1860 Copying Book: Secretary's Letters and Treasurer's Letters, 2005.062.003

43

Boston Jany. 30. 1862

Hon. R. C. Winthrop.

My dear Sir,

I ought ere this to have replied to your punctual and obliging notes of the 16^th and 25^th just, in relation to the lot of the late Arnold F. Welles, besides which I learn, you were at the trouble to call twice at my office. I inferred from the expression on the petition-"son and only surviving child" - although the inference was not a necessary one, that Mr Welles died intestate, leaving but one child; and after learning there was a will, had intended writing you that the affidavit was not the proper course in such cases, when I received your [?]

I have the proper extract from the Records at the Probate office, and therefore need not trouble you to send me a copy of the will, for the purpose of making a record of the special transfer under the operation of the will and in accordance with our by-laws.

This I can make. But if you will send me the deed of the lot, I will endorse thereon the

44

certificate of record.

It is doubtless, as you remark, unusual for one to put on record the evidence of his title, to real estate. This usually becomes apparent from his possession. But it is a matter of great convenience to proprietors to be able to so with reference to lots in our Cemetery, where there are upwards of 3000 proprietors, each of whom has a fee, it is true, but whose interest is limited by, and must be held in subordination to such by-laws as are made by the Trustees. Every lot owner, I think, will see, upon a moment's reflection, how necessary is the proper record of these titles, that the officers and servants of the Corporation may have the requisite knowledge to guide them in their duties, as none of them can be supposed to have so wide an acquaintence with mankind as to remove this necessity.

That George Derby W. is the only surviving child of the late Mr Welles does not appear from the will itself, and, hence, an affidavit, in addition to the record of the clause of the will, might seem to be necessary. Indeed it could be the course in almost every case where there is no documentary evidence at hand. I have no right, as recording officer,

Boston Feby. 7. 1861.

Geo. W^m Bond Esq.

Dear Sir,

I have made the inquiry which you requested of the Committee on Lots: viz for what sum the Corporation will assume perpetual care of lot 1611 in Mt Auburn Cemetery owned by Sarah K. Pierce.

The Committee have had a survey of the lot - have considered the question and instructed me to inform Mrs Pierce through you that will contract for the perpetual care of said lot for two hundred dollars.-

Resp.y your Ob^t Servt

A.J. Coolidge Sec.y

33 School St Boston Feby. 6. 1862

James Hayward Esq.

Dear Sir,

Your application to know for what sum this Cor poration will assume the per petual care of your lot no 840, in Mount Auburn Cemetery, has been duly considered by the Committee on Lots, who are authorized to make all contracts therefor; and they have instructed me to inform you that the Trustees will accept the trust for the sum of three hundred dollars.-

Very resp.y yours

A.J. Coolidge Sec.y Prop^rs Cemetery of Mt Auburn

45

Boston, Feby. 13. 1862

J. C. Bacon Esq

Dear Sir,

In compliance with your request, I send you the accompanying blank form for dona tion for the perpetual care of a lot in Mount Auburn.

In order to ascertain ^^for what sum the Corporation will contract with you for said purpose, a survey will have to made of this lot by the Superintendent, and its condition and character reported to the Com^ee on Lots, who must determine the sum requisite for the purpose.-

If you wish me to have these preliminaries attended to at any time, send me word, and I will put the matter in train for you. There is no expense, except of the sum given & the usual fee for recording.

Very resp.y yours

A.J. Coolidge, Sec.y

Boston, Feby. 13. 1862

R.S. Wade Esq.

Dear Sir,

The claim which you desired me to present to the Com^ee on Lots for land paid for by you at the full price, but not enclosed in your lot, I laid before them last month, in a written statement. I have just received the decision of the Com^ee, which is adverse to your claim.-

You can see the papers in the case, if you will call upon me; and if any injustice has been done you in stating the facts, I doubt not there will be an open ear to your own view. If you are still aggrieved, I suppose an appeal to the Board is your right; if you think it practicable.

I have only to say, that I have endeavored to give the Com^ee a correct statement of the facts, and with fairness to you.

Yours resp.y

A.J. Coolidge Sec.y Mt Au.

46

47

Boston. Feby. 13. 1862

Hon. J. Richardson

Dear Sir,

I have made and sent to the Treasurer two deeds of the passageways, and have notified Mr Wadsworth of the width of passage next to Wade.

The passage next to Packard I have made 70 f. @ 33 1/3 = 23.33 next to Wade 87 f. @ 22 2/9 = 29.33 $52.66

Wade had made a claim of the Corporation, which I need not stop to explain here; but by the decision of the Comm^ee on Lots the claim is disallowed, and I have consequently estimated the space between him and you as 5 f. 8 in wide in front & 5 f. 4 in in rear, measuring from the inside of his curb - which, after deducting the 2 1/2 ft wide which was conveyed to him, leaves 3 f. 2 in. wide in front for you & 2 f. 10 in. in rear, or an average width of 3 feet, which by 29 f. long gives 87 f. This I have asked permission to amend the report to, at 22 2/4 in. per foot or 1/3 of 4/8 - which I trust may be satisfactory to you. - I would not have altered the measurement of it, but for my belief that if the plan which Mr Wadsworth is making shows that width, you would prefer to have your deeds agree.

Very resp.y & truly yours

A.J. Coolidge