Hi.
Will someone tell me how to obtain copies of material from the Library of
Congress?
Thanks, [log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Automatic digest processor" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Recipients of VA-ROOTS digests" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 11:00 PM
Subject: VA-ROOTS Digest - 8 Apr 2006 to 9 Apr 2006 (#2006-61)
> There are 10 messages totalling 577 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
> 1. DNA (9)
> 2. Cemeteries and DNA
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
> at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 02:10:55 -0400
> From: Westview <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: DNA
>
> As a professional archaeologist who has excavated many burials in the
> course
> of my career please let me chime in. Burial grounds are "owned" by the
> people buried in them and their descendants. I put "owned" in quotes
> because it is more in the sense of a private claim to the property as
> opposed to a deeded parcel (although some family plots are contained in
> deeds). They are supposed to be registered with the county Office of
> Revenue as a cemetery, at which point the parcel is permanently placed on
> the tax map and it becomes tax exempt. A cemetery has no assessed value
> and
> cannot be disturbed in any way without a lengthy court process -- even
> then,
> permission is usually denied unless there is a compelling reason.
>
> As Joanne noted, free access must be given to descendants or anyone with a
> "reasonable" interest, e.g. historians, genealogists. This does not mean
> that you can go traipsing into someone's yard unannounced. While
> technically you must always ask permission before entering someone's land,
> if the cemetery is in the middle of nowhere, and the land is not posted No
> Trespassing, it probably won't hurt to go look at it. But, if the land is
> posted or it is in the immediate vicinity of someone's home, you MUST ask
> permission or risk arrest for trespass. Most property owners will give
> you
> permission -- by law they MUST allow you reasonable access if you have a
> legitimate reason for asking it. If they refuse permission you can apply
> to
> the court for access.
>
> It is a violation of state and, in some cases, federal law to violate or
> disturb a burial in anyway. In Virginia (and I believe most states),
> disturbing a grave is a felony. Archaeologists and other professionals
> must apply for permits to excavate burials, and they must show very
> compelling reasons. Short of as part of a full-blown archaeological
> project, permission is rarely granted. In Maryland (where I excavated
> burials), permission is sought through the State's Attorney's office. In
> Virginia it is through the Department of Historic Resources and the court.
> While I can't say for sure, I doubt very much that you would get an
> exhumation order for DNA testing of this sort. Satisfying personal
> curiosity is not considered a compelling reason.
>
> For those interested in reading the laws regarding cemeteries, they may be
> found at the Code of Virginia on-line database
> http://leg1.state.va.us/000/src.htm --- a very useful site for many
> purposes. Search on "burials" or enter the reference number. Pertinent
> to
> this case are:
> 18.2-126 Violation of Sepulture. . .
> 57-27.1 Access to cemeteries located on private property. . .
>
> If it is any consolation, Jim, it is unlikely that anything remains of
> your
> ancestor. Occasionally archaeologists do uncover well-preserved skeletal
> remains, but after almost 25 years in the field I can tell you that that
> is
> the exception. In the overwhelming number of cases it is truly dust to
> dust, with sometimes nary a stain left. While in some cases it has been
> done, and the science is getting better all the time, retrieving DNA from
> even well-preserved skeletons is not as easy as they make it seem on CSI
> et
> al. I wish I could tell you differently, Jim, but you're going to have to
> find your proof another way.
>
> Kathy Liston
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
> at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 07:02:50 -0700
> From: qvarizona <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: DNA
>
> Very interesting information, Kathy; thanks for sharing an archaeologist's
> knowledge. In addition to the website you listed, here's another that I
> found last night. (What ever did we do before Google?)
>
> http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/home.htm
>
> For those too busy to check the site out, The Code of Virginia (§
> 57-27.1) requires, among other things, that, "Owners of private property
> on which a cemetery or graves are located shall have a duty to allow
> ingress and egress to the cemetery or graves by (i) family members or
> descendants of deceased persons buried there; (ii) any cemetery plot
> owner; and (iii) any person engaging in genealogy research . . ." The Code
> does allow the property owner to designate "the frequency of access, hours
> and duration of the access and the access route if no traditional access
> route is obviously visible by a view of the property."
>
> Scroll down to Cemetery Preservation and FAQs for more.
>
> Joanne
>
>
> Westview <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> As a professional archaeologist who has excavated many burials in the
> course of my career please let me chime in. . . .
>
> . . . .For those interested in reading the laws regarding cemeteries, they
> may be found at the Code of Virginia on-line database
> http://leg1.state.va.us/000/src.htm --- a very useful site for many
> purposes. Search on "burials" or enter the reference number. Pertinent to
> this case are:18.2-126 Violation of Sepulture. . .57-27.1 Access to
> cemeteries located on private property. . .
