1854 Trustee Committee on Statuary: Legal Opinion on Statuary Appropriation (page 06)

German and French languages in connection
with the other branches. Attorney Genl. vs. Earl
of Mansfield 2. Russell 513. And in this
country, the Administratrix of "a good estate"
though allowed to expend nearly $358.75 in fu-
neral expenses, the principal part of which was
for a tomb stone over his body, was not allowed
a small sum paid for the painting a por-
trait of the deceased. 14 S. & R. M'Glinsey's
appeal. Had his monument borne upon its
side in bas relief the features, or figure of the
deceased, there can be no doubt that it would
have been allowed.

Reasoning from the analogy of such decisions
we might well say, that it by no means follows
as a matter of course, that because you have
properly spent money for a Chapel in which
statues may be becomingly placed you may
go on to provide statues for the Chapel. The
Chapel as one thing is complete, and the pur-
chase of statuary, if a proper application of
the trust fund at all, must be an indepen-
dent and separate act and exercise of your
power. It is worth noting here, that Judge
Story in 1843, in a written report on the sub-
ject of contemplated improvements at the Cemet-
ery, alludes particularly to the use of the proposed
Chapel for the purpose of a shelter for busts and