Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1884-06-30
lanraster fnteIIige,,rfr.
MonpAY EVENING. JuNm 30, 1854.
yhsuld pIc,ures he Taxed 2


Should PIc,ures he Taxed3
Judge Mitchell, OF the Philadelphia
courts, has just given his opinion that
pictures are not taxable AZ furniture.
The board VI revision of taxes in that
city had decided otherwise and Mr..
Henry G. Lea, a wealthy owner of
valuable pictures, appealed from the
decision. His plea was that pictures
were not intended to be taxed under the
law taxing furniture, since they were
not commonly included under that term.
lie further insisted that private works OF
art should not be taxed, as they yielded
no revenue to the owner, and that bis
ownership should not be put under the
penalty OF q tax that would tend to re-
strict IL and 30 discourage art produc-
tion.
IL will be seen that the questions in.
volyed are difficult of decision and
wide reaching in their considerations. 1t
Is toss up whether you decide that pic
lures are or are not furniture. You will
probably determine it according to the
bent Of your views or interests. The d ic'
tionaries will let You make the decision
either way. II you insure your picture
and 1t IL burned, insurance adjusters
will probably hold adifferent view, from
the one that is clear TO you, on the ques
tions as to whether pictures are furniture,
in default of express stipulation about the
matter in the policy. Judge Mitchell
inclined to protect art and 80 agreed
with Mr.. Lea that his pictures were not
furniture. 1t is not a matter of great con
sequence whether pictures are or are not
furniture. III the Legislature wants
pictures to be taxed it can say 80 speciti =
cally. The real question Of interest in
the matter is as to whether works of art
should be taxed. 1t is a question akin TO
that OF tariff taxation. Shall there be
a bounty upon the ownership OF works
of art ? Shall the home manufacturer of
them be encouraged by their being freed
from tax, and the foreign maker along
with him 1t is not easy to say yes
The home manufacturer should be Ell
couraged in the production of artistic
as we'll as useful works, perhaps; but
certainly art has no greater claim than
utility. 1t may be very well to encour-
age a taste for pictures but is 1t not TO
encourage the ownership of picks and
shoyels ? II a bedstead Is taxed, why
should not picture I've ? II the manu-
facturers Of articles OF utility have their
trade embarrassed by the taxation Of
their products, why should not the
maker of articles OF art bear like bur
then ?
We defend the bounty imposed by the
tariff laws for the benefit OF home
manufactures because it is TO the al
vantage of the country TO possess suct
manufactures. But we see no cause fol
giving u bounty to the ownership O
articles, that may be made here OI
abroad, whether they be articles of art Ol
utility. The theory upon which oul
taxes are imposed is that they are tax
on wealth. Everything is supposed &c
be taxed-moneys at interest and rea
estate as well as furniture. II Mr.
LEAFS money was not IN his
pictures 1t would be in some
thing else that would yield u
tax, il the tax gatnerer could get hold
OF it. The difficulty with pictures is
that they cannot be concealed as other
property may be. The difficulty with
our tax system is that the property
which the law taxes is not taxed. If ali
was taxed that was liable to taxation,
the rate would be 50 light that it would
b, no burtheu OF encouragement To the
owners of objects OF art. What is i'm
peratively needed is some system of tax.
tion that will lay lovel tax on wealth
and not simply pretend to, failing fou
Of the Leas with their mopey in art pic
lures and letting free the Goulds will
their cash In chromos.