New-York tribune., 1910-03-09
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
WHAT ARE WORKS OF ART?
the EditOr of The Tribune.


To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: Under the heading. Free List IN
the published book of the United States
tariff, Paragraph No. al, is found the
following:
Other works of art Except rugs and cur
tains). collections in Illustrations OF tne
progress of the arts, works IN DrohZG,
marble, terra Gotta, parian, pottery t %
porcelain, artistic antiquities and oDJeCtS
of art OF ornamental character or YaIue
which shall have been purchased more
than one hundred years prior 10 the 49,
of importation, but the free lTnportatoiiA
of such objects shall be subject 10 suGn !Ea
regulations as to proof of antiquity as the
Secretary Of the Treasury may prescrloe'
After carefully reading these few lines
the would-be buyer of antiquities might
fairly assume that If such articles as he
might purchase could be proven to have
been manufactured more than one hundred
years he could take them home with the
assurance that they would be exempt from
duty. This conclusion, however, might be
rudely shaken for even while the state
ment that the goods were Of sufficient an
tlquity might be accepted by the examiner
at the Appraisers Stores at New York, yet
this gentleman would still have to state
that in his opinion the goods possessed
artistic merit; otherwise, if in his opinion
artistic merit was not shown. then one
must pay the duty. 1t is true that In the
case of an adverse decision one can appeal
to the Treasury Department at Washing
ton, but in the cases that have come to the
writer's knowledge these appeals are rare
" successful and, without any personal
inspection of the articles in question, the
decision of the official in New York is up
held by the authorities at Washington.
Therefore, the American purchaser of an
tiques is entirely at the mercy, In the mat
ter of duty of the examiner at the Ap-
praiser's Stores. 1t is not this examiner,
however, who is TO blame. He is placed In
a position which he does not at all relish,
as he has to make his decision very much
by guesswork, and one of these officials
told the writer the position the examiners
are placed in by the present reading OF the
tariff is almost driving them crazy. Is 1t
any wonder? Look at their position. With
out. it is fair to assume, much if any
artistic training they are Obliged to rem
der decisions in cases that would tax the
knowledge and experience of . director Of
one of the worlds great museums.
A gentleman bringing in a small collec-
ton of pewter recently, which included a
few Oriental pieces of great antiquity and
very artistic design, was obliged to pay 40
per cent duty on the entire lot. The eX-
aminer's report sent to Washington stated
that the articles might be one hundred
years old. but they Wee not OF al artistic
nature: therefore, not entitled to free en-
try. This decision was affirmed ut Wash
inston. The same collector brought in three
pieces more a few weeks later (two of them
being very plain in design and not very
old, and these three pieces were admitted
free. The examiners guess this time was
In favor of the buyer.
Another collector purchased two pieces of
furniture in England. one a Jacobean cab
met. the other q Jacobean hall stand, both
pieces coming from firms of the highest
standing. The sworn guarantees in both
cases should have been sufficient to satisfy
any well Informed person. The cabinet
was admitted free. the hall stand was not.
To sum UP. the present tariff regulations
in the matter of antique works OF art ara
ridiculous from any sensible point of View
and should be changed 1t is unfair 10 the
American citizen and unworthy of the off,
cials who framed it. Let us have a fixed
duty if it is deemed advisable on all an
tiques, or no duty at all. w L.
New York, March ., 1910.