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great
> rates starting at 1¢/min.
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
> at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 10:22:27 -0500
> From: Paul Drake <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: DNA
>
> Kathy is correct, however in all matters where prohibitions are provided
> un=
> der certain circumstances by the law, the ultimate and bottom line
> question=
> (and the one I answered) is "OK, so the law says that, but the landowner
> s=
> ays that under no circumstances will he give me permission to come on the
> p=
> roperty. So what do I do=3F=3F=3F=3F"
>
> The REAL answer, no matter what the law says, is: Go to your lawyer,
> checkb=
> ook in hand, and tell him you want very much to enforce that portion of
> tha=
> t VA law that says the landowner must allow you ingress for a visit to
> that=
> cemetery. The lawyer will say to you, "OK, that is fine, but remember
> tha=
> t we must go to court and prove that what you want to do is 'reasonable'.
> H=
> e further will say, "I will require a retainer, and, of course, that case
> w=
> ill involve more money for me, for witnesses, for court costs and filing
> fe=
> es, several days away from work by you, and likely will take 6 weeks to 6
> y=
> ears before the court will hear your case and render a decision. Shall we
> g=
> o ahead, Mr. Client=3F=3F=3F" Then, you say what=3F=3F=3F=3F=3F=3F
>
> For the short while that I practiced law before opting for a business
> caree=
> r, I had a very good client named Bill. He called me on my car phone one
> m=
> orning and told me that a certain landowner - Mr. George Spradling - was
> si=
> tting atop some important equipment that Bill had left there when the
> lease=
> expired the day before, had locked the gate, and would not let Bill come
> o=
> n the property to recover that equipment. I said, "He has no right to
> keep=
> you out, Bill". He said "But Paul, what do I do about Mr. Spradling's
> sho=
> tgun=3F"
>
> The point is made; some rights are difficult and very costly to enforce.
>
>
> Genealogy without documentation is nothing.
> Paul Drake JD
> Genealogist & Author
> <www.DrakesBooks.com>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: qvarizona
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 9:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [VA-ROOTS] DNA
>
>
> Very interesting information, Kathy; thanks for sharing an
> archaeologist'=
> s knowledge. In addition to the website you listed, here's another that I
> =
> found last night. (What ever did we do before Google=3F)
>
> http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/home.htm
>
> For those too busy to check the site out, The Code of Virginia (=A7
> 57-27=
> .1) requires, among other things, that, "Owners of private property on
> whic=
> h a cemetery or graves are located shall have a duty to allow ingress and
> e=
> gress to the cemetery or graves by (i) family members or descendants of
> dec=
> eased persons buried there; (ii) any cemetery plot owner; and (iii) any
> per=
> son engaging in genealogy research . . ." The Code does allow the property
> =
> owner to designate "the frequency of access, hours and duration of the
> acce=
> ss and the access route if no traditional access route is obviously
> visible=
> by a view of the property."
>
> Scroll down to Cemetery Preservation and FAQs for more.
>
> Joanne
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------
> I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
> It has removed 1979 spam emails to date.
> Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
> Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
> at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 09:42:26 -0700
> From: qvarizona <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: DNA
>
> Paul,
> Point taken.
> FYI: It was the shotgun that convinced me.
> --Joanne
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save
> big.
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
> at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 14:23:45 -0500
> From: Paul Drake <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: DNA
>
> Hi, Bill Davidson. See my comments interlineated below.
>
> Paul,
>
> In these cases, is there much chance , if any, that the person who takes
> th=
> e
> land owner to court will be able to recover his/her expenses/attorney fees
> (assuming, of course, that this person "wins")=3F
>
> *** A plaintiff often can so recover, however that is not true in all
> Sta=
> tes (the attorney will know or learn before he informs the client of that
> p=
> ossibility). Unless there is a contract (or a lease with such terms)
> prov=
> iding for those costs, etc., it becomes the task of the legislatures and
> of=
> the Congress to write such recovery into the law. If they do not, only in
> =
> the very rare cases would a court do so without such legislative
> authority.
>
> It seems that when a property owners association sues a specific
> property=
> owner for violating the
> covenants in a subdivision (for example), then the association can
> typica=
> lly
> recover all of their expenses/fees, in addition to forcing the property
> owner to correct whatever was "wrong" (again, assuming that the
> associati=
> on
> "wins").
