It is hard to justify Mr. Rockwell Kent's assertion that the intention of the donor has been violated in the recent award to "the advertisement most effective in the use of illustration." It is hardly credible that Mr. Bok should have sat idly by while this award has been four times made to the firm or person responsible for the advertisement rather than the painter of the picture utilized. Aside from the fact that the wording of the conditions seem to justify their present construction, the tacit assent of the donor to this arrangement should certainly be sufficient justification.

It is unfortunate that an interested individual, especially one who had been the recipient of the voluntary generosity on the part of the firm involved should take it upon himself to interpret the will of the donor without an express statement from him. Mr. Kent's position in his profession can only increase the regret that he has taken it upon himself to becloud a policy that would seem to be clearly d both by precedent and a common sense interpretation of the conditions governing the award.