The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1908-05-31
NOT WASHINGTON.
SAYS AUTHORITY
MIR. Hart Offers Evidence
Against Picture Published
in The Times.

From an eminent authority On the
authenticity of portraits Of a historical
character, Charles Henry Hart, of Phil
adelphia. comes the information that
the portrait published in The Times on
May p Is not the portrait of Washing
ton or of any American colonial oiilcer.
The issue is thus clearly drawn be-
tween the inference of r. w. Austin,
United States consul IN Glasgow, to
whose influence is due the loan 10 the
hit. Vernon association Of the portrait
IN question. and the judgment of the
one man OF ali men who is probably
better informed upon the subject OF the
historical portraits Of Washington than
any other person in the country.
AS the matter stands il seems TO be
an array OF sentiment against TACT.
There Is considerable sentiment con-
tanned IN the suggestion that the por-
trait was painted as a commission at the
order OF Governor DinWiddie Of Vir-
ginia, at a time when George Washing
ton was major in the Virginia militia
ana loyal subject of England
Difference in Eyes.
The facts upon which Mr.. Hart rehes
seem 10 be SUFFICIENT TO warrant the
position which he assumes, that the pic
ture is not one Of Washington In proof
Of his contention he refers to an article
contained in The Independent, OF the
issue Of December D. 1907, IN which d
photograph Of the Glasgow Washing
ton and a photograph OF "a portrait OF
Washington from a painting by Charles
Wilson Peale, il, 1772, are reproduced on
opposite pases, giving an excellent op-
pOrtuniIy for careful study and COM
parison.
BY comparison of the two portraits,
and with a due allowance for the per
SOCIAL element OF. each artist. il seems
that, II il is assumed that the portrait
BY Peale is a faithful likeness OF Wash
ington at that time, 1872. the Glasgow
portrait is not painted from the same
model. The faces are not OF the same
person.
Peale's Washington has widely sep
arated eyes. a straight nose with fun
nostrils. an upper lip Of medium length.
The Glasgow portrait shows the face
Of 2 young man OF about the same
age as that in the Peale portrait, bU-
the space between the eyes is narrow,
the nose straight with thin nostriIs, the
upper lip is long.
Denies AustiR's Suggestion.
slr. Hart efrcctuauy disposes of the
suggestion OF Mr.. Austin that the pOr-
trait was painted by John Smibert or
john Watson, Snibe1t, states Mr.. Hart.
died il 1i5i, and John Watson failed TO
leave behind him any known portrait
In oils, 10y which any comparison could
be made, even If il should be proved
that he was a painter of portraits
One OF the stronger proofs furnished
by Mr. Hart, n support of his theory. is
the description of Washington written
BY his friend and companlon-in-arms. (
John Mercer, in which among other
v ell known facial characters iC Of
the widely separated eyes
are referred TO.
While the most convincing proof that
the Glasgow portrait is not portrait
Of Washington, would be the intIoduc-
ton Of evidence tending TO show not
only the artist, but the name If the per-
son whose portrait is SHOWN on this
canvas. this character OF proof proba-
bly, is not obtainable. In the prasen. /
condition Of the controversy, Mr.. Hart
seems 10 have the burden OF evidence
II his favor.