Must We Burn Fred Schultz?*

*Title of an article appearing in the November 2001 issue of Art and Auction magazine

The November 2001 issue of the leading art magazine Art and Auction, which is just now hitting newsstands, features a stongly worded editorial calling the current government indictment of New York dealer Fred Schultz a case based more on "vindictiveness" than good law.

The article is required reading for anyone concerned about the future of the antiquities trade.

The editorial, written by Editor-in-Chief and Publisher Bruce Wolmer, points out that what is at stake is not simply Schultz's guilt or innocence on the "one count of conspiracy to possess, conceal, barter, sell and dispose of Egyptian artifacts that the U.S. government claims were 'stolen' from Egypt," but the government's ability to base such claims on a series of poorly structured laws, some of which are not even our American laws!

In the Schultz case, the bulk of the government's claim is that he allegedly violated a law that prohibits the trade and transportation of any Egyptian antiquity discovered in Egypt after 1983. But the law is not a US law, rather it is an Egyptian law. Is it right to try a US citizen on US soil under the law of another country? As absurd as it sounds, this is exactly what is occuring. Not to mention that the government's case is thought to rely on a key witness who is a convicted smuggler.

"It is no exaggeration to say that if the Justice Department wins the case," writes Wolmer, "it will be a green light for a full-bore campaign against anyone, including a museum, owning a work of art that is deemed to have been 'improperly' exported."

Such arbitrary determinations over the definition of "improperly" exported will likely be shaped at least in part by the State Department's Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) which was formed under the Clinton Administration. In fact, Clinton, in his last days in office, rushed to approve a customs restriction drafted by the CPAC regarding importation of "Italian" antiquities (including Greek pottery, go figure). This restriction has been described by lawyers and dealers as too broad, inconsistent, and illogical. At least one dealer has voiced concern that this hasty guideline was Clinton's political payback to the retentionist Italian govenment for the tragic and fatal destruction of a ski gondola downed when an American jet fighter allegedly severed its cable in the Italian Alps under Clinton's watch.

"The art world needs to make its case forcefully in the court of public opinion, even as Fred Schultz makes his case in a court of law," implores Wolmer. "Dealers, collectors, and the market in general play an ethically supportable role in the complex processes of cultural preservation and transmission. We should not let ourselves be caricatured as the villians."

Wolmer points out that the silver lining for all of us is that a victory by Schultz in the courts could force a positive clarification of legal issues relating to antiquities and patrimony. Then, he says, "we can turn our attention to making the Cultural Property Advisory Committe work in the equitable way Congress intended."

As members of the antiquities and the broader art community, we all have an obligation to stay involved and vocal.