>
> **** You hit the target. Agreements, covenants and such as arbitration
> c=
> lauses all are in the nature of "private law"; that is, when there is a
> dif=
> ference between what the agreement says and what the otherwise established
> =
> law may be, the parties ahead of time have agreed to additional or to
> diffe=
> rent provisions that will control when the parties disagree. So, without
> a=
> n agreement - covenant - to that effect, the court will employ the
> principl=
> es of property law and, in a more general sense, will consider the law as
> a=
> whole.
>
> Ican't remember for sure, but I think that this is part of the
> Code of Virginia, and expenses can be recovered at least via a lien on
> th=
> e
> specific property owner's property (if not by some more direct means,
> lik=
> e a
> judge's order....but I am not sure if the "judge's order technique" is
> ev=
> er
> employed....or if it is even legal). I don't know if the "legal battle"
> =
> to
> gain access to a grave would be handled in a similar fashion or not,
> sinc=
> e I
> don't know that the state code covers that situation in a similar
> fashion=
> .
>
> **** Your questions require that we look to an ages-old notion in the
> la=
> w. Always, we have either surrendered our positions or settled our
> differe=
> nces by agreement, court decision, or by "might" - arm wrestling, duels,
> fi=
> st fights, shotguns, and eeny meeny miney moe. The threat of any of such
> s=
> ometimes works very well, as witnessed by Mr. Spradling's shotgun.
>
> So, we must provide remedies at law, and society strives to do so.
> Notice=
> what we did by processioning. It was but a very effective extension of
> the=
> law, and as such prevented decisions through either violence or court
> acti=
> on. By having neighbors and other responsible parishioners, along with the
> =
> owners, walk or ride the property lines, and as differences arose between
> o=
> wners about the location of a line, such were settled on the spot with
> nith=
> er courts nor violence. How=3F All knew that should this church based
> proce=
> dure not solve their differences, they had to surrender their position or
> l=
> eave the matter to courts. Then, as now, courts cost money..
>
> **** So, all that said, no matter the nature of the differences or the
> st=
> atutes or private law in place, we always have had mechanisms to
> ultimately=
> settle our differences. The courts, as you suggested, have extensions of
> =
> their orders through Sheriff's enforcements their orders, liens,
> executions=
> of judgments, attachments, garnishments, the threat of jail, censure by
> th=
> e church (early), and all such like.
>
> How does this all apply to your questions=3F The principles named apply,
> n=
> o matter what a "law" may say, and where parties refuse to use the
> settleme=
> nt tools/methods provided ("obey the law", as we say), they should plan on
> =
> visiting a courtroom. The courts WILL settle the matter one way or
> another=
> .
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill Davidson
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------
> I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
> It has removed 1979 spam emails to date.
> Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
> Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
> at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 15:13:41 -0400
> From: Bill Cross <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: DNA
>
> Paul's point is well-taken.
>
> There is little way to make someone be reasonable. My father's mother's =
> people will not cooperate with me in any aspect of my genealogical =
> research. Whatever happened to alienate the families nearly 100 years =
> ago had not changed much 10 years ago when I tried to reach out to them =
> for some basic information. No sale. Nada. Niente.
>
> Bill Cross
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
> at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 15:05:00 -0500
> From: Paul Drake <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: DNA
>
> Maybe some of us could approach those folks for you, Bill
> =3F=3F=3F=3F=3F=3F=3F=3F=3F
>
> Many of our ladies on this list are gentile to the extreme and very
> knowled=
> geable in questioning folks............. =3F=3F=3F
>
>
> Subject: Re: [VA-ROOTS] DNA
>
>
> Paul's point is well-taken.
>
> There is little way to make someone be reasonable. My father's mother's
> p=
> eople will not cooperate with me in any aspect of my genealogical
> research.=
> ....had not changed much 10 years ago when I tried to reach out to them
> fo=
> r some basic information. ....
> Bill Cross
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------
> I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
> It has removed 1979 spam emails to date.
> Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
> Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
> at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 14:29:34 -0700
> From: Langdon Hagen-Long <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: DNA
>
> If access to a private cemetery is denied by the owner, the genealogist
> has to go [after negotiating, I hope] to the Clerk of Circuit Court, very
> briefly explain the problem, ask to be put on the docket, fill out a form,
> which includes a request for reimbursement of expenses, and pay about $35.
> Depending on the court, the clerk will probably offer the genealogist
> several choices for a court date, and then set the date. The court takes
> care of sending subpoenas. The genealogist has to appear in court, and
> explain the denial of access to a judge. The burden of proving that the
> genealogist's request is unreasonable is on the cemetery owner. The owner
> would have to come up with a very good reason for denying access, such
> as: "he wanted to come at 3:00 AM with 50 people". The judge can do
> "what is fair", including ordering reimbursement for expenses, if it was
> requested. If he owner states that the genealogist was a real jerk when
> *demanding* access, and the judge
> believes him, the judge may not feel like ordering compensation, which is
> a matter of his discretion. [civility counts!]
