New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-09-26
no STATUE TO MRS. MARY NJ SCHUYLER
JUDGE o'BRIEN DECIDES THAT SHE WAS NOT
PUBLIC CHARACTER.


Indigo O,Bren in the Supreme Court, Chambers
Yesterday granted the application of Philip schuyler
for an injunction to prevent the Womcns Memorial
Fund Association from erecting statue Of his STEP
m,ther Mrs Mary VI. SCHUYLER, at the Worlds FAR
The association wanted to put up the statue beside one
of Susan b. Anthony. The former they were TO call
the typcal phanthropist" and tue latter was to De
called the typical rpformer." Mrs. schuyler was the
second wife Of the late George schuyler. Philip Schuy-
Ter objected 10 the scheme the ground that it was
distastef to him and to other members Of the family
Judge O'Brlen grants the injunction mainly upon the
ground that Mrs Schuyler not a public charac
ter
1.-THE claim he says in the opinion, that the
maintenance OF the action Is against public policy IS
based upon the argument that the recognition OF such
right in relatives might prevent the public from erect
ing statues to Washington to Lincoln or to any other
great or DISTINGUISHED woman. think how
ever that the distinction TO be observed is between
private public characters. The moment one volun
tarily places himself before the public either In
accepting a public Office in becoming a candidate
for Office or as artist literary man, he surrendess
his right 10 privacy pro tanO, and obviously cannot
complain Of any fair or reasonable description or por
taltare Of himself. II has not been shown that Mrs.
Schuyler ever came within the category of what might
be dcnomnqted public characters.
she was undoubtedly a woman of rare gifts and Of
a br ad and phinthropic nature, but these she eXcr
is 10 refuaton OF the status given her by the com
plant whrh alleges that she In no sense either
public character even person generally known
either in the community in which she lived through
out the United states, but that her life was preem
ncntly the lie f private citizen. That she was
woman OF great refinement and cultivation; that nOtO
riety in any form both extremely dstasteful 10
her and wholly Tcpugnant to her character aud dspO
son, and that throughout her life She neither sought
nor desired it in any way
such a person thus described does not lose her
character private citizen merely because she is
engaged in private works OF philanthropy. 1t IS
times difficult TO determine in individual cases when
ceases 10 be private and becomes public char
acter This, however does not destroy the value OF
the distinction nor the grounds upon which IL can be
supported II is equally difficult 20 apply to individual
cases the principle Of the reasonableness uneasOn
ablcness certain acts As stated therefore, it not
having been shown that Mrs. Schuyler a public
character, her relatives have a right 10 intervene.
1t Is true that there is no reported decision which
goes % this extent IN maintaining the right OF privacy
and in that respect this Is novel case. But the grad
ua extension f the law in the direction of aifordng
the most complete redress for injury 10 individual
rights makes this from reported decisions much sim
la I'm principle an easy step
The Judge then quOtes an article from The Harvard
Law Review Of December last 10 support his decision.