The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-07-03

recommended that the permit be granted.
But owing 20 several objections raised on
the part OF the citizens of Brookland. de-
cision in the matter was delayed until
both sides could be heard.
The first speaker for the Brookland rep
resentatives was Rev. z. r. West who
was introduced TO the Commissioners as a
property holder and as pastor OF one of
the Brookland churches. He stated that
cemeteries were everywhere recognized as
being injurious to the health of the COM
munity. IL they were not SO regarded the
restrictions placed upon them by law would
not have been made. Mr.. West argued that
the same law should apply TO Brookland
that applies to Washington, that being
that no new cemetery should be estab
iished without the consent of the Com
missioners. and that their consent should
be withheld when the proposed cemetery
was within geo YARDS OF any dwelling.
Following Mr. West, Mrs Nj Il. Mann
desired that the whole matter should be
left over TO await the decision of Congress
on her bill relating to the burial of dead
in the Episcopal establishment.
Irwin b. Linton then took the floor and
presented an argument against the grant
ing of the permit. He showed that James
l.. Sherwood was property holder ada
cent to the monastery grounds, and that
ton of the law. and that well on his
place would most certainly be coltami-
mated by the burial of the dead in the
proposed location. He set forth that the
lay of the land and the composition of
the soil were such that water from the
burial ground would naturally drain into
The said well. Mr.. Linton also said that
IL the permit were granted it would estab
fish bad precedent. as there were other
l. rf.,, i
who would want similar cemeteries, and
that, as Mr.. West had pointed out. their
suburb would be surrounded by burying
grounds The point was also urged that
the monastery grounds were exempt from
taxation, as being devoted to educational
purposes, and that as between the appli-
cants and the property holders who were
protesting against the permit there WIS
no ground for comparison.
In replying TO the argument of Mr.. Lin
ton. John j. Horgan was the first speaker,
and he severely denounced the method
employed in calling the Citizens Associa-
ton together, declaring that he and others
did not receive notices of the meeting at
which action WAS taken against the grant
ing of the permit to the monastery.
Attorney Vincent A. Sheehy followed,
entering general denial TO all the asser-
tions, statements, and arguments present.
ed by the other side. He showed that the
monastery was an institution for the edu-
cation of missionaries for work in the
Holy Land. They were resident there but
a little while. four or five years, and that
when they were young, or, at least, in the
prime of life.
AS consequence, the chances for many
deaths at the institution were reduced to
the minimum. 1t was thought that one
or two year would be the average For
these and other reasons they claimed that
the permit should be granted.
Among those present from the Brook
land Citizens Association were John b.
Lord, /. S. Hollidge. E. C. Ford, A. F. Kin
nan, E. Southail. and Hiram j. Penrod.
Those on the oppsite side were: Father
Godfrey Superior of the monastery;
Father Matthew, one OF the instructors;
Father Harmon, priest OF the Brookland
Catholic Church; Prof. p. J. Des Care
rones, Jean f. p Des Garerones, and John
j. Horgan.