery. A meeting was held in the office of Garret W. McEnerney, it was reported, at which opposition to the cemetery removal was eliminated in so far as Archbishop Hanna is concerned. The names of six Supervisors are required to place the matter on the ballot.”
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 28 August 1925, page 17.
“Cemetery Removal [vote] [1925]
“Laurel Hill “Yes…49,977 “NO …56,571
“Masonic “Yes…49,925 “NO …55,403
“Odd Fellows “Yes…49,416 “NO …55,376”
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 15 November 1925, page 6.
“CEMETERIES REMOVAL IS URGED BEFORE SUPERVISORS [1926]
“Civic Workers' Delegation Makes Report on Beautification Proposals.
“The only way in which to beautify the city's cemeteries is to completely remove them, members of the Board of Supervisors were told yesterday by a large delegation of civic workers gathered to discuss the proposed cemetery beautification project.
“The meeting included the Police, Public Welfare and Health committees of the board and it was expected that several plans would be presented providing definite beautification.
“Instead the lobby made it known that a preponderance of sentiment favored removal of the four cemeteries-Calvary, Masonic, Odd Fellows and Laurel Hill-within the city limits.
“TO PREPARE REPORT
“Consequently the Supervisors decided that the only solution is the presentation of one definite plan and in order to accomplish this a subcommittee was appointed to make an exhaustive investigation upon which to return a report to the three supervisorial committees jointly.
” 'We can no sooner compel the cemeteries to build fences and undertake beautification,' said W.W. Watson, representing the Civic League of Improvement Clubs, 'than we could ask a neighbor to remodel his house because we do not like the looks of it. Furthermore, it is unfair to ask outsiders to give funds for the cemetery beautification. It is obvious the cemeteries have no funds with which to carry out such work and the only solution seems removal of them.'
“HIS VIEWS AUGMENTED
“George W. Gerhard of the same organization and Chester W. Williamson of the Fillmore Merchants' Improvement Association augmented Watson's views.
“One woman in the lobby urged cemetery removal because she said the Laurel Hill Cemetery 'was a rendezvous for bootleggers.'
“Representatives of each of the four cemetery associations aired their positions in the matter.
“James W. Harris, secretary of the Odd Fellows' Association, said that only 5000 of the 40,000 graves in that cemetery were being kept up individually, and that the association has no funds with which to care for the others, because of no perpetual care provision in the original purchase of plots.
“PLANS FOR BEAUTIFICATION
“Frank P. Deering said that steps for beautification of Laurel Hill were under way through sale of the Parker-avenue frontage and proposed establishment of a gasoline service station at the corner of Presidio avenue and California street.
“Andrew Burke, representing Archbishop Hanna, stated that $10,000 had already been expended for beautification of Calvary Cemetery and that additional money would be spent.
“R.M.J. Armstrong of the Masonic Association said that while the association had no funds for beautification, about 6000 of the 19,292 bodies in the cemetery had been removed since 1900.
“NAMED ON COMMITTEE
“The committee appointed includes Supervisors McSheehy, Gallagher and Hayden, City Engineer O'Shaughnessy, City Attorney O'Toole, Superintendent of Parks McLaren and representatives of the cemetery associations.
“The League of Civic Improvement Clubs asked representations, but its delegates were reminded that their organization favored only removal, and, therefore, had no place on the beautification committee.”
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 5 March 1926, page 3.
“Cemetery Removals Approved by Women [1928]
“The San Francisco Center of the California League of Women Voters yesterday indorsed the work for the removal of bodies from Odd Fellows and Masonic cemeteries to make way for a group of new buildings for St. Ignatius College.”
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 24 June 1928, page 62.
“People's Safety Valve. [1928]
“It Surely Has Been A Long Time.
“Editor The Chronicle—Sir: I read in Tuesday's Chronicle that the perennial question of the removal of Masonic and Odd Fellows cemeteries is again before the Board of Supervisors.
“Your reporter assumes that when the ordinance is passed these cemeteries will be moved. The young gentleman must be a stranger in San Francisco, or he would remember that for the past fifteen years various Boards of Supervisors have been busily engaged passing cemtery removal ordinances. And the cemeteries are still there.
“As I gaze into the future I see countless Boards of Supervisors industriously passing cemetery removal ordinances. And the cémeteries will still be there.
“LEONORE KOTHE,
“Vice-President, Cemetery Protective Organization.
“San Francisco, June 27, 1928.”
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 29 June 1928, page 28.
“People's Safety Valve. [1928]
“Wants Dead to Rest Undisturbed.
