DOI Artikel:
John Francis Strauss, Mr. Stieglitz’s “Expulsion”—A Statement
DOI Artikel:[Correspondence between Alfred Stieglitz and M. W. Tingley]
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.31045#0033
- Startseite des Bandes
- Alle zugehörigen Werke
- art journals – Kunst- und Satirezeitschriften
- Camera Work auf arthistoricum.net
- Register
- Editorial
- Informationen zur Zeitschrift
Für diese Seite ist auch eine manuell angefertigte Transkription bzw. Edition verfügbar. Bitte wechseln Sie dafür zum Reiter "Transkription" oder "Edition".
8:30 P. M., at which time the Board will take action upon
the question of your suspension or expulsion from the Club.
Respectfully yours,
(Signed) M. W. Tingley, Secretary pro tem.
As the Constitution and By-Laws of the Camera Club provide that:—
“ Sec. 3, Article II: The Trustees shall have power, by
a majority vote, to suspend or expel any member of the Club,
after a hearing, for conduct likely, in the opinion of the Trus-
tees, to be prejudicial to the welfare, interest, or character of the
Club, after two weeks’ previous notice, in writing, to the mem-
ber, of the time and place of hearing, accompanied by a copy
of the charges preferred, ”
and as this provision had not been complied with, in that no charges had been
specified either verbally or in writing, Mr. Stieglitz under the advice of his
friends, decided again to ignore the communication. This remarkable docu-
ment is worthy of careful perusal. No charges are specified nor is any accuser
named, yet the Board of Trustees (which is supposed to act as judge in these
cases) declares that in its opinion Mr. Stieglitz has been guilty of conduct
prejudicial to the welfare and interests of the Club, and that thereafter a
hearing will be afforded him. Does it not violate all ideas of justice and fair
dealing that the same body should act both as accuser and as judge, and does
it not border upon the opera bouffe that this same body should declare itself
as having reached the opinion that Mr. Stieglitz was guilty before any hearing
had been afforded him? The proceedings in the trial of the French Captain
Dreyfuss appear judicial and eminently fair by comparison. Though no
charges were specified, though no hearing had been afforded, the Board of
Trustees in its multiple capacity as accuser, witness, judge and executioner,
puts itself in writing as convinced of the guilt of the accused long before the
date which they set for the so-called hearing. Further comment upon this
seems unnecessary.
LETTER. V.
Camera Club,
New York, February 4th, 1908.
Mr. Alfred Stieglitz,
1111 Madison Avenue, New York.
Dear Sir: It is my duty to advise you that at a meeting
of the Board of Trustees of the Camera Club, held on February
3rd, 1908, you were expelled from membership in the Club
and from all rights in or to any of its property.
I am directed by the Board to ask you to remove all of
your property from the Club Rooms forthwith.
Yours respectfully,
(Signed) M. W. Tingley Secretary.
29
the question of your suspension or expulsion from the Club.
Respectfully yours,
(Signed) M. W. Tingley, Secretary pro tem.
As the Constitution and By-Laws of the Camera Club provide that:—
“ Sec. 3, Article II: The Trustees shall have power, by
a majority vote, to suspend or expel any member of the Club,
after a hearing, for conduct likely, in the opinion of the Trus-
tees, to be prejudicial to the welfare, interest, or character of the
Club, after two weeks’ previous notice, in writing, to the mem-
ber, of the time and place of hearing, accompanied by a copy
of the charges preferred, ”
and as this provision had not been complied with, in that no charges had been
specified either verbally or in writing, Mr. Stieglitz under the advice of his
friends, decided again to ignore the communication. This remarkable docu-
ment is worthy of careful perusal. No charges are specified nor is any accuser
named, yet the Board of Trustees (which is supposed to act as judge in these
cases) declares that in its opinion Mr. Stieglitz has been guilty of conduct
prejudicial to the welfare and interests of the Club, and that thereafter a
hearing will be afforded him. Does it not violate all ideas of justice and fair
dealing that the same body should act both as accuser and as judge, and does
it not border upon the opera bouffe that this same body should declare itself
as having reached the opinion that Mr. Stieglitz was guilty before any hearing
had been afforded him? The proceedings in the trial of the French Captain
Dreyfuss appear judicial and eminently fair by comparison. Though no
charges were specified, though no hearing had been afforded, the Board of
Trustees in its multiple capacity as accuser, witness, judge and executioner,
puts itself in writing as convinced of the guilt of the accused long before the
date which they set for the so-called hearing. Further comment upon this
seems unnecessary.
LETTER. V.
Camera Club,
New York, February 4th, 1908.
Mr. Alfred Stieglitz,
1111 Madison Avenue, New York.
Dear Sir: It is my duty to advise you that at a meeting
of the Board of Trustees of the Camera Club, held on February
3rd, 1908, you were expelled from membership in the Club
and from all rights in or to any of its property.
I am directed by the Board to ask you to remove all of
your property from the Club Rooms forthwith.
Yours respectfully,
(Signed) M. W. Tingley Secretary.
29
