Skip to main content

Mississippi Advisory Opinions August 24, 1994: AGO 94-0499 (August 24, 1994)

Up to Mississippi Advisory Opinions

Collection: Mississippi Attorney General Opinions
Docket: AGO 94-0499
Date: Aug. 24, 1994

Advisory Opinion Text

Ms. Donna Dye

AGO 94-499

No. 94-0499

Mississippi Attorney General Opinions

August 24, 1994

Ms. Donna Dye

Mississippi Department of Archives and History

P. O. Box 571

Jackson, MS 392025-0571

Re: Artifacts in the Museum

Dear Ms. Dye:

Attorney General Mike Moore has received your letter on behalf of the Department of Archives and History and has asked me to respond. Your letter states:

In order to comply with the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Museum notified various Native American groups of artifacts in the Museum collection. NAGPRA provides for the return of sacred items, associated or unassociated funerary objects, or objects of cultural patrimony. We have received inquiries in our collection; I need to know if we have legal ownership before I can respond.

Many of the ethnographic artifacts were probably purchased by a Mississippi collector, Brevoort Butler. The Department of Archives and History purchased his collection from his heirs in 1920. The Museum has catalog cards and an accession record that briefly describe the objects. Neither source states who the donors are or the dates of acquisition. Some of the objects match up with descriptions in notebooks kept by Butler (now in the Manuscript Collection of the Department) but some do not. I need to know if we have ownership of the items not specifically mentioned in the notebooks. Enclosed is a list of the items in question.

There is one other group of artifacts that may be subject to repatriation. Our records indicate that a Louis Prairie (other names listed are Prairie Dog and Bysphysphiva) loaned five items and donated one, all identified as Sioux Indian. The five items were loaned on May 17, 1926. We have no address for Mr. Prairie. Also, we have no signed contract that would indicate whether or not the war club really is a donation; it was acquired on the same day as the loaned objects. The club would be the most likely candidate for repatriation.

We are of the opinion that the Museum has title to artifacts which the Museum curators reasonably believe are in the collection purchased from the heirs of Brevoort Butler because of Museum records, Mr. Butler's records or other evidence that the artifacts are in the collection. The Museum has a clear title to the war club which Mr. Louis Prairie donated to the Museum on May 17, 1926, according to the Museum records. Title to the five items loaned by Mr. Prairie is in his heirs, and the Museum holds these items as bailee until the heirs can be located. See, e.g., Estate of McCagg v. Industrial National Bank, 450 A.R. 2d 414 (D.C. App. 1982) (No limitation on time for reclaiming paintings placed on indefinite loan to museum by owner); Houser v. Ohio Historical Society, 403 N.E.2d 965 (Ohio 1980) (where bailment agreement is for an indefinite term, bailee is not in default until requisite demand for bailed chattels is made); and Wisniewski v. Historical Association of Southern Florida, 408 SO. 2d 746 (Fla. App. 1982) (owner had right to replevy cannons from historical association to which they had been loaned).

If we may be of any further assistance, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Mike Moore Attorney General

Alice Wise Special Assistant Attorney General.