Then the newspapers published the following item of news:
M. J. L. Breton, deputy from Cherbourg, proposes to put to the Assistant-Secretary of State for the Beaux Arts, in the course of the next discussion of his budget, a question regarding the “scandal” of the Autumn Salon, and to ask him not to allow the use of the Grand Palais for such manifestations, which discredit French art in our national palaces.
This is the question which was put to the consulting commission charged with giving its advice regarding the multiple concessions for the Grand Palais in 1913.
M. Pascal, of the Institute, who presented the question, concluded unfavorably. After a long and lively discussion, the commission ranged itself by a large majority on the side of the proponent.
Let us recall the protests that have been addressed to the Autumn Salon. They were the subject, a few weeks ago, of a letter from Mr. Lampué, dean of the municipal council, who protested against the invasion of cubism into the galleries of the palace of expositions.
It is now up to M. Léon Bérard, Assistant-Secretary of State for the Beaux Arts, to take final action.
On varnishing day, Mr. Gabriel Mourey wrote in the Journal:
“What a pity it is that there is no law permitting the taking of legal action against painters who cultivate hatred of beauty in the public mind. These painters are the advance-guard artists and the Cubists.” M. Mourey neglected to tell us if the legal action which he proposes to us would be civil or penal. In our opinion, it would be necessary to make a distinction: The rich painters might be condemned to pay a penalty, and, so that the Government might not be liable to lose its rights where there is nothing, the poor painters might be hung up high and short.
Oh, tolerance! oh, progress! oh, the twentieth century!