New-York tribune., 1902-03-19

sold it to her is taxed its full value by the lta-
ian Government a punishment for selling II
out of the country. while Mrs. Gardner VIII De
taxed 20 per cent when she attempts to bring II
here"
Frederick Dielman, president of the Naiohdl
Academy of Design, thought the tariff on works
Of art especially those of the dead masters, was
simply barbarOus and in no way defensible ,
This view" Mr.. Dielman went on to say
has been so fully and ably stated. with the rea-
sons supporting it, that nothing l could say
would add to their force or help to enforce this
opinion on the subject 10 those who are unable
to share it, The letter the subject already
published, bearing the signature of number Of
artists, including my own, is clear and com
plete a statement that I have nothing to add
to it"
John w. Alexander said:
The United States is the only country in the
world that puts tariff works of art. All
other nations realize what advantage it is
what an income it is to them, TO have real art
works All the other nations have funds and
committees and officials to secure the best art
works ana as many possible. They realize
that the vast number of tourists attracted
to their countries largely by their art collections
Art collections mean naturally art schools
There probably not less than eight hundred
American artists and art students in France to-
day If had good pictures here more of
them, schools would be better patrOnized.
and large proportion of the students that
now are forced to go abroad would remain at
home. The present policy of the United States
works into the hands of other nations, and it is
mortifyng to know that some of the finest pict-
ures in existence to-day are owned by Ameri-
cans and help to make art centres abroad be
cause the owners very naturally decline to he
made to pay for the privilege Of bringing them
into this country for our advantage.
1T is singular thing that since my return
from abroad some months ago | have not found
a single artist in this country in favor of the
tariff art. We are protected i'm spite of
selves. 1t is very much like having a nurse for
John l.. Sullivan. few are In favor of an ad
valorem duty on art. believing that it will keep
cut rubbish. There is a good deal to be said on
that side but rubbish never lasts. 1t disap-
pears and i'm A few years is gone.
In England collections are handed down from
oldest son to oldest son, and are so retained in
the family. With US, If an owner of pictures
does not beQueath them himself to museums
they are divided on his death among the differ
cnt members of his family. AMI so the collections
are scattered, eventually finding their way into
the museums and becoming public property,
For that reason We should hold out Inducements
to the bringing in Of works OF art rather than
throwing distractions in the way
Il am convinced that the best interests Of
American art are conserved by the total ahon-
lion OF the tariff works of art There Is a
constant cry in this country for an American
school II can only be built up by bringing the
best work of the world before our students and
artists, not necessarily to he copied or initiated,
but an incentive and a stimulus. II seems 70
me most un-American to make politics of eduCa-
uonal subjects 1 can't see where politics come
in. II is a fact that At the Paris Exposition
some ~ tho finest works OF art that We're among
the greatest attractions Of the exhibition We're
owned by Americans. who will not pay the fine
TO bring them TO this country. Mr.. Morgan owns
and keeps i'm Europe some very wonderful pct-
ures. world renowned J. J. Hill also, Mrs. Gard
HeT. of Boston. and Senator Clark. who told
me the other day that the duty on one collection
of pictures recently purchased by him would
be S6oO00
1T may be said 10y some that the ones I have
named well able To pay the duty. but that
is not the question. The fact is that they will
not. and they have perfect right 10 do as they
are doing. especially as they spend large part
of each year abroad collecting art works, and
they can enjoy them just we'll over there
here. II they We're brought To this country
they would be eventually owned by the
museums but afraid unless they are
brought over they will be wiled TO foreign
museums"
Robert Blum said that one thing had been
demonstrated very clearly, that even with a
prohibtlvc tariff on works of art native artists
were not at nl helped. He declared that he was
I'm favor Of a repeal Of the tariff without any
Il certainly do not think" remarked Mr..
Blum. that a high tariff makes people buy
native pictures. II they want native pictures
they buy them. our people like American pict-
urcs they don't like them. There IS no feeling
among American artists that they need any
protection. l heartily indorSc the movement in
favor OF free art
J. Alden Weir expressed his hearty sympathy
with the movement and thought IL would ap-
peal 10 President Roosevelt. 1t was proposed
20 make an appeal direct TO the President.
II was felt he would sympathize with the move
ment
William NJ Chase thought that members Of
Congress should ba reminded that We have not
inherited great works Of art, like other nations.
and that we should do everything We can To en-
courage the importation Of works Of art. Some
painters objected to free tariff because it en-
cOuraEod the importation Of cheap pictures. but
even for that reason Mr.. Chase was in favor of
no tariff ON art, because cheap pictures acted
primers in the art education Of many people.
If the tariff on art We're removed. many artists
would make special exhibitions. which would
be Of great benefit to students.
Robert Reid said he was in favor Of having
the art tariff repealed.