New-York tribune., 1883-12-11
MP sTIcKNEY,s OPENING ADDRESS.


Mr.. sTICKNRY'S OPENING ADDRESS.
II has been assigned to me to open this case
n the part of the defendant and that duty as under
stand it, amounts 20 this: that am TO make 70 you
,,e aud AS far as can. strictly accurate statement
~ tbe facts which we expect prove by o witnesses;
hut in the time shall allow myself it will be impossible
o., ,ne IN give YOU statement of everything which the
defepdant expects 10 prove
The manner in which the dispute began was this: The
paintin published article in the month OF August
1ssO in The Art AnidtsM, which contained certain
charges against the defendant, the niain of which
was that the defendant had been tampering with antqu-
tes that he had been making fraudulent alterations III
articles contained in the Cesnola Collection III Central
Park The charge went further and mtimaied that the
defendant had committed fraud on the trustees OF the
Museum in selling them his collection This was not said
IN 30 many words hut clearly implied The plantif
said that this collection had been on S hands twelve
months during which period lie haa tried TO sell H. ana
that the British Museum and all foreign museums hd
agreed not purchase the collection or any part Thereon
for the reason that they understood that was not OF
much value. That charge the platnh addressed to the
pubIe al lare and also TO the of the Meropol
tan Museum of Art the defendants employers in whose
nav he then He also proessed to he making that
charge solely as public service and without having any
personal ends in view. That charge called for an an
swer The defendant entitled In law and in justice
10 dive that charge answer and give that answer as
wide publication as charge itself had received He
was entitled in law and in Justice TO direct his answer to
those parties before whom the charge had been madeto
the public and his employers, the Museum authorities
His denial made the public contained simply these two
points that the charges made by Mr.. FeusIdeut were
not true and that, in the second place they were made
not from motives of public service, but from nalioe
To the trustees be said that the charges were Lot true;
that they were not made with honest motives bat With
intent 10 iuure him As to the specific statement that
the collection was not a valuable one, he made answer
that the defendant had not sold it in London because he
had made no honest effort TO that end
After that there investigation OF these charges,
hut so Ear as the mere of the pleadngs
cerne the only facts that you have 10 investigate are
simply ihree Whether the original charges made by
the plaintiff in The art ABGte article true whether
they were made with honest motives with mace and
whether on not the plaintiff made ia London any honest
effort TO sell the collection.
TTrE CHARGE or FRAUDULENT ALTERATION.
In addition to the charge OF fraudulent alterations orig
finally made the plaintiff has Sa!d that many St the staues
in the collection made by fixing together parts OF
statues that had originally nothing TO do with one All
other The trustees determined 10 have AN nyestigs-
ton of the original charges by who eould command
the confidence Of whole community Fer THAT reason
they selected Judge DAILY, DR. Hitchcock. and President
Barnard Of Columbia College. Those gentlemen made
an investigation with every means al their command
A. result OF their searching investigation they decared
they were satisfied that the plaintiffs charges were not
true and never should have been made. After this
announcement the plaintiff declared far and Wide that
this Investigation snm and that the committee
was a vhitewashing committee. He published his
Gard No. IL wherein he charged the committee with
finding facts against n which they knew to he untrue.
He published Gard No. g" wherein he charged that
of the statues in this collection had been partly
factred He published another card wherein he repeat
ed the same charge against another statue Finally! IA
pamphlet he charged that the whole collection WAS
fraudulent collection; that it of modern manufao
linz nd Al Can
eral Iii CesnOla far as concerned this collection was
an mpostor.
One point will have struck yOn from the course OF tie
testimony: The most serious charge which the plaintiff
had nlade-that the collection was OF modern nanlfao-
turr he never for one moment believed In his esti
Inony he has sad that there was single OBJ
jec in that collection which he now believes to be of
modern manufacture lie says that certain OF the
statues are made by putting together pieces which did
not originally belong together aud ought not 9 L@Fc
been put together. He that the Recommendation has
been changed and altered Further than this he has not
gone SO before enter upon our case We have here
what is in fact plaintiffs most formal admission that
the gravcs OF all the charges which he has madrthe
charge OF wholesale fraud aud fOrgerys one which he
does moi believe Where he attempted to Introduce I'm
evidence the fact that that charge had been made the
10 Een The fact Out from Your eonsideration 1t was an
admission his part that the charge ot wholesale for
ger, ana T sISenre vi" ""'H 'o O' O'
here Is nofug singular at all In the defendants hay
ing found buried city. Where those Ancsat people
lived they had their temples for worship aud Their tembs
To lind old statues Is Only necessary thI ihe explorer
should be fortunate In the place where he digs. the
defendant did not find these objects IN cyprus ne must
have had them manufactured To do this ne Inist have
fcers greater than there Is known 70 he III any single
establishment Ia the civilized world SOHO 0 the giss
nnearthed by him made by process which, 80 far ss
an aware Is still undiscovered. Any man Of ordinary
intelligence, after giving the snect moment tnought
mnst conclude thai II Is an absolute mpOssiiiiy that
these objects could have been manufactured and that
they were obtained from the ruins ot an % an0Si sity ss
the defendant says he obtained the Jhe talhthi al
med that before publishing bis panphel ne read the
nS er o. Ms Lang whom ne sies , y, bad sp the
excavations made and had seen the statues Ss lhfy oahe
Eut while negiecting all the grsver charges which he
has irong against the defendant the plaintiff has eho-
seh more than a month of time with invos-
tgaiiOb repairs which WIRE made In FOuI1oenth-s
As 10 the repairs male IN the sareoPhagu the Platin
own witness MI Hutclngs, that he himself TOOK u
fom the when II first reached this country and that
then there was not one piece missing. Mr. 81 Ga'idens
which the plaintiff said made of nnrlnted parts,
one entire piece OF stone from the down Mr. War
had the repair-roo al Mi times lie saw
what General di Cesnoa did and had the fullest oppor
decentralization he compelled admit that he stated
and sun believes that these charges originally made by
Amateur are false. Mr. Savage believe to be a thor
saghly honest % wines y anything dishOncrable has
The plaintiff has kept as far possible FROM the grzyef
o. sss ws,ss as made sgSs the desnd,S Hs
most serious charges were not based upon facts and
evidence which win establish ahinE very clearly "i
tiles charges which the plaintiff has nade-no ouy the
ons-are not true that they never were believed M tsc
8ania; that they were made and published reieaiedy
ecFer made any honest effort 10 sell the collection.
HISTORY or THE COLLECTION.
Iwh give You a narrative OF the history OF the
soneefion General di Cesnola went 10 Cyprus In the
year 1865. Very after he got there began bis
snsns for antiquities and stayed there tiil 1879.