New-York tribune., 1878-12-09
THE WHISTLER-RUSKIN SUIT
A TRIAL FULL OF ABsURDITIEs.

action against Mr.. Ruskin for libel was concluded
yesterday, and a most extraordinary trial 1t was
1t grew cut of exhibition of certain pictures of
Mr. Whstler's in the GrOsvenOr Gallery in the Sum-
mer of 1877. OF these Mr.. Ruskin wrote as follows
| in the July number Of FOrs CldUiqera:
For Mr. Whister's sake and for the protection Of
the purchaser Sir Conts Lndsav ought not to have adj
mltted into the GrosvenOr Gallery works In which the
Ine asiect OF WllIu imposture nave seen ana neau
pected 10 hear cOXcOmb ask 200 guineas for Ringing
pot OF paint in the publics face.
On this Mr. Whistler brought his action, laying
| his damages at $4,000 Mr.. RuskIn pleaded in de-
fence that whatever he had said a fair and
bona tde criticism on pictures exposed for public
view, aud therefore privileged. A British jury
have given Mr, Whistler, an American artist, a YER
dict, with damages amounting to one farthng.
This is not satisfactory result for Mr. Whistler
or Dir. RuSkn each of whom has to pay his own
costs. nor for the public which cares for art and
art criticism, for the much larger public which
believes, with Lord ErskIne, that the great aim
and end of the British Constitution is to get twelve
men into jury box. The jury says, in effect that
Mr.. Ruskn's criticism was a libel, but that Mr..
Whistler Is not entitled to compensation for
beng hbcled. They appear to have reached
this latter conclusion by two processes They
thought Dir. RuslIn honestly meant what he said,
and having had some Of Nj. Whstlers pictures
submitted to their inspection, they agreed with
Mr.. Ruskius estimate of them. This is my infer
ehce of course, and it may be that state 1t too
strongly. 1t may seem, also, to bear hard on Mr..
Whistler. But to my mind it bears hard on the
jury. This is the feature in the trial which i'm
presses me most strongly. 1t is a case for such
strong language that Mr. Ruskin himself ought to
be called in to do Justice to it. To allow jury of
cheesemongers and pastry cooks to sit in judgment
tba and Iali Of =
nothing less than an ndgnity to art and a mOckery
of justice.
If thouCht as meanly Of the pictures in ques-
ton a. Mr.. RuskIn does. should say the same
thing. Mr. Ruskin himself. doubt not, would say
it. Mr.. Whstler's counsel-able men certainly
must at this time be convinced of the mistake they
made IN conducting their clients cause. The Judge
who tried it clearly intimated-though at too late
period to be Of that tho pictures ought never
to have been brought into court. or the issue made
to depend on their merits demerits There was
one and only one question properly triable which
was this: admitting for the moment Mr. Whstlers
paintings 10 be bad, was Mr.. Ruskln's language
far and honest criticism on the pictures as works
Of art, or was il an attack on the artist and an
Imputation on his good falthf Stated in that
way there can be but one answer to the question.
Tried in that way the cause could have had but one
result-a verdict for the plaintiff with substantial
damages. But Mr. Whistlers counsel treated it
from the beginning as If the verdict must be made
to depend on the jury's opinion Of Mr.. WhstlePs
pictures They put forth all their efforts to per-
suade twelve Phillstnes that painter may follow
the bent OF his genius and not the rule Of thumb
OF course. they failed. To make the tnIng still
mrre exquisituly absurd, not Of the counsel
knew any more about art than the jury did.
They arranged exhibition hard by, in n
hotel, and they put two critics and an artist
on the stand to swear that Mr.. Whistler knew how
TO paint. Mr.. Baron HuddlestOn said, in summing
M. that he would not have allowed this had the
defendant objected. But the defendants counsel
knew their business too well to object 1t
raised side issue, which enabled them to divert
attention from the real ISSUE and to call witnesses
who would conscientously and reluctantly condemn
works of art belonging TO a school different from
their own.
Mr.. Whistler would be the first to say that his pic
lures are cavare to the general When asked by
the Attorney Genera-ltbat distinguished function
ary IN England practises in private causes)-
whether he did not EXHIBIT in the expectation Of
public admiration, he replied that that would be a
vast absurdity" " on his part. He explained mod
cstly and iucdy his own notions Of art
and what he meant by calling his pictures
nOcturnesD "harmOnics" and "arrangements.'
But the Jury understood neither pictures nor ex-
planatlons What they understood and rellshed was
the rather vulgar and cheap fun of Sir John Hol-
ker respecting them. The Court allowed him to
display nOcturne representing moonlight effect
near Battersea Bridge, on the Thames, ana TO IN
quire Of the artist which was the Dlldge ana Whlch
the per. and what particular ray of color was in
tended for. Imagine u similar process applied 10
literature. Let rs say, for example, that Mr.. Rus
l.. 4 al lac MT RrOWulpU
postor and an Impudcnt cochney, who had flung
botte of ink in the publcs face. and charged 200
guincos for IT. Suppose Mr.. Browning on the stand
and q pcrt lawyer inviting him TO reduce "S0rdelo"
o the Intellectual level of such jury MS slt on Ar
Whistler's pictures. The case would De no WIN
worse than the present though the loly ana pre-
! sumption Of applying such test to WORK OF III
aginaton might be more clearly brought out carry
the process one step further. Consider MI run
on the stand aud consider how IL would look II Mt
! Tuppcr were produced an expert IN poetry, ana
| Mr. Tupper's opinion Of Mr. Browning lald before
the Jury as a basis on which they were 10 apPra'e
"The Lost Leader" or "The Ring ana the book'
Mr. Firth il the painter of the Railway Station"
the Derby Day" aud other muci-admired
pieces of that stamp. No doubt MI
Firth has his merits but ! can do him no
Injustice if say that he belongs to a school OF PIC
tnra-makers who esteem fgurc-painting the only
serious business Of the artist, who deSpSe land
scapc, and who have Systematically excluded land
scapi,ts from the Academy. Let me do HIM the
Justice to say also that hc appeared against MS VIII
and only in obedience to subpoena. Mr.. Sergeant
parrys Know edge of art did not enable hlmto sug-
grst the distinction which nullhod the value OF
tins testimony, and which ought to have excluded
il altogether BY way of climax to the aD-
surdines Of the trial, a Titan was offered
in evidence, and the jury were asked 10
infer that because SIR. Whistler is not the equal OF
- u....;,, Nv Ruskin might call him