New-York tribune., 1902-12-14
STUPID '-DIELMAN,
R4PS PRESENT ART TAX
J. @. Il. Ward, j. G.. Broscn and
G.. H. Story Discuss 1T.

Frederick Dielman, president of the National
Academy Of Design. in a talk yesterday with 2
Tribune reporter on The movement to bring
sbout the abolition Of duties on works of art
said the Academy had within year put itsel,
on record by vote at a general meeting as op-
posed to the present tariff on works of art. He
continued:
The most mischievous effect of the existino
law is its placing a prohibitcry tax on the i'm.
portation Of works by the masters of past ages
This tax is penalty imposed for securing to our
country rare products Of human skill and
genius, which are powerful instruments for the
training and elevation of the people and which
90 TO swell their permanent wealth
Such works are taxed by our wise legislators
presume. as lu3uries. hut they are not luxuries
Pictures and statues are not consumed by the
purchaser. They exert their influence and ben
eft on others besides the owner and finally.
they graTitate TO museums and become public
property
while countries under enlightened direction in
these matters penaiize the expectation of works
by old masters, the United States Furnishes by
fine their Importation. The tariff on works
by old masters is without question barbarous
and stupid contrivance.
While our artists may not be unanimous in
disapproval of every and any tariff on modern
works Of art, nearly all regard the existing
rate as unWise- A great many of them favor
absolutely free Importation, and, If tariff is
protection to them, they do not want such pro-
lection at the cost Of making difficult the intro
duction of fine work into this country
Others think this view more sentimental than
n-actical and. while orlposins env tarsrr 1-t,;cb
would tend TO keep out good painting and sculp-
ture. which we want, are in favor of a tariff on
cheap ART. which we do not want. Accordingly
they would like TO see specific duty Of say
$50 or 500 on every work of art which while
It would be no bar to the importation of such
work want and need would efrectualfy
discourage the huge trade in mediocre or bad
stuff that IS palnasd off on an ignorant uublic
as the work Of masters.
But the law placing tariff on works by old
masters should be done away with at once and
with il would go a reproach to our national in
telligence.
J. @ A Ward, president of the National
Sculpture Society, at his studio No. 119 West
Ffty-second-st-, said that artists generally were
in favor Of q repeal OF the duty art, but there
was some difference Of opinion the subject.
Il was felt for instance. that it was pandering
q little TO dealers in cheap art, and that
specific DUTY might obviate the difficulty, would
keep out very bad works and would be no bur
den at all on important works of art Whether
that duty should be $50 or 500 Mr.. Ward did
not care to suggest. but he thought there was
something very awkward and inconsiderate in
the present tariff arrangements
Mr.. Ward went on to say:
In framing the tariff il has never been thought
worth while to call before the WAYS and Means
Committee number of artists or experts, the
same they do in framing the tariff in any
business matter. If Congress would do that the
whole thing would be Very much simplified. II
there must be some form of tariff on art 1 am
in favor Of a specific duty. but / think IL would
art pronerW dene5 eeuId ID e h aSr1ites frs s
On the very things that should be admitted to
this country the tariff is burden. We know
why the art tariff has not been repealed before
this, and the reason has been the fear among
protectionists that it might open the door to
other demands.
J. G. Brown, president of the American Water
Color Society and e-president of the National
Academy Of Design, declared there sense
n placing duty old masters, and he did not
aelieve there was an artist who wanted to keep
lEt good pictures from this country, but a spe-
,ifc duty would keep out "the vile rot" Mr.
Brown was accordingly. in favor of specific
duty Of S1oO. which he did not think would keep
one good picture out of this country and he did
not think rich men would object to paying that
tax.
George H. Story, curator OF paintings of the
Museum Of Art was largely in
in having amendment made to
The Dingley bill. which enables all the art mu-
suelns Of this country TO import all works of art
which they OVID free Of duty, provided they are
% be the permanent property Of the museums.
Mr.. Story said in regard to repeating the duty |
ID works Of art:
None OF the art museums of this country has |
any cause TO complain Of the tariff art di- |
rectly, but doubt very much II there is any |
man connected with any art museum who is /
not strongly in favor of the repeal of the tariff
aY, SO far as works Of art concerned, or a |
notification of it in some form which would |
not exclude the higher class Of art from coming
nto this country absolutely free OF all duties. /
The present tariff initiates against the Metro |
Dotan Museum Of Art in this way. Many per- |
sons. If they felt perfectly free to import a
work Of art and keep IL in their homes a few /
Years. might then give it to us and buy some |
hing else. Perhaps man feels more deeply |
,n the subject of the tariff art than j. Pier |
eOnt Morgan. He feels that il is wrong and /
10 the interests and progress of art
n this country. Personally, j should have no /
objection to a specific duty all works which |
Sould exclude trash. If there were a specific /
iuty Of 500 on paintings it would not shut out /
sOod paintings, but would shut out trash Mr.. /
Morgan owns OF the finest pictures in 1
England, but he told time ago that he |
Eould not bring them over here account Of /
he tariff.