The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-11-03
sTlrUlRr AND the oUsroM house,
r,w-rnts upea soae Recent Decisions or the
Treasury Department.

C0mmfhNH "
treasury Department.
To THE EprroR or THE suS-Sir: Kindly
Grant ,uo space to briefly comment on some re-
conf decisions Of tho Treasury Department md
the Board Of Appraisers in reference to =" stat
n.rv" As some Of these decisions have been
uphcld by the courts 1t requires some tcmcrity
20 ~oriliciso them, but M only justification must
be that not even courts arc infnlliblc, as higher
courts sometimes testify.
7 refer first to two rulings made by tho Treas
urv Departments. First, that where the model
only is tho work of tho sculptor and the repro
duction is by another hand, the work Is not en-
titled to tho privileges OF the FREQ list. even "
tho creator is an American sculptor; second,
that no bronco statues can DO considered " stat
nary " under paragraph l54 tDiuglcyl, because
n defines "statuary" us follows: But tho
form statuary' used in this act shall DO under
stood to include only such rs is cut, carved. or
otherwise wrought by hand from n solid block
of marble, stone, or alabaster, or from metal
Under this definition 1t Is commended that ms no
bronco statue is cut, carved. or otherwise
wrought by hand from n solid block OF metal,
bronze statues arc not " statuary within the
meaning OF tho act.
To the above must BIO added two recent de-
cisions Of the Board OF Appraisers. to the effect
that an altar and rcroaos are not works of art,
una lastly, IuuU lut JIM oNhtu''y
classification under tho law as tho professional
production Of q sculptor is such as Ia produced
in his own studio either bv his own hand or
by others under his direction, ana TO winch no
has given tho finishing touches"
Considering the first and last or these DC
cisioua together, il is evident that neither tho
Board of Appraisers nor the Treasury AUTHORITIES
can master all the details arising from the con,
struction OF the tariff. They must necessarily
rely upon the testimony. Of experts in lndiyid.
ual caseS. Wo arc told that In tho latter cases
at least they did so, and the names and tosti'
mony Of several eminent sculptors nre puo,
i ilsnef FAC, "s h tSo Iss Siv Saeis snS,r is nI ali the more tiS" re- :.
lnarkablc, as 1t deliberately declares the work
Of these expert Witnesses themselves TO oc ONT MT
simple reason that not one Of these experts
whose names havo seen published makes other
finishing touches with his own HANDS T. to tho
marble or bronze copies Of his models In ;act,
ception to, tho rule. In 20 doing these artists
simply follow the practice OF their time ana
PLACE = and l, as NV vol n t as 5 they; h would aSch De work OF tG 10
icsl!lmate Methods for every sculptor VIA
testify that the reproduction OF n model
in marble or bronze is a mechanical process re
Quiling III. il skill. %pcrAnij, but only skill of y
requisite that the artist ohouid add tho finishing
touches With his own hand: Hence i is evident
Enrdcd or misunderstood ihc testimony Of these
] experts. The decision is absurd, ana u borders
ant of these matters should deliberately disrc-
gard the testimony OF gentlemen eminent In tho
II We consider tho effect. OF this. ruling wc see
that, it favors only such, American artists as
thor native country, but spending nothing in
return. Their work comes iii free and unqucs-
d dtSh I % SsEed Il the he G nnis Ff ife m@d here h ,s isn and
sent 1t to Europe to be copied. Yet, even If he
s spsth done abroad aS; he da has for SSn0 wS SalE what a m has
lives in Rome or Florence and sends his
model to Carrara, for example, to. be
sent it from New York; yet this ruling pro
tects the one at the cxpcn cot the other and is
that the intent of the law is TO protect non-resi.
dents rather than home artists. Thcfact is that
in, such cases the only prope. question is
whether the work is the work of ali American
sculptor produced in the manner sanctioned by
professional usage and common sense. Both
usage and common sense teach that the artistic
part of a statue is the making OF the model. and
that the rest is mechanical work, and whether II
character OF the work is not altered. The proof
of this is that a sculptor in making a mode
CONSIDERS the material in which 1t is to be final
y executed and aims to impress upon the mode
the character OF the ultimate material, and
knows that he can reach this result with greater
surety by inirusting this part Of the work to .
sense an artist himself. Nor, if his model is nc
%curate, is it necessary that he should supervise
1t in the manner claimed by the board OF APP
praisers. any more than he would examine {
pair of shoes made to order 10 see if they are
AS to the altar and rercdos it is. of course, i'm
possible for me to say whether this particular
D no question Mas Hp WI" that no" "lt "a Mor and ! Tercd pos t ars, i i
properly made. works Of art. If this one wa!
not then it was rightly excluded. but as to tn,
error in breadth of this decision there can DO NJ
question. Affairs are By their very nature partl!
architectural. and though that fact does no
AFFECT their artistic nature il makes them neccs
sarily in most cases the product OF industrial
establishments so far as their mechanical part
are concerned, but whether made by hands o.
partly by machinery their artistic nature ma!
be identical. Here again the question is purel,
one OF fact. 1t either is or is not tho production
of an artist made in the manner that sucl
works must necessarily be made, yet this re
markable decision denies this. 1t is time the fac
should be recognized that the architect is n
much an artist as the painter or sculptor. ant
that there may be as much art in a straigh
moulding, u facade. or an altar as in q statue OF
painting,
There remains TO consider only the decision
that excludes bronze staluary T. ON the classif
cation " statuary." 10 Justify this decision /
must be held either ~ that our legislator
meant to exclude bronze ~statnary by q play o
words, or i2l that they were ignorant OF the fac
that bronze statues arc not carved, or wrough
by hand from solid blocks Of metal. or go tina
that they could not declare plainly their mean
ing. The trsa two assumptions cannot be On
t%crtatucd for 4 moment. but let us sec II thor,
Is anything in tho last one. | am rendy to adm
that Tho phrascolOTy of this paragraph 45l i
S cSse, Is it n nr%,ss Sisnf to s sivo to Il Inc Put m a IN tina a
ton which wo not o ly know by testimony o
It's lramors, but also by the dictates OF comrHo
sense. il the wrong oncl Read in the light O
reason there is no doubt OF its true meaning
Had II been meant TO exclude, bronze statues, I
could, and would have clearly said SO. Ii no
only does not say so, but tho use of the wor,
- from brforc the word metal" d%isconncct
the latter WORD entirely from the preceding kin,
Of statues that are made from u solid block, an,
its clear meaning is such ~statuary ms is cut
carved, or otherwise wrought By hand from
solid block or mass of marble. stone, or alaOas
tor. or tmadcl from metal" This is the common
sense reading of the paragraph and the uu
doubted meaning of its trainers. and any othc
Interpretation can only be explained by the wis
10 take advantage of tho slightest technical cI
ror in order TO collect more duties.
ALEX. DOYLE.