BLEEDING A MILLIONAIRE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1634, 28 December 1912, Page 5

BLEEDING A MILLIONAIRE.

EXTEAOEDINAEY REVELATIONS. American millionaires who pay fancy prices for art treasure, fare curios, and valuable jlictures may. liave their trtistic. enthusiasms, dashed by .the realisation that aristocratic virtuosi who make a hobby of Collecting woi'ks of ait, reap an immense profit. by trading them, off on rick Yankees, to whom price is .no object when they have set tlieir minds on (something . supposed td be absolutely unique; There woro revelations of a very sordid commercialism in the aotion, already, reported by cable, in which Mr; A. G. Temple; Curator of the .Guildhall Museum, sued Sir Georgo Donaldson, the well-known art cwll-ector; for commission .011 the, sale of .pictuim' Plaintiff claimed ■£7-iOO, being, brokerage at 5 per cent, on .£148,000, which .Senator .Clarke, the Montana "Copper King,' 1 had paid Sir George Donaldson for paintings., 'It was alleged that'Mri Temple had;introduced; Senator Clarke to the .defendant, and was instrumental iri ena,blfiig the distinguished amateur to effect a".splendid deal. Amusing correspondence in the mariner Of a smart firm advising a young comriiercial travellers how to get business had passed from _ Sir Gedrg'o Donaldson to the intermediary, suggesting a delicate handling of the, man of imllions, so that he might not be nauseated by tod riluch eagerness. He was tio bo impressed with the idea of securing something priceless that niight be otherwise reserved as an heirloorii for tlio nation. The evidence showing how millionaires , with artisiio ambitions ,have. to pay through the rioso to astute art dealers was highly unsavory, and it was not surprising that the jury ffflvo damages for ,£6150. Sir George Donaldson had no riplit to all the plunder. The case excites suspicion as to whether art .collections. purchased for Australia—some of thfem . at amazing prices considering tfi6 burlosqud .qu'ilit? of the rt—have not .been the objects of somo ingenious angling for munificent patronage. One remembers the fact that a leading public gallery in the Commonwealth paid .a- high prioe for a Corot that was a genuine enough picture, but. sub-' sequently disoovei'ed to bo only a duplicate of another work by the same artist.