>
> Law defines "reasonable" as what a reasonable man would consider
> normal behavior, such as entering a cemetery for the purpose of examining
> graves, recording dates, saying a prayer, leaving flowers, taking
> pictures, maintaining the cemetery, etc. But this law only requires that
> the *access* be reasonable, not the *reason* for visiting. Asking to
> bring 50 people at 3:00 AM, or even 6:00 AM may not be a reasonable
> access. Requesting a noon visit, for the purpose of research is
> reasonable. The law does not require a genealogist to explain his reasons
> for visiting to the cemetery owner, although it would certainly be
> advantageous and reasonable to do so. The law already states that
> anything falling under "visiting graves, maintaining the gravesite or
> cemetery, or conducting genealogy research" falls within the rights
> allowed. The genealogist only has to give, "reasonable notice", in
> advance. Again, "reasonable" is whatever an average person would consider
> right. [ie
> How much advance notice would you want?] Legally, 24 hours has been
> considered reasonable, even though courtesy required more. The landowner
> does not have to be reasonable. He can say, "Come back in 10 months, and
> I'll give you an hour", which is within his rights. If you plan to drive
> on a road on private property, you must have the owners *written
> permission*, since driving is excluded as a right. The landowner is immune
> from "slip and fall" suits, but is not immune from prosecution or law
> suits for misbehavior, which is explicitly explained in paragraph a.
>
> A homeowner or cemetery does not have the authority to allow a
> genealogist or scientist to disturb a grave. Graves are under the
> authority of city, county, and state government. Only the government can
> issue a permit for something like probing for DNA. In fact, beware - a
> permit is usually needed for even repair, planting, or painting a fence,
> in a city or county cemetery. The cost of permits for this type of
> activity, is still about $25, I think, but does not cover digging or
> probing graves]. A congenial property owner might grant a genealogist
> permission to dig, not being aware that he doesn't have the right to grant
> that permission.
>
> I think most problems can be solved by the Common Sense Rule: Be
> *Reasonable* and then think about how you would want to be treated - which
> usually requires going beyond *reasonable* and what is required by law.
> Offering the owner a history of the land, or offering to rake the area
> will work better than demanding access.
>
> Langdon Hagen-Long
>
>
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
> at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 16:42:11 -0500
> From: Paul Drake <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: DNA
>
> All true, Langdon, but all should remember that in the last analysis, no
> ma=
> tter what a court says, landowners sometimes stand at the gate with a
> shotg=
> un, in which case, we often have to seek enforcement of the rulings by the
> =
> sheriff, bailiff, or other appropriate member of the government. Remember
> t=
> oo that those procedures vary from state to state, even though all end up
> i=
> n a courtroom when all else fails. As I mentioned, the Jack Daniels,
> candy,=
> and a Bible may avoid all of that.
>
> The law very often is not exercised the way the laws, regulations and
> rules=
> intended.
>
> Genealogy without documentation is nothing.
> Paul Drake JD
> Genealogist & Author
> <www.DrakesBooks.com>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Langdon Hagen-Long
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 4:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [VA-ROOTS] DNA
>
>
> If access to a private cemetery is denied by the owner, the genealogist
> h=
> as to go [after negotiating, I hope] to the Clerk of Circuit Court, very
> b=
> riefly explain the problem, ask to be put on the docket, fill out a form,
> w=
> hich includes a request for reimbursement of expenses, and pay about $35.
> =
> Depending on the court, the clerk will probably offer the genealogist
> sever=
> al choices for a court date, and then set the date. The court takes care
> of=
> sending subpoenas. The genealogist has to appear in court, and explain
> th=
> e denial of access to a judge. The burden of proving that the
> genealogist'=
> s request is unreasonable is on the cemetery owner. The owner would have
> t=
> o come up with a very good reason for denying access, such as: "he
> wanted=
> to come at 3:00 AM with 50 people". The judge can do "what is fair",
> incl=
> uding ordering reimbursement for expenses, if it was requested. If he
> owne=
> r states that the genealogist was a real jerk when *demanding* access, and
> =
> the judge
> believes him, the judge may not feel like ordering compensation, which
> i=
> s a matter of his discretion. [civility counts!]
