OCR Text |
Show "THE TARIFF ON ART." Mr. Charles Francis Adams contri bates (ho following to the New York Evening Post: The tariff bill, now in process of preparation, pre-paration, hnvlng passed the Senate, will probably bo In Iho hands of a committee of conference of the two Housck during the coming week. I bollevo that there 1p a difference between be-tween tho Senate and the House on tlu subject of the adinlBslon to this country of works of art. the provision or tin-Payne tin-Payne bill relating to (hat mailer being more liberal, according to mv present understanding, un-derstanding, than that of the proposed Aldrich or Senate bill. In tho iHsue of the London Athenaeum for .June 12. 1000 (p. 70S), there Is a papi-r on the "Chauchard Legacy to the Louvre." In this case a collector of works of art had accumulated a most valuable val-uable gallery of modern paintings, numbering num-bering nearly 200 pictures of a high grade; and he has now left It to the nation. na-tion. Among these masterpieces are no less thai) 25 examples of C'orot, 1" of Diaz. S of Daublgny. 7 of Th. Rousseau. IS of Troyon. and 2fi of ISIelssonler. After thus enumerating them the writer of the article In tho Athenaeum proceeds n.s follows. "Tho most famous, although perhaps not the finest, of the seven by .J. . Millet Mil-let Is 'IAngclus.' which, orltrlnally sold for about G0, was knocked down In the Secretan sale in 1SS0 for 553.000 francs. It was then obtained by il. Antonln Proust, who was acting on behalf (if thoso who desired that It should remain In France; hut the Frencn government decided not lo purchase the picture al this high price, and 1. Proust handed It over to an American syndicate, who had been the undorhlddera But the American Ameri-can customs authorities claimed a dutv of something like 7000. which they consented con-sented to waive on condition that the picture did not remain more than six months In America, and was not resold there. So tho picture found Its wav back (o Paris, and wus purchased bv il. Chauchard." Al JuhL this juncture, and with a. new proposud tariff under consideration, the above extract from a foreign journal calls for no comment. It speaks for Itself. Mr. AdaniH no doubt intends (his for a "clincher;" but rcnlly we don't sco the clinch. That American syndicate syndi-cate no doubt bought the picture on a speculation. It was not for art's sake, but for money, that they bought it, expecting ex-pecting lo make a big profit on its salo. If airy public art gallery ' or museum had bought the picture, it would 'have been admitted free of duty. But in privato ownership, lhc public had no iutcrc&t in it or achautaco from ii private owner in this country who bought il, would, liko the syndicate, buy it on speculation as likely as not. If so, it was still a money transaction, not art, that governed. If a private collector got the picture, it would be kept in his private premises, and tho public pub-lic would get no good of it. 'So why should tho public charge upon it for customs dues not be paid, tho same as on other artistic products, of literature, liter-ature, sculpture, or what not? The fact that it is a picture docs not. rc-movo rc-movo it from the commercial class as long as it is boing dealt with by its owners on Iho commercial basis. It is well known lhat if any public use is made of a picture or other art object, by pulling it in a public art gallery or public museum, it is allowod to come in free of duly. And that is tho truo basis. An article of art, privately pri-vately owned, and privately held, is no more entitled to execmption from customs duty than any oilier article of private- property. Especially is this so when one understands that, a good deal of the picture holdings in this country arc held as investments, on the expectation that their value will increase with time and as the famo of their producer grows. And as to the enso noted by Mr. Adams as so conclusive, con-clusive, it seems to have been a commercial com-mercial spocuallion altogether, not worthy of being considered in the lcn3t from an art standpoint. It is a great j)icluro, of course, that this 'syndicate of speculation bought for a rise; but its entry into this country as a private speculation would not have been in the least to tho advantage of lhc public. But. on the other hand, if it had been proposod to bring it in in any public capacity, it would have come in free. And that is enough. To bring it in to hido away in some rich man's galler' for a private gloat would servo no pur-lie pur-lie service, no public purpose; while the man who wants this sort of thing for himself alone should pa' for his gloat. While the speculator in pictures is entitled lo no more consideration than any other sort of speculator. |