“Editor The Chronicle-Sir: It is not yet four years since a large majority of the people of San Francisco voted to let the dead rest in their graves. That our Board of Supervisors should so soon again endeavor to pass another cemetery removal ordinance seems incredible, for the will of the people was vigorously expressed at the election of November 4, 1924.
“Let the Mayor veto this lawless measure of our present Board of Supervisors, designed to confiscate the graves of the pioneers. Let the Mayor see to it that our old cemeteries are preserved for breathing places, for fire breaks, for children's playgrounds, for a chain of memorial parks.
“N.O. CURTIS. San Jose, June 30, 1928.”
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 9 July 1928, page 18.
“SUIT FILED TO HALT REMOVAL OF CEMETERY [1929]
“Fourteen Odd Fellow Lot Holders Ask for Injunction
“Charging that the cemetery removal ordinance of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors last July is 'unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory,' in violation of the United States Constitution, fourteen lotholders of the Odd Fellows' Cemetery filed an injunction suit in the Federal District Court yesterday against the directors of the Odd Fellows' Cemetery Association.
“The suit seeks to enjoin the directors from disinterring bodies under the ordinance. By a coincidence. the case was automatically assigned to Federal Judge Louderback for hearing, but as he is a high officer in the Odd Fellows' order, he is expected to disqualify himself. The suit is similar to that filed last year by Masonic Cemetery lotholders.
“INDICATES INJUNCTION
“Judge Kerrigan, in the Masonic case, last month indicated that he would enjoin removal of the cemetery and implied that the ordinance was in fact discriminatory, in that it was directed at the Masonic and Odd Fellows' burial ground, but not against other adjacent cemeteries. No action has been taken in that case yet.
“The present suit brings up the point and adds that the Odd Fellows' Cemetery is not a menace to health, welfare or safety of the city. that the association was formed in 1879. and that its removal under the ordinance would deprive lot holders of property without due process of law. The value of the cemetery is placed at $1,000,000.
“SUIT AGAINST DIRECTORS
“The suit is brought against the association and directors: H.E. Fischbeck, Theodore Dierks Sr., James W. Harris, A. Huber, A.H. Menne. George Freiermuth, E. Schwerin, W.A. Halstead and five John Does. The suit was filed by Attorneys Peter and Richard tum Suden, who make themselves plaintiffs with twelve others, as follows: Dorothea Katz, John E. Medau, Gertrude Peterson, Ethel McGrath, Anna Gruber Loser, Emma Gruber Foley, Louise G., Johanna H. and John Henry Meyer, Marguerite Witmer, Charles Duveneck and Charlotte Gerichten.
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 9 April 1929, page 13.
“Court Denies Review of Crematory Case [1930]
“The Federal Circuit Court yesterday denied a writ of review to lot holders in the Masonic Cemetery seeking reconsideration of the court's recent affirmation of the cemetery removal ordinance of the Board of Supervisors. In 1928 Mary T. Gamage and other lot holders brought an injunction suit in Federal Court against the Masonic Cemetery Association, which was preparing to disinter bodies. Only the United States Supreme Court can now halt the removal.”
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 13 May 1930, page 7.
“CEMETERY CASE IN COURT AGAIN [1930]
“More than a month after the United States Supreme Court upheld by inference the right of the San Francisco Supervisors on the Masonic Cemetery removal, an answer and cross-complaint were filed in Superior courts yesterday by Mrs. Maay [sic][Mary] P. Gamage and fifteen other lot owners, demanding an injunction against city authorities.
“H.W. Hutton, attorney for lot owners, contended he had raised several new points of law not covered in the Federal decisions.
“Theodore Roche, counsel for the cemetery association, replied any injunction was barred by the Supreme Court ruling.
“Mrs. Gamage and her co-plaintiffs sued in Federal courts in 1928 to prevent removal of the cemetery. Judge Kerrigan upheld the ordinance ordering the removal. The Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Kerrigan, and the United States Supreme Court denied a writ of review last October 13.”
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 18 November 1930, page 6.
“People's Safety [1937]
”…Cemetery Removal and the Courts
“Editor The Chronicle-Sir: Referring to the letter in your Safety Valve of May 11, 1937, by Edith Arnoud regarding the ownership of cemetery lots in Laurel Hill:
“In the case of Masonic Cemetery Association vs. Mary Gammage in the United States Circuit Court of Appeal, 38 Fed. (2nd) 950 (opinion written by Judge Curtis D. Wilbur), the court held that a cemetery association in selling lots in a cemetery dedicated to the burial of the dead cannot divest itself of its fee simple ownership of the property regardless of the grant, bargain and sale provision in the cemetery deed. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeal held that a cemetery association under the law can only convey an easement for the interment of the human remains in the cemetery as long as such is conducted as a lawful cemetery. The court held that the legislative body of a city and county can exercise the police power of the State by the passage of an ordinance declaring that the further maintenance of such cemetery is detrimental to public interest, convenience, health, etc., and can compel the removal of all human remains interred in such cemeteries.
