Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1869-06-03


''outrage" was indorsed by the Board of Man.
ayers. That board say in reference to this
matter:
'Mr. King was well known TO the treasurer
as gentleman in whom he had the most un-
bounded confidence, and one who mad al ways
treated him as gentleman, and who had never
IN any manner cast the slightest imputation
upon his honesty or veracity. On the other
hand, Mr.. Corcoran was never denied a request
that he made for books or any thing else, until,
having put TO the treasurer q direct question as
10 whether certain lot was paid tor, and re-
eeived an equallv direct and positive answer
he refused TO sign the deed therefore until he
(mr. Corcoran) had examined the books to see
n II Were 50 or not"
And now we come to the last charge .fulIy
sustained" which Is as follows:
l6. II charge that deed OF trust on real estate
given for money loaned. (for which ind NO
authority IN the books,) amounting to $4,000,
was not put on record for some fou rteen months
after the note fell due, and that OF eight acres
purchased IN 1S65 for q, GOO, part of the tract
three aud quarter acres) was omitted in the
conveyance to the company. OF this land
mary lots have been sold, and msny persons
buried in IL. Neither OF these errors would
have been brought to light but for my searching
examination"
The only date mentioned here is 1865, al
which time Mr.. Corcoran was the only one of
the present managers who held the position.
He, no doubt, as well as the other managers at
mentioned TO the Attorney of the Company,
having full confidence in his legal skill.
Here, then, are the ten "charges' on: of
twenty -four, "1ully sustained - and what is in
them Five Of them are mere charges Of want
OF system against the managers, without spec
ifyIng how much, IL any, blame attaches to tue
present board (Mr. Corcoran having been in
the board longer than the rest would have to
bear the largest share:) three don't deserve the
name of charges, because they are only com.
plants that majority of the board acted in
opposition to the wishes Of the minority; and
two are charges against the superintendent
which the public and the lot holders can ap.
praise at their proper value. Yet, in the face
OF these glaring facts, we are teld through the
newspapers that ''mos, OF the charges are sus-
tained." How long would such charges, so
sustained, stand in a court OF justice!
The committee very properly ignore "charges''
land g. Whether they, as well as No. %, de-
serve the epithetS "frivolous and uncharitable,"
used IN the STAR Of the 26.h ult., LEI the reader
judge. Here they are:
"i. The superintendent has book. tha. he has
not yet produced, or how could he furnish the
secre,ary's books He has admitted 70 me that
fuses 70 let me see It."
sc. The superiutendents annual salary was
originally 500; IL has been increased of late to
Si,2OV In addition to this, several gratuitles
have been voted 70 him by the lot-hslders, IS 0
for extra services, cemetery lot worth as
muen more, and an increase of salary both to
hfm and the secretary, to date back d We months
In addition 10 this, he received, until receutly
All the fees for sodding, planting, setting bound
aries. cleaning monuments, and other perquis.
ties, which must have Amounted to a very
large sum, greatly exceeding the receipts Of the
CemeteTy Company fer all burial charges
.S3. TO excite an interest, and create a sym.
nf {, no Inth
the superintendent has represented TO them
that his salary Is inadequate to the support of
MS Isrs large ,y family; wnen it is well Known to
owner OF more than a dozen houses renting tor
upwards Of 5000 per annum-all acquired
during his superintendence."
In reference TO this latter charge" the com.
mIttee say: "The testimony shows that Mr.
Bfnnd0n icds in possession Of fce houses prerious
TO has connection tcih tae Cemetery, and that in
the acquisition Of the others there is no tesf.
M ny sufficient to shoa7 The interpolation Of III.
funds for that purpose"
Mr.. Bluudon himself states in Ais evidence
that he had nve houses before he went to the
Cemetery; explains how he acq quired others
by obtaining money from building associa-
fions, and applying his rents, with what he
could save frem his salary as Superintendent
They say: ''Charges Nos. 3 and IL have been
satisfactorily explained" so we won waste
time with those. No. is q complaint that the
managers paid 81, 30 for q map which did not
show the number of square feet in each lot
The Committee regard the map as being Of Lit.
tie use without the dimensions marked ON 1t.
The evidence shows that the Board (of which
Mr.. Corcoran was a member) authorized the
contract to be made for the map without speci.
tying anything about dimensions or areas, and
that the attorney Of the company contracted &C.
cordingly. The Managers say in reference to
this:
"Plowman L Co.'S offer and contract was to
make survey and plot Of the Csmetsry, TO in.
clude all The burial lots, paths, avenues, ter
tree. This offer was accepted, with the CON.
currence Of Mr.. Corcoran, and q contract made
accordingiy Neither the offer nor contract
the lots, and therefore It was not exacted."
Then we have this charge:
18th. Has not the Superintendent At various
times had work done outside OF the Cemetery.
In which he employed the hands Of the Com.
pany and used the material OF the Company,
WITHOUT AUTHoRlTY2"
The committee say: 'sThe facts are as sta ted,
but the practics was permitted with out official
action thereon;" but they do not say, what ap.
pears from the evidence, that q proper return
was made for such work and material. No. 10,
they say, is not borne ont By the evidence, so
We can drop that without further notice.
"l1th. ask the committee to examine the
record OF the Board OF Managers, and see
whether they do not show that for nine years
in succession there was not Q meeting OF the
lot-hoiders, REG uired by the charter to be held
annually, and not q meeting OF the Board Of
Managers, required monthiy, for over fifty con.
secutive months; and whether toere were not
other numerous failures OF both, sufficient 10
Justify the allegation that nearly or quite the
entire management OF the Cemetery was gwen
mp to the Superintendentr'
The committee say: s'Sustained, with the ex.
ception that Of the over fifty consecutive
months the committee ind forty.two as the
longest interval" This, like some OF the other
charges, Affects the former managers mainly,
and goes to show Q want Of interest in the lot.
holders. No. Is affects the Secretary, and the
committee give his sxp;anahon ofths matter.
No. % 10 set down ~ sustained with "but''
The following questions and answers will
"Qwslsoas prepeGadsd br ne hsscsfiqotino Con.
ssistes 70 the Board a AGsagers. 90
Z. Why did the Beard refuse TO allow Mr.
Oorcofan TO remove bodies 70 b10 lot which had
been inferred In an obscure place3 7..-Ili
g. Would IL haYo been contrary to precedent,
even IL the Company had got no vault rent for
them, provided m paid the expenses. ~
9. Did not his pfedecessor exercise the power
OF femtfting such charges In one or more in.
stancesl II sos why not Mr. Oorcoran. 3Zaa
II. Why, In he caoe Of tho child Femoved 70
bis lot. did the Board demand Of Mr.. Coecoran
The payment Of Lhe barial fees In adpance, when
lot. holders In several instances were allowed
to bury thsir dead when their notes for lots