The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1860-05-26

IL u with req 'rot tA~' "o n~s'eo '
ment has beea set on foot amongst Americas
artists to obtain ,'he passage Of prchibiscrl
duty on foreign pal 'utings and engravirgs,
delega ION is now In Washington busily lobby
Ing with this object, and unless steps arr
promptly taken to defea. its efforts we shall
have an alteration in the Il. IN which caano
but prove most injurious to the interests q
American art The idea Is u impose on al
paintings imported into this couA>' Try a.duty o.
dollar an inch on their length a nd breadth
Thus, picture twelve inches by swA I've would
have to pay twenty -four dollars, srd 80 on in
proportion. The effect of this wotiA be u
shut out all pictures sent here for sale, Kcept
those of extravagant price, whilst for sign
dealers, such o. Mr. Gambart, who arc IN 1 he
habit periodically exhibiting large collection
In New York, would netfnd it worth their while>
TO incur such heavy outlay fcr purely sps-
culative object. II is dinacult enough to seil
pictures of value in our market, withe1s
unnecessarily exaggerating their cost.
Al regards sngrivings, We cannst imagine
the grounds On which protection II. invoked
against them, unless, indeed, II b thass gsoA
foreign engraving b better than bad Amesi-
can painting. Until domestic art produces
good eng,avers, no other argument can be
urged in favor of prohibitory duty. At pro-
sent our publishers are compelled to sesd
abroad all engavings Of nne descriptiea that
they have to execute II would be the height
of absurdity to protect foreign imported work
against foreign competition. II would simply
be granting to two or three ricl, publishing
houses here profitable monopoly, without IN
any degree, beneftting domestic an The TO
reign publishers would not, however, be the
only parties injured by the arrsngens at Oar
public, which has now within its reaA works
of average excellence at q reasonable price,
would be compelled to fall back upoA sucn
trash as the mediocre talent, which seeks pro-
lection, might choose to produce for it.
But 1t is on the interests of American art ana
American artists that this siterst ion
would operate most disastrously. In
order to extend the patronage 4
the works of American painters of admitte
merit, and to enable them to obtain the Pricea
to which they are entitled, we must form this
taste of our public in art matters. How b thist
to be done? Not, certainly, by combining theirss
opportunities of observation to our own galle-4
ries, In which the first ambitious essays Of the
Sign painter find place side by side with the
works of such men as Church, Huntington,
Gigpoux and Elliott No. judgment in art IL
only to be formed ON the best models, and
these we must import from abroad Our own
first class painters are too few and their works
too scarce to supply what the fruits of 3 reve-
rent study. of the works of the old masters
have furnished to modern art abroad. II We
refuse to form government collections; let NJ
at least not throw obstacles in the way Of the
individuals who seek to present us
with the opportunities that neither our instita-
tons nor our painters afford us. Protection In
industry 10 clog upon its advancement; in srs
II Is positive step towards retrogression.
DIFFICULTY BETWEEN OFFICERS OF THE Cos
PoRATIoN AND THE LAST LEoIsLATuRE-Itis cur
rently reported that through the agency Of
certain politicians, an agreement was made be-
tween officers and sub-ofacers of the Corpora
ton of this city and members of the lsts Legis-
lature for certain sum Of money II the charter
ho Al 10 e