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.
Well, that makes sense to me. Good public policy, if you ask me.
You honestly believe that? Would you feel that way if we were talking about your property?
The Russians have warehouses full of this type of stuff, and they have no intention of ever returning it. The have so much loot, they've never even cataloged it.
If they were talking about my property, I would have been dead fifty years. But in any case, public policy is not always dictated by the interest of the individual involved in the case. That is why we don't let the law cater to every individual who comes down the pike, but set one rule for everybody.
If Elgin hadn't taken the marbles to Britain, they'd be gravel by now.
Another factoid ~ the Turks sold Lord Rothschild the Golan Heights so he could restart a Jewish homeland.
Rothschild continues to have his detractors, and you oughta' see the gang that thinks the most important theing in the world is to give Golan to Syria, a country that never owned the place!
"I see they have activist judges in Great Britain too."
I hardly see how you get that from this particular judgement. Entirely the opposite in fact.
The judge was very sympathetic to the claim, as he stated in his ruling, but was only able to apply the law as written by the legislature which mandates that the trustees may only relinquish control of part of the museum collection in specific circumstances (you can find the British Museum Act to read online if you wish).
I see 'activist judge' is now being used as a synonym for 'any judge who comes to a verdict with which I personally disagree'.
"I see 'activist judge' is now being used as a synonym for 'any judge who comes to a verdict with which I personally disagree'."
lol... I noticed that too.
I think a better case can be made for recovering tangible property than any other reparation.
If one can prove ownership then it is like other cases of stolen property where the theft victim often makes recovery. Also museums are part of an ethical code of conduct that goes beyond the constraints of legal obligation. They do this because they are high on the victim list. It is like the Geneva Convention of the art world.
In California, Museums only need to keep items for a certain period of time, (I think 18 months) then they can dispose of it however they please.
I agree. Stolen property is recovered from third parties all the time, even those who did not know or have reason to know the property was stolen.
I do wonder, in general, about how much in the case of stolen art is a deliberate desire not to know. There are often elaborate records of art sales.
I have no problem with you disagreeing with the law, as do I, as does the judge in this case, as does the British Museum which wants to return the items in question.
I was objecting to your use of the phrase 'activist judge'. The judge in this case has correctly ruled on the law as written. If he had made the judgement that you seem to think he should, then he would be liable to be labelled an activist jusge as he would have been ruling entirely on what he thinks the law should be, not what it actually is.
The main problem with the law in this case is simply that it doesn't seem to have been written envisaging this situation arising and has given the trustees of the museum no discretion to be able to do what seems to obviously be the right thing.
Some are. Including the Venus de Milo's arms and the Victory's head.
They ought to return that stone under the throne to Scotland, and the crown jewels to India too. If England returned everything they had that was plundered, there wouldn't be anything left!
In other news, did you know the United States Capitol building was built with Slave Labor?
Judicial tyranny at work... Where's Donald Trump when we need him to tell them "You're Fired."
good point *lol*
Actually, the Stone of Scone was returned to Scotland November 15, 1996. So they can do it.
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.