“The court confirmed the constitutionality of the statute known as the 'Morris Act of 1923,' under which act, after the passage of an ordinance ordering the abandonment of a cemetery the trustees and lot owners of the cemetery association can themselves arrange within a specified time designated in the ordinance (three years in Laurel Hill) for the removal of the bodies to a cemetery cutside of the city and county of San Francisco.
“The United States Supreme Court confirmed this decision by denial of a writ of certiorari, thus making the decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeal the decision of the United States Supreme Court.
“The Supreme Court of the State of California in the case of Seale vs. Masonic Cemetery (Odd Fellows' Cemetery by stipulation), (217 Cal.) unanimously held that the ordinance as well as the Morris Act of 1923 were constitutional and also confirming that the fee simple of the cemetery properties is always vested in the cemetery association regardless of any conveyance, grant, bargain or sale provision in the cemetery deed.
“The question of the power of the Board of Supervisors to close a cemetery was upheld in 1902 by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Laurel Hill Cemetery and Odd Fellows' Cemetery vs. City and County of San Francisco.
“The statute known as the 'Morris Act of 1923' provides that all removals must be made without any cost to the lot owners. It also provides that, out of the moneys received from the sale of the old cemetery lands, grounds must be acquired for the reinterment of the bodies ordered removed. This act also grants the right of erection of mausoleums and crematories. It provides that perpetual care must be furnished to all lots into which bodies are reinterred and that funds be set aside for that purpose. It also provides for the embellishment and beautification of the cemetery wherein such bodies are reinterred. It is provided further that prior to the commencement by the cemetery association of the removal of the bodies notice must be given to all lot owners after the cemetery association has declared its intention to remove the bodies, and that lot owners have the right within the period of 10 months to remove bodies of their relatives and friends into other cemeteries or dispose of them as they see fit. but at their own expense and only after the expiration of this 19 months' period can the cemetery association proceed with the removal of the balance of the human remains.
“This statute also provides that all monuments remain the property of lot owners to be disposed of by them but that after the expiration of a certain period of time the cemetery association can dispose of all such remaining monuments, which was done in connection with the old Masonic Cemetery as well as the Odd Fellows' Cemetery by turning them over to the city.
“GEORGE W. GERHARD, Secretary Civic League of Improvement Clubs.
“San Francisco, May 14, 1937.”
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 22 May 1937, page 8.
“Laurel Hill's Removal Put Up to Voters [1937]
“Petition Carrying 10,000 Signatures Received By Registrar Collins
“The Laurel Hill Cemetery removal ordinance will be voted on by the people in November, it was indicated yesterday when a referendum petition signed by more than 10,000 voters was received from Registrar Collins by the Board of Supervisors.
“On motion of Supervisor Uhl, author of the cemetery evacuation legislation, City Attorney O'Toole was requested to draw up an ordinance repealing the Laurel Hill measure. Consideration of repeal is mandatory on the board under the new charter, but that it would be defeated without debate was freely predicted.
“BOTH PASSED
“The measure was given final passage March 27. Since that time the board has passed the companion ordinance requiring removal of bodies from the Calvary Cemetery. A disposition on the part of board members to treat both ordinances alike is a factor making repeal of the first measure improbable. …”
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 8 June 1937, page 3.
“Civic League of Improvement, —- and Associations of San Francisco.
“Take This With You to the Polls…
“5. REFERENDUM — CEMETERY REMOVAL. Do you favor Ordinance enacted by Supervisors for removal of Laurel Hill Cemtery? Hebrew Cemeteries removed years ago: Masonic and Odd Fellows recently; and Calvary is preparing now to move: therefore, no exception should be made of Laurel Hill.
“VOTE YES.”
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 30 October 1937.
“Stage All Set For Removal Of Cemeteries [1937]
“Ending a year's consideration, the Board of Supervisors got the Calvary and Laurel Hill cemetery removal ordinances behind them yesterday.
“Opposition on the board collapsed when Supervisor McSheehy withdrew his motion for reconsideration of the measure affecting Calvary. It had been passed the preceding Monday.
“The measures require evacuation of the two cemeteries within three years. …”
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 18 May 1937, page 3.
“Proposition No. 5.–Laurel Hill Cemetery Removal. Yes—82,983. No—65,920.” [1937]
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 19 November 1937, page 7.
Back to top
