The American Art-Union's Downfall Herald. That issue still being unsettled, the press continued to hammer at it until its political implications had grown beyond the power of the District Attorney to ignore. Believing the Art- Union to be guiltless of violation of the lottery law, he determined to relieve the pressure upon him by having the question settled once and for all in the courts. Accordingly, he brought two actions in the Supreme Court for the confiscation of the Art- Union's property and other forfeitures under the law.40 It is not within the province of this paper to enter a detailed discussion of the legal proceedings that were directed against the Art-Union from this time on. Much of that portion of the story is well known." Perhaps, at this point, it would suffice to indicate the Union's view of the desperate situation by quoting from a letter written by Andrew Warner to a Saint Louis correspondent, June 2,1852: We have been in a sea of legal troubles ever since our attempt to have the infamous Bennett punished for his gross libel. We are an unhappy illustration of the old adage 'touch pitch &c.' Bennett you are aware was indicted for his libel upon our Committee. He moved to have it quashed, and to the astonishment of every sane lawyer, in these parts at least, our newly elected Recorder granted the motion on the ground that our distribution in his opinion is a violation of the lottery laws. Bennett felt so happy in escaping the Penitentiary upon technical grounds, thought he would endeavour to destroy the Institution that had placed him in jeopardy—and having the wise opinion of the Recorder before him—purchased the assignment of a certificate of membership and applied for and obtained an injunction to prohibit our distribution on the ground of its violation of law &c—The matter was argued, but the Judges finding Bennett had no right of action dismissed the case and dissolved the injunction without deciding the lottery question. Our troubles were not yet over. The District Attorney, after the injunction discovery of the Recorder, felt it to be his duty to have our right to distribute tested, and made application to have the paintings on the catalogue forfeited under the lottery laws. The case was fully argued in the Supreme Court early in May and we have been daily expecting a '"Supplementary Bulletin of the American Art-Union [Series for 1851, No. XI], May 1, 1853, p. 2. a See "The American Art-Union" by Charles E. Baker, in Mary Bartlett Cowdrey, American Academy of Fine Arts and American Art-Union i8i6-i8$2 (The New-York Historical Society, 1953), I: 232-233. 35<S