New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-11-23
ANSWER IN BIONDI SUIT
Why Sc"tptors Group Vas Not
ShOrn-C0mment of Mr.. Hd7ces.

In the suit Of Ernesto Biondi the Italian sculptor.
TO recover 100000 alleged damages from the cor
poraton of the Metropolitan Museum of Art for fail
ing to exhibit his bronze group, Saturnalia.' an
answer by Robert w. De Forest, of De Forest
Brothers, attorneys of the museum was served yes
terday Gilbert r. Halves, OF Halves & Judge.
counsel Biondi.
The defendant admits that the plaintin is
sculptor Eho has for many years worked at his
profession at Rome. where he has attained promt-
hence. and that he sculptor OF ability and orig
inaty 1t admits that in the year 1901 the plaintiff
sent TO the Pan-Amercan Exposition, at Buffalo.
bronze group of statuary consisting of ten figures,
life size, entitled; 'Saturnalia. designed and ex-
ecuted by him. which exhibited at this exposi-
ton; that this group had previously received at the
Exposition Universelle." held in Pe.is In 1900
Grand Prix, and that n duplicate original or
replica of this group acquired by the italian
government and placed In the National Museum OF
Modern Art in Rome.
II alleges that in September. 1901, plaintiff.
with a view to ceiling this group the Metrorol-
tan Museum Of Art, of finding purchaser
for IL in America sought for and obtained
director of the museum the privilege of lending
it to the museum for exhibition. under the regula
tons prescribed by the museum for sIch loans. one
OF which was. in the of Statute of this size,
that it should not be received for this purpose for
a period OF less than one year
The defendant denies that by according this priv
ilege the plaintiff it entered into contract or
agreement publicly to exhibit the ''Saturnalia for
one year from December 1902, from any time.
or that it has failed comply with any such con-
tract. On the contrary. it alleges that though at
the time the group received at the museum II
the intention of its director to exhibit IL, and
that except for such intention it would not have
been received II was nevertheless, at all times
right and lawful for the director and right and
lawful for the trustees Of the museum, as in the
case of other objects lent for exhibition TO the mu-
scum, mot to exhibit the same for any reasons
satisfactory to him or to tIem.
II is asserted that after The receipt OF this group
at the museum up for exhibition ON the
floor of the main hall of the east wing, then
in course OF construction prior to its being opened
to the public, where 1t photographed and
where il was seen by =. Few persons who were ad-
mitted In advance of the public opening.
1t further alleged that public opinion as
voiced by public press and otherwise. prior 10
the opening OF the new east wing was so pro
nounced against the public exhibition OF TINS
group by the museum, that the trustees at their
regular quarterly meeting. held on November
H. 1902 in advance of the pubic opening OF thus
wing deemed it expedieVt not to place the group
on public exhibition and adopted the following res
olution pursuant to which it was removed from 'he
public exhibition halls Of the museum
Resolved. That the director be and hereby y.r is
directed to the bronze group OF statuaTg
building removed from public exhibition before
the proposed opening on ha1 IN besn
made as the subject of the group.
The defendant admits that this group is suh
IN its possession but denies that il has prevented
the plaintiff from reganing possession OF II or
from exhibiting il himself, and, on the contrary
alleges that 1t is and all times since the adop-
tIon of the resolution has ready and willing
to deliver 1t up the plaintiff, subject TO the
terms of the bond given by 1t to the customs au-
| thorlties The defendant asks that the complaint
| loo dismissed. The answer is sworn to by j. Pier
| pont Morgan, as president OF the Metropolitan
Museum of Art.
Gilbert Ray Halves said to a Tribune reporter
| after being served with the
1t seems to me- after CHANGING over il hastily. to
be the Of confession and avoidance to
the ancient legal phraseology. The answer ad-
plant, and merely attempts 10 show that the con-
! tract between plaintiff and defendant all one
sided namely that the plaintiff gave the defendant
permission to exhibit his 'SatuTnalia aud that the
it or not fit to do. The contract itself.
however. does admit OF any such construction
II IS probably the first time in history where q
partner to contract sought to escape performance
vaguely expressed pubic opinion against it,
| The answer does not attempt to show allege
! how this So-calitd public opinion made mani
! fest in any concrete way. that any censor
| Of morals Or of art prohibited the public exhibition
| of this group. that proceedings ever
| from carrying out their contract. But even II
| that were 50, now does that relieve the museum
| from its wrongful act IN refusing TO carry out
! its contract and why should il pay damages
! To the plaintiff for such breach of contract no
! matter what may have been the impeiug cause
| thereto. This is question which the defendant
| and its counsel will have to answer in court.