DOI article:
John Francis Strauss, Mr. Stieglitz’s “Expulsion”—A Statement
DOI article:[Correspondence between Alfred Stieglitz and M. W. Tingley]
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.31045#0034
- Intro Page
- All related items
- art journals – Illustrated art and satire periodicals
- Further information on the journal
A manually made transcription or edition is also available for this page. Please change to the tab "transrciption" or "edition."
Although the action of the Board of Trustees was illegal and outrageous
and had been followed by the resignation of two of the Trustees and many
members of the Club as a protest against this violation of all legality and
decency, Mr. Stieglitz upon his own volition and upon the advice of his friends
decided to accept the situation as it was. He felt that to his friends and
acquaintances and to the photographic world he needed no justification. As
a matter of fact, besides its breach of good manners and gentlemanly conduct,
the matter was too trivial and ridiculous to be noticed except as a joke. But
when the matter was exploited in the public press and when the officers of
the Camera Club asserted for publication that there had been charges against
Mr. Stieglitz, at the same time declining to specify what such charges were,
rumor became busy and the friends of Mr. Stieglitz insisted that he should
take steps to force the Camera Club to its senses.
Steps have now been taken to bring the matter by mandamus before
the courts and to compel the reinstatement of Mr. Stieglitz. After this has
been accomplished I am authorized by Mr. Stieglitz to say that he desires no
further connection with an institution of the calibre of the Camera Club and
will gladly tender his resignation if the Trustees will specify the charges
which prompted the original request for his resignation. From my own
knowledge of the circumstances as they exist there is but one valid reason upon
which such a request for his resignation can be founded and that is that he
has lived up to Article II of the Constitution of the Camera Club, which he
himself helped to draw up, and by his advancement of photography through
the medium of the Photo-Secession and of Camera Work, he has been guilty
of conduct prejudicial to the welfare and interests of the Camera Club,
New York. John Francis Strauss.
New York, February 29th.
Since the above article was set up in type, the Trustees of the Camera
Club have made return to the writ, issued by the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, sued out by Mr. Stieglitz. In this return the Club tacitly
admits the illegality of its action by stating that Mr. Stieglitz in the interval
had been reinstated by the Trustees, and that it was therefore now unneces-
sary for the Court to compel such action by them. Their graceful re-
traction will be found in Letter No. VI :
LETTER VI.
The Camera Club, N. Y.
March 10, 1908.
Mr. Alfred Stieglitz,
1111 Madison Ave., New York.
Dear Sir: Below I give you a copy of a Resolution
adopted by the Board of Trustees at a meeting held March
6, 1908:
“ Resolved , That the action of the Board of Trustees
taken at a meeting on February 3d, 1908, expelling Alfred
and had been followed by the resignation of two of the Trustees and many
members of the Club as a protest against this violation of all legality and
decency, Mr. Stieglitz upon his own volition and upon the advice of his friends
decided to accept the situation as it was. He felt that to his friends and
acquaintances and to the photographic world he needed no justification. As
a matter of fact, besides its breach of good manners and gentlemanly conduct,
the matter was too trivial and ridiculous to be noticed except as a joke. But
when the matter was exploited in the public press and when the officers of
the Camera Club asserted for publication that there had been charges against
Mr. Stieglitz, at the same time declining to specify what such charges were,
rumor became busy and the friends of Mr. Stieglitz insisted that he should
take steps to force the Camera Club to its senses.
Steps have now been taken to bring the matter by mandamus before
the courts and to compel the reinstatement of Mr. Stieglitz. After this has
been accomplished I am authorized by Mr. Stieglitz to say that he desires no
further connection with an institution of the calibre of the Camera Club and
will gladly tender his resignation if the Trustees will specify the charges
which prompted the original request for his resignation. From my own
knowledge of the circumstances as they exist there is but one valid reason upon
which such a request for his resignation can be founded and that is that he
has lived up to Article II of the Constitution of the Camera Club, which he
himself helped to draw up, and by his advancement of photography through
the medium of the Photo-Secession and of Camera Work, he has been guilty
of conduct prejudicial to the welfare and interests of the Camera Club,
New York. John Francis Strauss.
New York, February 29th.
Since the above article was set up in type, the Trustees of the Camera
Club have made return to the writ, issued by the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, sued out by Mr. Stieglitz. In this return the Club tacitly
admits the illegality of its action by stating that Mr. Stieglitz in the interval
had been reinstated by the Trustees, and that it was therefore now unneces-
sary for the Court to compel such action by them. Their graceful re-
traction will be found in Letter No. VI :
LETTER VI.
The Camera Club, N. Y.
March 10, 1908.
Mr. Alfred Stieglitz,
1111 Madison Ave., New York.
Dear Sir: Below I give you a copy of a Resolution
adopted by the Board of Trustees at a meeting held March
6, 1908:
“ Resolved , That the action of the Board of Trustees
taken at a meeting on February 3d, 1908, expelling Alfred
