tion of the male line a reduced annuity of 100,000 marks would be paid to
his female descendants. As further settlement for the concessions made by the
grand duke, particularly in ceding highly valuable collections and objects of
art, the grand duke was to be paid a special compensation of 3 million marks.
5
By this time, about 1924, the collection was no longer called the Grand
Ducal Art Collection but rather the State Art Collection of Weimar (Staatliche
Kunstsammlungen zu Weimar). The annuities under the 1921 agreement were
paid to the grand duke’s heirs until 1945, when payments ceased, as the war
had been lost by Germany and the Allies would not make these payments. In
1948 the right to the annuities was extinguished by expropriation through an
act passed by the Province of Thuringia, then under Soviet control.
6
What the grand duchess failed to tell the courts was that in October
1946, she and the duke had smuggled out of the Russian Occupation Zone
gold, silver, and jewels valued at $5 million. The property was found by Ger-
man border police and turned over to the U.S. Army First Constabulary
Brigade in the town of Eschwege. The property was inventoried, tagged, and
loaded onto a 2
1
⁄2-ton truck and taken to Frankfurt, Germany. There it was
turned over to American authorities at the Foreign Exchange Depository. In
the late 1960s, the property had been turned over to the officials of the West
German government.
7
The Elicofon, grand duchess, and State Art Museum of Weimar case
continued. After 15 long- drawn- out years of legal appeals, the United States
District Court, Eastern District of New York, named the State Art Museum
of Weimar the true owner of the two Dürer paintings and directed that they
be returned to Germany. Elicofon’s additional appeals of the court’s decision
were denied and the Dürer portraits were restored to the Weimar Museum in
1982. By the time of the return of the paintings, Ardelia Hall had died, Dr.
Walther Scheidig had also died, and, after 38 years, the U.S. Army had lost
all interest in World War II matters.
In 1979, two years prior to the settlement of the case, for some arcane
reason Edward I. Elicofon, the defendant, asked the United States District
Court, Eastern District of New York, to interview and obtain sworn affidavits
from the same 102nd Division officers who were investigated by the army in
1954 regarding their activities while occupying Schwarzburg Castle. This
cross- examination was more formal than the first, when army investigators
asked the former soldiers comfortable questions. The penalty for untruthful-
ness with a federal court is a bit more severe than with the army.
Former Capt. Paul N. Estes, company commander of F Company at
Schwarzburg, told the federal interrogator more than he had told the army
investigator of 1954. He recalled seeing an antique pistol with a handle in the
shape of a ball. This may well have been one of the ivory- inlaid pistols from
120 Part IV : The Schwarzburg Castle