We at the Metropolitan Museum have been happy to have loans of

our art covered under the British indemnity, as opposed to purchasing our own insurance. I should note, too, that insurance coverage for international exhibitions constitutes a relatively small part of the total coverage needed by the United States museums for their permanent collections and for domestic travel. The proposed bill will in no way reduce or eliminate insurance coverage needed, year-in and year-out, on the immeasurable value of the works of art held in United States museums. On the other hand, indemnity legislation is needed because of the prohibitively high cost of insurance incurred when a large concentration of value is removed from its normally secure surroundings and cposed to the risk of foreign travel, exhibition, and return to its customary location within a brief period of time. Despite the lack of losses, the insurance industry is simply not comfortable with the large transient values at risk and, therefore, charges compensatory high premiums.

The current exchange with the Soviet Ministry of Culture under the provisions of the special indemnification bill has been a valuable learning experience for us at the Metropolitan and, I dare say, for the Department of State. It may be helpful to the committee if, in the wake of this experience, I offer a specific suggestion with reference to the draft legislation you are now considering. This proposed legislation presently

provides indemnification only for foreign exhibitions which come on loan to institutions in the United States. It does not provide for art which we send for exhibition to institutions abroad, such as the Metropolitan's current exhibition in the Soviet Union. Since, more often than not, American museums may be obliged to send exhibitions overseas on a reciprocal basis, I suggest that this legislation should include American art sent on foreign loan whenever the Department of State certifies that the contemplated exhibition is in the national interest.

This procedure

55-490 - 75-5

6

of course, should not apply to both parts of any single exchange, or to art sent from us to a foreign government whose policy it is to indemnify such exhibitions.

The problems of valuation in international exchanges are quite different in character from domestic exhibitions. For that reason, I

endorse this legislation's provision that instead of having a U. S. government agency estimate the valuation of objects in proposed international exhibitions, the government should instead review the evaluations made by the lenders. Objects of art coming from abroad generally are government property

more precisely, the property of government-owned institutions. Realistically, we must accept the value estimated by such governmental lenders or do without the loans. It is worth noting here that, in our experience with Great Britain, the British government traditionally permits borrowing museums in England to accept our valuation of objects going to them on loan.

Only if a reasonable overall dollar value of a given exhibition of foreign works of art is accepted by our government at the outset, can we avoid substantial delay, confusion and disagreement that could easily make the proposed exhibition impossible. If the valuations set by foreign lenders on their national treasures are thought to be too high, the only practicable solution is to refuse the exhibition.

Haggling over individual

valuations with foreign countries is simply not a feasible alternative. Since, as a matter of historical record, catastrophes in these exchanges are extremely unlikely, the bulk of the questions concerning valuation are more often than not entirely academic.

Moreover, you will note that in

the present wording of the draft, Section 226-A provides for the arbitration

of the value of damaged objects after the damage has occurred.

This seems to us to put the matter of valuation in a proper sequence, and

it should be sufficient to protect the interests of the government.

7

Recently we have received substantial support from The

National Endowment for the Humanities towards the costs of several
We are deeply grateful for this support

international exchanges.

without which we could not have mounted the exhibitions.

While these

sums were not specifically allocated to insurance costs, it is obvious that in contributing to the overall costs of the exchanges, the National Endowment was effectively subsidizing an important share of the insurance costs involved.

Should this bill become law, the two National Endowments

will be able to help in bringing more and better foreign art exhibitions
to our people at less cost to the taxpayers than is presently the case.
I would like to conclude with a more generalized plea for
increased Federal interest in and support of the nation's cultural
institutions. Even though Federal monies appropriated for the arts and
humanities have risen steadily in the last few years, they still remain
far below the per capita levels made available by Canada and many European
While historically, private sources have provided the bulk

countries.

of support to leading cultural institutions like the Metropolitan Museum in the United States, rising costs, inflation and reduced endowment incomes have made it clear that Federal help to the institutions which serve our artistic needs must be substantially increased.

This proposed legislation to make the United States government a supporting partner in important international exchanges involves no significant However, it constitutes a very significant step in the Thank you for allowing me to appear before you.

outlay of funds.

right direction.

DILLON STATEMENT

ATTACHMENT ONE

TO VISITORS OF THE SOVIET EXHIBIT IN THE

METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART

In the modern world, exchanges in the field of culture in general, and exchanges of works of art owned by the best museums of the two countries in particular, play an invaluable role in strengthening mutual understanding between our two nations. Taking this into consideration, we commend the initiative taken by the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Leningrad Hermitage, and a number of other museums of the USSR which are trying to make regular exchanges of art exhibits an inseparable part of the cultural exchange between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A.

The Soviet Union, in its desire to acquaint the American people with masterpieces created on the territory of ancient Russia, has sent to the United States unique historical pieces of art. The Metropolitan Museum, in turn, will offer the Soviet people the opportunity this year of seeing a hundred magnificent paintings from its collections of West-European and American art.

We welcome the visitors to the Soviet exhibit in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and sincerely hope that Soviet-American relations will continue to develop in the interests of the people of both nations and to strengthen peace on earth.

Leonid I. Brezhnev

MR. DILLON'S STATEMENT/Attachment Two

Summary of valuations covered by British Treasury Indemnities for major
exhibitions, 1970-75, and the claims which were paid or are pending
(as reported to the Metropolitan Museum)