Evening star., 1925-04-29
Metropolitan Museums Action
On Clark Collection Debated

Rejection of the late Senator Will
liam A. Clark's s3,000.000 art collec-
ton by the Metropolitan Museum of
Art of New York is approved, with a
few notable exceptions. by American
public opinion, as reflected in the
press. The action of the museum trus-
tees was due to the conditions attached
to the gift, requiring the works of art
to be kept together and as collection
to bear the name of the donor. Under
the will the collection may now go to
the Corcoran Gallery in Washington.
THE action Of the Metropolitan
trustees" it is suggested by the Lynch
burg News, probably means the loss
to the museum of one of the largest
and most valuable private collections
of art in existence but it is impossible
not TO sympathize with them in their
decision, which is a rebuke to wealthy
men who. under the guise of benefac-
ton, seek even in death TO impose
their will and to minister to their self
glorification. Clark was seeking to vie
with Rembrandt, and the trustees of
art refused to be parties to the desecra-
tion."
The principle involved in the rejec-
ton is recognized by the Boston
Transcript. Had the trustees of the
Metropolitan accepted the Clark be-
quest" says this paper. They would
have surrendered what was not only
their right, but their duty, the sxer-
else Of discretion in selection. and the
museum would have been loaded. for
all the public knows. with a number
of mediocre works that rode in on the
backs of what was excellent and dis
tinguished in the collection"
Appreciation of the motive of Sen
ator Clark, however, is felt by the
Spring gfield Daily News, which argues:
He was quite within his rights in
hoping that the years Of study and ac-
quirement would be reflected in the
continuance of the collection just as it
was before his death. Mr.. Duke was
criticized when he offered millions to a
Southern educational institution pro-
viding it would assume the name of
his father. The fact is there was
| nothing wrong in Dukes gift. nor in
the provisions which Mr.. Clark made.
Those who do so much for science.
education or art have a perfect right
to expect some recognition from pos
terity."
The embarrassment of some condi-
tional gifts is emphasized by the
| San Francisco Bulletin. "The desire
for memorials is widespread" re-
marks the Bulletin. Colleges and
iiluSeuHlS III all parts Oh the country
have been enriched by bequests de-
signed to carry the names of donors
| down to future times. This has
| helped many new and growing in
stitutions, but in the older establish
| ments donations have become an en-
| barrasSment. There have been of
+; fered to Columbia University, in New
York, as gifts more memorials than
| it finds convenient to maintain, and
| a year or more ago it was announced
| that no further gifts of buildings
would be accepted unless accompa-
MED by provisions for their upkeep."
| The Trenton Times feels that this
| situation may be met in future cases
| by action of testators in providing
| endowment funds; otherwise, what
| is intended as benefaction may
prove to be a burden" Timely con-
sultation with all concerned is sug-
| gested by the Atlanta journal as
| preliminary to such gifts, and the
Journal adds: There is obvious
merit in the contention that beQuests
! of this kind were better made with
out hard -and- fast restrictions in
matters of detail" unless there is
such consultation, There is a great