Page 28 - Jewish Book Annual Volume 47

Basic HTML Version

20
JEWISH BOOK ANNUAL
to trial was voluminous and largely repetitive. Two items that
were picked up by the press and should be mentioned here
were: 1) the disturbing fact tha t the books were unavailable to
scholarship for over forty years and 2) Dr. Gottschalk’s assertion
in an interview first repo rted on August 23, 1984, tha t the
JRSO, which had long acted as the legal recipient o f post-war
ownerless Jewish p roperty, was the approp ria te instrum en t for
handling the Hochschule collection.19 T h e Guttmann affair
then largely d isappeared from public view as preparations p ro ­
ceeded for the trial that was set for Ju n e 24, 1985.
The case did not go to trial. A settlement was publicly hinted
at on Ju n e 23, 1985,20 and stipulations for a settlement were
made public by the Court on July 16. Briefly, the terms en ­
compass the following: 1) the Jewish Restoration Successor O r ­
ganization was to be appointed as a Referee, first to advise which
books and manuscripts should be recalled from their purchasers
at auction (with certain guidelines from the Court) and second,
to propose a plan for the distribution to public institutions o f
the re tu rned items and the funds left from the proceeds o f
the lots not re tu rned ; 2) Sotheby’s was to recall the books and
manuscripts as o rde red by the Court; 3) JTS elected to give
up the Bible and Machzor and to be reimbursed $900,000; and
a new dono r provided $900,000 in re tu rn for which the Bible
was to be transferred to Yeshiva University and the Machzor
to the JNUL ; 4) $900,000 was to go to the Guttmanns; 5) there
was to be a period o f two weeks du ring which “any person or
institution; m ight commen t on the stipulations. In sum,
Sotheby’s lost all profits from the sale, the unique books were
to end up in public Jewish institutions, the Guttmanns were
to get nearly half o f the sale’s proceeds, and the question o f
the legality o f the sale remained unanswered.
TERMS APPROVED
The Court proceedings o f August 14 record a lengthy state­
ment by Justice White, a statement that ended with his approval
o f the settlement. He said that he had analyzed and reviewed
the many comments tha t had been submitted and had decided
19. Robert M. Elkins in
Cincinnati Enquirer,
August 23, 1984, p. C-2.
20. Elkins,
Cincinnati Enquirer,
June 23, 1985, p. B-5.