New-York tribune., 1910-03-22


he partly explained wt,h the aid of several
paintings that were brought 70 court. one
Of which was a TUvnsr valued az S40o0.
and another by an unnamed artist which II
was said was three hundred years old
DaWson restored for CIausen Sear New
port" and "Old MIL Near 81 Cloud" over
which the suit was brought. and which wit
ncsses for the Dlaintin had said we're too
new 10 be genuine Martins Dawson said
that the work was legitimate and that
Evans himself had suggested IT, lie testi-
hed also that he had done similar work for
Evans on other pictures prior 70 a sale
which the plaintiff had IN 19oO os a number
Of his canvases.
Restored "Nesr Newport"
Dawson said that CIausen brought Near
Newport 10 his studio in ls'2 20 be cleaned
and restored
1T was on a stretcher that was badly
discolored.' he continued "anG the paint
Ing itself was very dirty. Clausen instruct
ed me TO transfer IL 70 another canvas and
10 clean u thoroughly"
Then Dawson unwrapped from several
folds % cloth what he said was a Turner.
and had several thicknesses OF cardboard
back OF II.
Il first cleaned the surface OF the paint
ing" he said. and then prepared TO
transfer the paint from the dirty canvas 20
a clean white canvas. This picture Is now
undergoing that process"
Part Of the Turner. as IL was seen through
the glass. showed clean. with clean can
vas back OF the paint. Another section
showed only the paint with no canvas at
all back OF il. still another showed the
painting as 10 was before the process OF
transferring the paint had been begun.
This is the same process I put the
painting Near Newport through" said
Dawson
What IS YOUR process OF removing the
paint from one canvas 20 another" asked
Clauson's lawyer.
Il have several prOcesses-sOme of them
are secret" replied the witness. "but this
process is very simple. I simply lay upon
the surface OF the painting several layers
Of paper and linen cloth which are firm
~ fastened 70 the paint by a heavy weight.
Then I turn the picture over. face down.
and carefully sandpaper the canvas from
the paint"
ANY chemicals used
sometimes. but not in this case. After
the canvas was removed I placed the new
put a heavy weight on il. II stood that
way for perhaps a month. and then the
layers OF paper and linen cloth were soaked
or with water"
Thereafter. said the witness. the painting
was vanished and left 20 stand until the
varnish dried when II was returned 90
CIausen. The defendants lawyer asked.
could any one tell whether or not the
painting had been restored -
Mr.. Dawson compIseent.
'.I hope not. in ny case" replied Dawson.
deprecstingIy. He added 1t might be no
ticeabIe in the work OF others"
Counsel took I'D the treatment of an
other painting by Dawson 20 discredit the
testimony Os the witnesses who dwelt on
the impossibility OF TIE alleged spurious
pictures being genuine because they smeIled
too new. lie asked
ibid II look like new picture
Not absolutely like new picture. but
like a painting that had been painted
some time and ye. had not needed resto;-
ing"
Did il smeI! 81 paint7"
"Not exactly. II nlighs have smeIied %
The varnish"
"wha, else I'D yOg do 20 the .Devrs
Rock"
Il rubbed It with ] preparation after
vanishing ir. 50 that the varuish would
not bloom or crack By 100 sudden a dry
ing"
Does that smell ike 2aiat:"
a LITTLE"
Dawson then save a demonstration %
the process TO the iury.
Trsnsfsrr-d Many Paintings.
Dawson said that he had transferred
perhaps twenty paintings from canvas 70
canvas. Il was an expensive Drocesr, re
said Tie went OF tc tell that he had FIRST
seen the painting "Old NH Near 81
Cloud about the time he had first seen
Near Newport" about nine yea-s ago
He said thar he cleaned II and "t"uched -
Up a little" AS 20 the George Inness
painting Late Afternoon in Nieddeld." tie
genuineness OF which Evans also aues-
tionS. Dawson said that he transferred iv
20 canvas from the cardboard on Whirn
IL was painted Dawson said ,ha, Evans
wanted him 70 cut IN two an Inness so
as 10 have two pictures. but thar ne re-
fused 20 do iS- He considered it vandal-
ism The artist said that he also restored
Normandy Bridge" a Martin. which D.
Alexander e. Humphreys bought from
CIausen and on the stand pronounced spu-
rious
The witness said that Clausen had paid
him 5000 for restoring the Wear Newport
painting and 5000 for the Late After
noon az MedheId."
Counsel then asked the witLess n he
kept books. but he said ne did not II~
added that. although Clausen sometimes
paid him with checks he could not re-
member the amounts any OF the checks
called for. lie said that Ne had either
transferred or restored altogether about
fourteen Martins for CIausen He denied.
however. that this was an unusual num-
Der for so modern a painter as Martin.
Dawson said that Martin sometimes
painted ON cotton canvas. which was not
so durable as other kinds and caused the
pictures 20 crack sOOuer. This necessi-
tated transferring o. other canvas
Near Newport was on cotton canvas
ne said
Parker Mann. a landscape artist, and
Henry NJ Hamilton. who had been a
friend Of Homer H. Martin. we're also wit /
nesses sustaining the defeuce's contention |
as 20 the Eenuineness % the disputed
paintings.