A number of the messages in this thread have provoked me into airing my own
views.  Most importantly, I think the statements to the effect that ignorance
of the law is no excuse were rather beside the point.  As far as I can tell,
Small never suggested that he was unaware of the laws governing the importation,
sale, or purchase of feathers from endangered bird species.  He claimed that
he cleared his purchases with his lawyers, indicating that he knew there were
potential legal issues.  The problem seemed to be that neither he nor his
lawyers were able to identify the problematic feathers as being from endangered
species.  They weren't ornithologists qualified to make such a judgment,
apparently.  Although he supposedly had some collecting experience with such
material, he was unable to differentiate the illegal feathers among the legal ones.
Nor, it seems, were a lot of other people--at first.

I think the insinuations of several people to the effect that anyone other
than a person in a position of power such as Small would end up going to jail
over this infraction are unwarranted.  Despite the jail time prescribed for
breaking this law, it is a misdemeanor, and in my experience, very few first-time
offenders, whoever they are, go to jail for misdemeanors.  Very few, for that
matter, have to suffer the public embarrassment Small has incurred.  Part of
that embarrassment arises from the revelation that he was not as knowledgeable
about feathers as he should have been before sinking $400,000 of his own money
into such a purchase.  Caveat emptor.

As far as culpability is concerned, we are left to wonder why the seller of
Small's collection, Rosita Heredia, was not similarly charged.  This is the
real issue that I'd like to see the Washington Post research.  For that matter,
what about the Brazilian artists who plucked the feathers in the first place?
We are also left to wonder why the Fish & Wildlife Service concluded its
initial investigation of Small without charging him, only to revive it and spend
another three years before deciding that a crime had been committed?  It would
seem that there were a lot of knowledgeable people who weren't certain for a
long time that there was a problem.

That leads me to question Patricia McDougal's complaint that the Post, i.e.,
the reporter Jacqueline Trescott, was somehow negligent in her research.  She
disapproved of Trescott's statement that Small's salary is paid out of "trust"
or "private" funds.  "Private" may be an unsatisfactory term, but it is used
all the time to denote non-federal funds.  What's the issue here, Trish?

Then there were the suggestions that Small's ownership of a personal
collection somehow violated ethical standards.  We've been down this road before on
this list, with people claiming that a museum employee cannot have a collection
of any type that his/her institution also collects, which, if followed to its
logical conclusion, results in absurdities.  Since the Smithsonian has a
costume and clothing collection which includes contemporary apparel, does this mean
Small would not be allowed to own a suit?  I think that's a misinterpretation
of the dictum that a museum employee should not compete with the institution
and should divulge personal collections so that any unethical behavior can be
detected.  Audra Oliver's sensible rebuttal was on the mark.

I'm not aware that any of Small's collection was exhibited at the
Smithsonian.  It was shown in his personal gallery.  But even if it had been displayed at
the Smithsonian, what would the "serious ethical concerns" be that Kristen
Watts mentioned?

Finally, I thought Indigo Nights' notion that other Smithsonian staff might
be "accomplices after the fact" in not reporting illegal items in Small's
collection was over the top.  This was Small's personal collection and staff
apparently had no opportunity to test, or perhaps even to examine closely, the
artifacts.  If the collection had been donated or sold to the Smithsonian and
incorporated into its collections, knowledgeable staff would have the obligation to
report anything illegal, but otherwise...?  While this "scandal" has
ramifications for the Smithsonian, at bottom it's about a private citizen's brush with
the law.  I think that the Smithsonian regents getting into the act, while
perhaps necessary from a PR standpoint, rather muddies the waters and confuses
the public.

In any event, I think the real moral here is, as I said, caveat emptor.

David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).