OCR Text |
Show THE PLEA FOR "FREE ART." Wo havo received from tho Amorican Freo Art lcaguo its brief arguing in favor fa-vor of tho romoval of duty from importations im-portations of paintings, sculpturo, and other works of art. This briof has been submitted to the Ways and Means Committee Com-mittee of tho House in its hearings on the question of the revision of tho tariff. The argument is that tho freo import of works of art would be an educating influcnco upon tho public mind, would inculcate an appreciation of art, and would aid in tho general cnltnro aud elevation of tho people. Iuasmuch, however, as all works of art imported for public museums, galleries, or permanent perma-nent exhibits, aro now admittod froe, it is not easy to see wherein this argument argu-ment has wide application. If it applies ap-plies at all it must necessarily apply to tho exhibits of works of art in places accessible to tho public. But this is already provided for in tho law, which allows imports freo of duty of all works of aTt for this purpose. It is difficult to see how the importation of works of art for privato galleries that aro not accessible to the public, that aro used exclusively for tho gratification and pride of thoso wealthy euough to import them, would be of any advantage in educating tho public taste. It seems to us quite right to consider articles that arc imported and held in privato as luxurios as aubject, and rightfully, to the imposition of heavy duties, just as is done with other articles that aro almost exclusively purchased by the rich. But it is argued in this briof that very large accessions to tho public museums mu-seums and art gallarics aro had through donations from private collectors. And tho roundabout iuferenco is reaohed that tho imposition of a heavy duty on works of art imported privately would shut off, iu large degree these donations dona-tions from private holders of such works to tho public museums and galleries. This, howevor, it scorns to us, could be easily reached by providing for tho rebate re-bate of the duty to tho person or the heirs of U10 person who has paid that dut-, on the fact being shown that the work of art on which tho duty had been paid had been donated to some public museum or gallery. Practically this was done in tho case of John Pierponfc Morgan, when he importe,d a vast treasure treas-ure of art on which tho customs duties du-ties were said to amount to upwards of two million dollars. Mr. Morgan declined de-clined to pay tho tariff but made over the collection to the Metropolitan Museum Mu-seum of Art, and this great importation importa-tion was thcroby cleared of the customs duty free and tho art works were made available to tho public. It would not be in the least difficult to keep a record rec-ord of all the importations worth while, with the amount that tho owner had paid in customs duties, with a view to having ihatr amount refunded in case the work of art should bo turned over for tho use of tho public as suggested. The Free Art League in presenting its brief to tho Ways and Means committee, commit-tee, in effect, argues not for an educative educa-tive force upon tho public in genoral through tho exhibits of fino art work, for that is already accorded to direct imports for public museums or galleries. galler-ies. But its argument is directed entirely en-tirely to tho point that rich-importers should be excused from paying the duty for tho luxuries which they provido themselves them-selves with in these rare and Splendid aTt works, on the ground that some of these art works may later on bo given to public museums or galleries. There is, however, as suggested, no educative force to the public through the bringing bring-ing in of works of art to bo locked up in somo private place for the gratification gratifi-cation of tho owner of that art. The ono who desires such exclusivo possession pos-session and luxury should pay tho customs cus-toms duty for his luxurious taste. But thero is another featuro to this phaso of it that seems to havo beeu entirely overlooked by the Freo Art League; and that is, that rich men from time to time got hold of rare works of art and import them for speculative purposes. 1 We have personally known Vf cases whero the rich importer of some especially es-pecially fine painting admitted as one of the reasons for his buying and im- ! porting it, that it was an exceedingly rare work of art, and that its value would increase as tho years went by. That is, so far as this speculative object ob-ject was concerned, the buyer of that picture bought it just as ho would buy a piec'o of real estate that he oxpected to see increase in prico so that ho would make a profit upon ik We seo no reason rea-son why tho speculative purchaser should not pay tho customs duty precisely pre-cisely as in tho caso of tho rich man who imports any luxury for his own personal gratification or profit. Our idoa is that in all casos whero tho purchaser of works of art buys for his own gratification or for speculative purposes, he should pay a good stiff tariff duty. And tho object of tho Free Art Leaguo will bo fully achiovod if tho law is allowed to stand as it is, allowing freo import of works of art whore these are for public museums or gallorics, nnd tho provision ruado for tho ropaymont to tho importer of tho customs duty in any caso whore it is shown that ho has donated that work of art to Eomc public museum, school, or gallery. With this amendment to tho law, it seems to us that the full object of tho art lcaguo would bo accomplished; accom-plished; and thoro would bo no need for auy further pleas, arguments, or contentions con-tentions about this matter. Tho briof as received is n substantial, thick pamphlet, embracing a great deal of information upon art arguments, and couvcying a large amount of editorial expression in favor of free art importations; importa-tions; theso editorial expressions for tho most part being undiscrtminathig and impulsive, without any evidence of thoughtful investigation of tho question. ques-tion. Tho brief also contains a list of tho subsidiary freo art organizations of the different Statos, tho local organization organ-ization for Utah being, Mr. n. L. A. Cul-mcr, Cul-mcr, vice-president; Dr. Georgo II. Brimhall, of Provo; Abbot R. Hoy wood, of Ogdcn; J. A. Howell, of Ogden; Georgo Thomas, of Logan; John A. Widtsoe, of Logan; and William U. King and Henry W. Lawrence, of Salt Lake, directors. The Hon. Orango J. Salisbury, recently deceased, was also a director in thi9 local organisation. |