The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1905-09-07
THE TARIFF ON ART.
To the Hon. Frank M. Eddy,
Sank Centre Herald,

Sank Centre, Mimi.
Dear Sir: l have read with much
interest your editorial upon "Protec-
tion," and your "Tariff Plank" You
ask that the latter be commented
upon, discussed, and criticised.
If such a strong common-sense
statement of the true principles OF
protection does not convince your
readers of the necessity of the reforms
you mention, they will, before many
years, regret their opposition to those
OF the republican party who have the
best interests of the people at heart.
1t is your tariff plank that moves
me to comment upon your very able
article and the one criticism that !
offer to that is, that it contains nc
mention of a reversion of the tax on
Art.
The tariff on Art is a tariff fol
revenue only. 1t does not protect
and it is not wanted by those fol
whom it is claimed to be made. There
is unanimity of opinion among the
artists, at least for a revision of this
tariff law.
This 1 know from personal ex-
perience as | spent nearly year in
collecting data upon this subject. l
have interviewed many artists, written
to others, also to the directors of the
principal museum, art collectors, and
art critics. l have visited the mu-
seums of the large cities of the east,
interviewing the students at their
work in the museum, and in the
large art schools, solely with the
object of finding out the opinions of
the individual on the subject; and l
found no dissenting voice except from
the middleman, the seller OF works of
art.
There is of course a difference of
opinion among the artists as to just
what modification should be made,
but not one of those who have con-
sidered or had experience with the
working of this tax, but what would
welcome some action upon this law
that has so retarded the culture of
America.
To quote from the great artist,
Burne-Jones: 81 felt," he wrote some
time ago, San additional grudge
against the stupid tariff laws of the
United States government which apply
the same rules to works of art a
thousand years old-hardly dangerous
competitors one would have thought
with modern artist-as they do to
consignments of soap or sausages.
So long as the prohibitive tariff on
works of art, especially ancient art,
exists, so long will America be re-
tarding the day when her sons may
enter of right into their share of the
inheritance of the past, SO long will
she be combining the possession OF
beautiful things almost entirely to
the very wealthy mot a very demo
cratic principle,) and, generally
speaking, standing in the way OF
popular education
So much from the artists point OF
view, now what is the opinion OF
foreign art lovers2
Mr.. James Orrock, the most re-
nowned of living experts on English
art, said to a World correspondent
not long ago: 81 tell you that but
for the 60 per cent ad valorem duty
put on by the United States govern
ment the transfer Of art treasures
would have been exhausting if not
ruinous to European markets. But
[ thank heaven every day for that
tariff 1T is our protection, our CHIEF
protection, against the concentration
in the United States of the bulk OF
our art treasures.
Is it to protect foreign markets that
we have tariff on art?
The government has put tariff on
art to cultivate home art, and yet we
have no national art support. Now
no great art ever developed from with.
in. The art we have in this country
today is the art acquired from study
abroad. Art centers, art schools, and
foreign artists have the financial
benefits from these years abroad OF
thousands of students, male and
female, who go to Europe to study
from what should be within easy &C
cess of home. They remain abroad il
they possess very great genius oftener
than they come home to bestow upon
their fellow countrymen the benefits
they have derived from the study OF
the old masters and the best works OF
the new schools of art.
Those who do return bring with
them too often only a foreign art to
the detriment of establishing purely
American art, because they have ac-
quired with their study of art amidst
foreign surroundings the art atmo-
sphere of their environment.
Not only does the government by
its prohibition tariff deprive the artist
and the student, (who cannot 60
L. Ixvl 81 II