New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-04-18

tba pova, Academy and the acknowledged
leader of the art OF the Victorian reign pu' ' a
walls of Burlington House Will be searcneu -,
vain next month for examples OF his ART ana
such glimpses as offered or MN are lne
those of this court scene when throns vi ar
lists and critics laughs with LOUD guiiaws -
what are irreverently termed Jimmy WhisVei
jokes"
perts who supported him in the contentlon e tiia.
certain artistic effects could be obtained from
n drawing directly on the stone which coulu hol
be produced by transfer paper Among mes
was Mr.. George Moore. author and critic wnosS
appearance after Mr.. Whistler naturally caused
amusement, since IL revived memories vi d
heated controversy ending in a fantastic ci,ai .
lenge 10 a duel which was never iousnl uuS
only laughed over He testified qulety anu
showed no signs Of belated belligerency, con-
tending that the charm Of the drawing done on
stone lay in the darks and blacks ana .hat VIC
pale Autographs produced by the transfer Proc,,
ess were less vigorous and looked ike pehcii
drawings one or two OF these experts wan
ened their testimony by admitting tnat th,y
could not distinguish between the TWO hletnous
In specimens submitted to them. perhaps me
best point for the defence was maze D! MI
Charles Shannon, who declared that prints rom
the stone could not be taken indehniteH. Wnvia
as transfer copies could be made in uhiihlit@u
number. In these days of limited edltlohS tnis
restriction ought to have had bearing upon INC
commercial value Of the two art processes.
Mr.. Justice Mathew in summing UP the case
swept aside all these technicalties ana presenter
10 the jury simple issue OF the law OF nue. ,t.
It's application TO art criticism "A cilti.
express a dsparaging view Of an artists WORK,
and he would be protected by law. But sharp
line to be drawn. The critic must hot az
tribute to the artst discreditable conduc. uh1sss
he could prove that the charge was true. The
point TO be decided was whether a personal
charge involving discreditable conduct had been
made against Mr.. Penneil in using q descriptive
term which could not be justified. the transfer
process had been termed a DECEASED instrument
and the artist had been told that his so'caIieu
photographs" were an abuse or language. was
II fair criticism to say that he was trying 10 pass
off an inferior article a valuable work OF art!
The fury evidently thought not, for AFTER con-
sultatiou Of half an hour they returned Verdlct
for Mr.. Pennell. They did not, however EN-
phasiZe their opinion. for they awarded MIN toV
damages in place of $1,000, for which ne had
brought sus.
Altogether II Il good days work for the
Queens Bench division. An accomplished &C
tress established her right to privacy by recover
ing damages against purveyor OF gossip VINO
insisted upon marrying her off because she look
hearty interest in her sisters children: and an
artist oe marked originality and talent vindlcated
his reputation both a craftsman and an accu-
rate writer against willy and mischievous as
sault from o fellow art critic who. in the inter-
est OF "pedantic purism." had attempted to ad-
minister to him dose of his own medicine ana
incidentally to turn the laugh upon him ana 10
dscredit him. The English law OF libel operating
in each case with admirable rapidly ana pre-
cison protected the actress against irresponsible
social tattle and the artist against criticism
which suggested commercial dishonesty ana I'M
pugneH his integrity incidentally, too, Mr.
Whistler had his day In court 70; cups ana
cranks. L. ~ r.