The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-06-05
NOSTATUEOF MRS. SCHUYLER
THE ORDER AGAINST TIE WoMANs
MEMORIAL FUND AFFIRMED.

Judge Van Brunt Holds that Courts May
Interposo to Prevent an Injury to tho
Memory efthe Dead-Mrs. Schuyler Was
TO Have Been Represented as Woman
tho Phiinnthropist " mt the Chicago Fair.
Tho order restraining the wonen's Memori-
al Fund Association from erecting statue Of
Mary Hamilton Schuyler at the Worlds Fair as
Woman. tho Philanthropist" which was
granted by Justice O'Brien on the application
OF her nephew and stepsou. Philip Schuyler.
has been affirmed By the Supreme Court Con-
eral Term.
1t was intended that the statue should DO q
companion piece to one OF Susan B. Anthony.
as Woman. the Reformer." and this associa-
ton was one Of the things objected to by Mr..
Schuyler. The case. tho first OF its kind on
record. involved the question Of the right Of o
person to determine how the memory OF rel
ative may be honored. The opinion written
by Justice Van Brunt Is concurred In by JUS
tice Barrett.
seems to pervade the opinion OF the court be-
low The decision states that II Mrs. Schuyler
had been public character this motion should
have been denied.
The claim that person who Voluntarily
places himself before the public, either by
accepting public office or By becoming q can.
didate for office, or as an artist or literary
man thereby surrenders his personality
while living and his memory when dead. to
the public. to be used or abused as any
one OF that irresponsible body may see 1T can
not for moment be entertained. Il Is un.
doubtedly true that by occupying public Do
sition. or by making an appeal to the public.
person surrenders such part Of his personal.
ity or privacy as pertains to and Affects the DO.
sition which he fills or seeks TO oocupy-but no
hndl And certainly his memory when dead
=, II is urged upon the, part Of the applicant
tho came, objection to the deiendants pro-
posed action that the plaintiff now has. she
wsqa be @ Woud aa e 5l
msss 81
SS1 Who % Stso0s n s a5s
most cruel mepner the feelings of many sem
OF the contention that the plaintiff could
have no standing In court. as he was not in.
lured him IN person. good name. or estate.
THE result Of this claim is that when per
son Is dead there is no power in any court to
Be- T Tse FEELINGS hoE sqTs
%e@ory Of shs deoeassd WITH sn inp ans
carries It's own REPUTATION. 1t canhot Be that
BY death FL projection to the reIutation Of the
ton with the dead has absolutely been lost.
The memory Of the deceased belongs 70
relatives have q right to see that that which
would not have been permitted in respect to
with IMMUNITY when the subject has become
incapable Of protecting himself
"I 1t is undoubtedly true that cases Of tho
found IN the books. But It Is probably the
first time In the his.ory. Of the world that the
audacious claim which is there presented has
ever been advanced.
The fact that the plaintiff has suffered no
pecuniary damage. redress for which is sought
In this action. is no answer to the ppuoation.
because one OF the most important depart
ments in the jurisdiction Of equity IL the pre-
irreparable because courts Of law cannot
afford any remedy In damages"