New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-03-21
A TARIFF on IDEAS.

Whether n tariff is for revenue or protec
ton or for purposes of retaliation, 1t must pe
based unon economic logic Of some sort II II Is
70 he respected 1t is not to be supposed that
onv nation would rise up in the morning ana
Mace n fax upon certain imports for the sheer
Measure Of showing its power. Yet 1t is pretty
nearly This kind of action to which Mr. Dingley
seems DESTROYS Of committing us in that part
If his Tariff bill which relates to the products
Of art and literature. He places duty upon
them which has no earthly justification In the
- facts Of our intercourse with other nations. We
say this advlsedly. 1t is undoubtedly true that
the traffic in works of art, in printed books and
IN the instruments of learning generally which
Is carried on between the United States and
Europe involves great moneyed interests. But
tbere are some financial transactions In which
the parties concerned can afford TO overlook the
nroft and loss account Of the individual for the
sake of the benefit accrulng to the community AT
large That is q fact which Mt Dlngley ignores
In his report he proposes that the president De
authorized to negotiate with foreign Govern
ments with a view to securing from them re-
clprocal and equivalent concessions IN respec'
10 the sale OF paintings and statuary. Ihis Is
all very well, but such negotiations ought not 10
be necessary where works OF art ana literature
are concerned. An arrangement OF this SORT IL
in itself a humiliation TO all the parties con-
cerned, for by It they degrade the spirit to the
level of material things-they virtually put
tariff upon ideas This is the tariff which Mr..
Dingley has reported to the House. The tax on
education which he proposes was stigmatized in
n recent letter to The Tribune by Mr. MarQuand
as barbarous another correspondent calls 1t
mediaeval: and. as Mr. George Haven Putnam
observes in q communication which will be found
on another mage at Is difficult to understand
"what class Of citizens have been interested IN
planning for the special taxation now pro-
'posed" Mr.. Dingley does not speak in this
instance for the best sense OF the community
His bill contains so many wise provisions that
II must appeal 10 enlightened voters throughout
the country, but there is not one Of those voters
who Will fail TO resent the slap in the face which
Il gives to the educational movement IN the
United States. We don't deny that tariff on
pictures and sculpture and books will increase
our revenue. But we would be ashamed to re-
neal the statutes which exempt church property
from local taxation, because we know that the
churches are doing good 70 mems souls. Why
should we not be ashamed TO repeal laws that
enable the art galleries and libraries and college
laboratories to do good to mems minds In O
measure that will be considerably diminished
through this clause Of Mr. Dingley's bill? The
dealers will profit by free art and free books, but
the American people will profit more, and we
oupht To have the courage to abandon cheerfuly
a good many millions of public revenue for the
sake of the incalcuable benefit bestowed upon
The inhabitants Of this country.
For long period Of time the best influences
in our civilization have been at work to put the
means Of better and better education into the
hands OF the people Mr.. Dingley asks that we
write ourselves down as a Nation caring more
for money than for intellectual and moral prog,
ress. Let us give him m illustration Of how
this bill will work to the damage Of the general
public. For many years the masterpieces OF
velasauez at Madrid have been practically q
: sealed book TO thousands Of Americans. Photo
graphs have been circulated here, but not OF q
perfect quality. Lately two foreign houses have
produced magnificent reproductions Of the paint.