The sun., 1905-12-28
The Lowering Bill and FREQ Art.

If the sober judgment Of multitude
were always sufficient to correct the con-
sequences of caprice there would be
little reason for apprehension as to the
fortune of the Hon. WILLIAM c. LOVER
ING's bill to place works of art on the FREQ
list. Not only is it obvious now to every
common understanding that the pre-
tended protection of native artists was
a measure conceived in a stupid want
Of thinking but to artists in particular
practical experience has made the mis-
chievous effects SO apparent that for
some time we have been entertained with
the singular and paradoxical spectacle
of the protected class clamorinG for the
repeal Of the duties and imploring their
protectors to let them alone.
Nor have the mere criers for revenue
found their account in this pernicjous
tax. When, several years ago, the pro-
tests of artists from all parts of the coun-
try had been brought TO their notice and
the comparative insgnificance of the
revenue pointed out to them our thought
full legislators, through some mental
process never sufficiently explained, de-
cided to make amends for the faults Of
their predecessors by trebling the duty.
Yet the results, even from their point Of
view, were SO far from reassuring that
not few have since realized the truth Of
an old saying that the mistake of legis-
lators on such occasions is due to an
error of computing two and two to make
four, whereas in the matter Of heavy
impositions two and two rarely make
more than one.
But, fantastic as this imposition is
in every reasonable aspect, it has one
notable chance of survival. This is the
force of habit, against which no end of
excellent reasoning and argument have
hitherto been unavailing. The measures
proposed by the National Free Art League
three years ago were tentative and timid
in comparison with those at present un-
der the consideration of the Committee
on Ways and Means. They called only
for the free admission Of works manu-
factured or produced more than fifty
years before the date of importation, !"
whereas Mr.. LovERING's bill covers all
works Of art, old or new. Nearly twenty
years before this an effort had been made
to sound the opinion Of the protected
class. The duties had just been raised
from 10 per cent. to 80 per cent, and a
circular letter was sent to artists in all
parts of the country inviting them to
give their opinion of the increase, with
the remarkable result that of LABS an
swers received only seven were in favor
of it, while no less than 1,945 called for
the total abolition Of all duties on works
of art.
These and other facts were laid before
Congress in the form of petition, and a
few years later bill was introduced
looking to substantial reform, but with
out success. The first triumph was in
1889. In that year the will Of the artists
and of all intelligent people who had any
interest in this form of protection was
indorsed by the Ways and Means Com
mittee a bill passed the House with
works of art on the free list, but the Sen
ate, for some reason, refused TO ratify IL,
and in the event compromise Of Is per
cent. was agreed upon. Ultimately, by
the enactment of the Wilson bill, the ar
lists had their way, and the National Free
Art League adjourned sine die. Then
came the deplorable relapse in 1897.
Considering the example of the past,
it is difficult to prognosticate the result
Of current efforts at reform, though there
can be no question as to the right course,
Here is tax which no one attempts to
defend by plausible argument--insig-
nificant as a means Of revenue, perverted
as a measure Of protection, denounced
utterly by the very class it is supposed to
favor and regarded with certain shame
by every member of the community as
somethira for which no equivalent can