Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 05/31/2005 12:22:05 AM PDT by nickcarraway
IT WOULD be illegal for the British Museum to return art- works looted by the Nazis to a Jewish family, despite its "moral obligation" to do so, a High Court judge ruled yesterday.
Vice-Chancellor Sir Andrew Morritt ruled that the British Museum Act - which protects the collections for posterity - cannot be overridden by the ethical merit of a claim involving plundered art.
The heirs of the art's original owners, Dr Arthur Feldmann, a Czech lawyer, and his wife Gisela, who died at the hands of the Nazis, said they were "very upset" at the ruling.
They called on the government to introduce legislation that would allow the pieces - four Old Master drawings stolen from the family home in Brno by the Gestapo in 1939 - to be returned to them swiftly.
Lawyers for the British Museum, which had agreed in principle three years ago to the restitution of the drawings to the family, also said they were "disappointed" by the outcome of the test case.
Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, had asked for clarification of the law after warning that if a moral obligation to restore such objects could override the act, it might allow Greece to reclaim the Elgin Marbles.
However, the judge said this case would have no implication for other claims.
Anne Webber, the co-chair of the Commission for Looted Art in Europe, which is representing Dr Feldmann's heirs, said the ruling had "prolonged the agony of a family who have already suffered".
She said: "The looting of these drawings was over 60 years ago, the claim was three years ago and the British Museum acted with alacrity. They never expected it would take so long.
"The family are very upset by the outcome but nevertheless they have confidence in the British Museum's commitment to restitution. The government needs to move swiftly."
The museum's trustees had asked the Attorney General if they had permission to return the artworks under the terms of the Snowdon principle - a legal test that permits charities to give back items judged wrong to keep.
Ms Webber said the ruling was significant for all claimants of looted art from the Nazi era, as it set aside any possibility of restitution being achieved without further legislation.
Sir Andrew said in his judgment that neither the Crown nor the Attorney General had any power to dispense with "due observance" of acts of parliament.
A spokesman for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport said: "We welcome clarification in this important area, which will contribute to our consideration of a Spoliation Advisory Panel recommendation that the Secretary of State consider legislation to return the spoliated items.
"The case confirms that legislation is necessary. We will now look urgently at this issue."
Dr Feldmann was tortured and murdered by the Nazis and died in prison.
Mrs Feldmann died at Auschwitz, but their children survived.
The drawings, for which the museum paid a total of nine guineas in 1946 at auction, are now estimated to be worth £150,000.
"The family are very upset by the outcome but nevertheless they have confidence in the British Museum's commitment to restitution. The government needs to move swiftly."
__________________________________________________________
Naturally they should be returned but those bloody Elgin Marbles really screw things up time and time again.
wWas this a case involving Madelyn Albright's family, or no. I thought I read a couple of years ago that her father was a Nazi uppity up and that they had come into posession of art and treasures plundered from Jews.
I just did some looking, and the story about plundered art being in the posession of Madelyn Albright's family is at http://www.praguepost.cz/news051700f.html
Britain has gone quite mad, so why wouldn't it now subscribe to the notion that "We stole it fair and square."
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Strictly bogus.
This family knows very well that the British Museum is holding its property.
I'm sure someone there is convinced that it's a good thing to steal plundered loot from European Jews.
Rightly so. This individual case may be tragic, but at some point you just have to say what is done is done and carry on, at least with regards to tangible property. Europe was torn asunder, millions were killed, and some people's stuff was misplaced. These four drawings are just the barest sliver of the tip of the iceberg. It is not possible to right all the wrongs of that era, but the British and the Allies paid the price in blood to stop the largest of them.
If this family has an issue, it is with the NAZIs or with the successor German government. The British Museum did not do the stealing here.
Look at it another way. If the sharp-eyed collector had not bought those items for the British Museum way back when, they probably would have had clown faces painted over them and been lost forever.
Correct, I believe the charge should be "Receiving Stolen Property".
I see your "at what point does it end" opinion but the gov't shouldn't be able draw the line just short of itself for the sake of "posterity".
Wait a minute, now. I think the court simply ruled on the law as written, as opposed to making up a new law from the bench - judicial activism. In 2000, the Florida Supreme Court completely ignored the law as written and tried to make up their own law before the U.S. Supreme Court slapped them down.
It's a wakeup call to British Parliment, i.e., change the law regarding stolen Nazi art so that the law is in accordance with the "moral obligation".
What kind of insane country has laws that prohibit giving something away?
So, does this mean that the Swiss banks don't have to give back the money that Jews deposited?
It is not really receiving stolen property. They were not buying it from the thief. They were buying it at a garage sale, or some such thing. If the British Museum had not bought them, they would have wound up as a placemats in some Bavarian diner or something.
Europe was in ruins. It was a good thing that somebody picked up some of the pieces. The British Museum should not be faulted for this.
If the museum became a private business and gave up its tax-exempt charitable status it could dispose of its possessions however it chose. As long as it wants public money and tax breaks the trustees have to abide by the rules.
It doesn't belong to them. It should be given back. If I found out I had something of value that was stolen, I would give it back. Don't make excuses for the Brits.
However the Elgin Marbles should not be returned to Greece. As I told my Greek guide when she complained about their being in the British Museum: "I wish the British had gotten the Victoire de Samothrace and the Venus de Milo before they got their arms knocked off.
If the Elgin Marbles should be returned to Greece, should the Mona Lisa be returned to Italy? The Rosetta Stone to Egypt? That lion-chase friese to Babylonia (where is Babylonia anyway)? The answer is No.
That's why I was talking about tangible property. A bank account is another matter altogether, obviously.
If some old NAZI had a Reubens hanging on the wall that he looted from some family during the War, I say give it back. In the famous case of Abe Simpson and Mongomery Burns Tontine vs Baron von Wortzenberger the courts rightly decided that since Simpson, Burns and the other members of his unit had personally looted the Flying Hellfish Treasure, they would be required to return the artwork to the idolent Baron even after decades had passed.
But that is not the case here. The British Museum was paying a party many times removed from the theft the going rate (at the time). They did not do anything wrong, here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.