>
> Law defines "reasonable" as what a reasonable man would consider
> nor=
> mal behavior, such as entering a cemetery for the purpose of examining
> grav=
> es, recording dates, saying a prayer, leaving flowers, taking pictures,
> mai=
> ntaining the cemetery, etc. But this law only requires that the *access*
> =
> be reasonable, not the *reason* for visiting. Asking to bring 50 people
> at=
> 3:00 AM, or even 6:00 AM may not be a reasonable access. Requesting a
> noo=
> n visit, for the purpose of research is reasonable. The law does not
> requi=
> re a genealogist to explain his reasons for visiting to the cemetery
> owner,=
> although it would certainly be advantageous and reasonable to do so. The
> =
> law already states that anything falling under "visiting graves,
> maintainin=
> g the gravesite or cemetery, or conducting genealogy research" falls
> within=
> the rights allowed. The genealogist only has to give, "reasonable
> notice"=
> , in advance. Again, "reasonable" is whatever an average person would
> cons=
> ider right. [ie
> How much advance notice would you want=3F] Legally, 24 hours has been
> cons=
> idered reasonable, even though courtesy required more. The landowner
> does=
> not have to be reasonable. He can say, "Come back in 10 months, and I'll
> =
> give you an hour", which is within his rights. If you plan to drive on a
> ro=
> ad on private property, you must have the owners *written permission*,
> sinc=
> e driving is excluded as a right. The landowner is immune from "slip and
> fa=
> ll" suits, but is not immune from prosecution or law suits for
> misbehavior,=
> which is explicitly explained in paragraph a.
>
> A homeowner or cemetery does not have the authority to allow a
> genealog=
> ist or scientist to disturb a grave. Graves are under the authority of
> cit=
> y, county, and state government. Only the government can issue a permit
> fo=
> r something like probing for DNA. In fact, beware - a permit is usually
> ne=
> eded for even repair, planting, or painting a fence, in a city or county
> ce=
> metery. The cost of permits for this type of activity, is still about
> $25,=
> I think, but does not cover digging or probing graves]. A congenial
> prope=
> rty owner might grant a genealogist permission to dig, not being aware
> that=
> he doesn't have the right to grant that permission.
>
> I think most problems can be solved by the Common Sense Rule: Be
> *Reas=
> onable* and then think about how you would want to be treated - which
> usual=
> ly requires going beyond *reasonable* and what is required by law.
> Offering=
> the owner a history of the land, or offering to rake the area will work
> be=
> tter than demanding access.
>
> Langdon Hagen-Long
>
>
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
> =
> at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/305 - Release Date: 4/8/2006
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------
> I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
> It has removed 1979 spam emails to date.
> Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
> Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
> at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 20:42:13 -0500
> From: Paul Drake <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Cemeteries and DNA
>
> The several comments and questions I have received this evening pursuant
> to
> the DNA conversations cause me to think that a general rule for
> genealogists
> relating to the application of the law is appropriate.
>
> Many have been the great thinkers, philosophers, judges and lawyers who
> have
> believed and written that the law is a measure of the desires.needs of our
> society, and is equally a reflection of our vision of how we are and
> should
> be.
>
> The result is that across the centuries there have been but precious few,
> if
> any, commands or prohibitions of our law, no matter the source, that have
> not been debated, violated, amended, confirmed or overturned. As the
> views
> of our people have changed, so too has the law been adjusted.
>
> Thus it is that, as Langdon has noted, the VA Legislature (and most other
> States, as well) has rather recently set forth procedures by which we may
> move to and fro cemeteries located on private land. Doubtless there are
> but
> few variations in those procedures that have YET occurred, but we may be
> sure that as our attitudes in such matters change, so too will those
> rules.
>
> As researchers we must always assume that what we think was the conduct
> and
> the prevailing law of the deep past likely was often violated and then
> confirmed, amended or simply abandoned.
>
> No better example may be found, I suspect, but that of the laws of VA of
> the
> middle half of the 17th Century that required attendance at church every
> Sunday, the punishment for violation of which often being harsh fines and
> even jail time.
>
> But, notice how few courts' orders or other records reveal prosecutions
> for
> violations of those edicts. Considering that there were likely something
> in
> excess of 300,000 folks in the VA Colony in the period 1665-1685, the
> absence of such reports can only reveal that many were the violations that
> went unnoticed or ignored.
>
> In short, without specific proof, do not presume that the conduct of your
> ancestors was in accordance with "the letter of the law". It often was,
> but
> surely always was NOT always.
>
> Genealogy without documentation is nothing.
> Paul Drake JD
> Professional Genealogist & Author
> <www.DrakesBooks.com>
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------
> I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
> It has removed 1979 spam emails to date.
> Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
> Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
> at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of VA-ROOTS Digest - 8 Apr 2006 to 9 Apr 2006 (#2006-61)
> ************************************************************
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> This message scanned for viruses by CoreComm
>
>
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
|
