New-York tribune., 1909-06-15
FREE ART.

The adoption by the Senate of SUBSTITUTE
broadening the provisions Of the clause III tne
House tariff bill which admits without duty
paintings and sculptures more than twenty years
ol insures the removal Of 6 barrier against the
importation of works Of art too long maintained
in our tariff legislation. The duty levied on
PAINTINGS and sculptures was excused by the
trainers Of earlier tariff measures on the ground
that Iuxuries ought not to be allowed 10 escape
taxation II we tax the poor mans food and
clothes they argued. how can we defend our
selves for admitting free the costly canvases and
marbles which are TO adorn the houses or the
wealthy? 1t was the persistence Of that idea
an inheritance from a cr,lder period in eduCa
tion-which defeated the good intentions of-the
House Ways and Means Committee in 1880. Mr.
Mckinley and his associates favored the free
admission of works Of art, and the House OF
REPRESENTATIVES indorsed their liberal views
But the Senate Finance Committee, headed by
the venerable Justin s. Morrill,, Of Vermont,
was Influenced by representations that the pay
ers of taxes on necessities would begrudge such
a concession 10 the rich, and forced the reten-
ton Of a duty on all works OF art not imported
for the purpose of presenting them to educa-
tional or other public institutions,
The country has happily outgrown the notion
that painting a piece of statuary should be
classed with the ordinary luXuries of private
consumption. Every great creation IN cOlof or IN
stone is bound TO exercise an infiuence quite
beyond the narrow sphere of private ownership.
Art works have an indefinite life. l. is their
usual destiny TO pass out of the possession and
control of individuals and become source Of
public enjoyment and factor in popular edu-
ca ton Single pieces are presented 10 public
galleries. and private galleries are transformed
into public foundations. The whole country is
richer for every masterpiece brought here by a
private buyer for Il will in the end become prac-
tically q national inheritance. To hinder the
Importation OF works of art by the imposition Of
duties for the sake of revenue is To sacrifice
great permanent good for a paltry temporary In
come. The country is little richer in cash. but
vastly poorer in instrumentalities of education
and refinement The few hundred thousa nd dol
lars exacted through such duties is therefore
wasteful charge on the public spirit of those who
are willing to contribute 10 the elevation of
popular taste and the enrichment Of our artistic
resources
The retention of duty on paintings and
probably prove of advantage in checking the
inflow Of productions of the lower grades whose
increased sale here would initiate against many
American artists without any considerable bene
fit to the public. BY the twenty years llmita-
tion time is given to separate the significant
from the mediocre No canvas or piece Of scuIpt-
ure produced twenty years previously can he
said 10 come into commercial competition with
the current work of American artists Such an
importation can be viewed only as a desirable
addition to the nations capital, 10 be fruitfuly
employed in our own artistic development.