BRIEF OF JOHN QUINN, COUNSEL FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PAINTERS AND SCULPTORS (INC.), IN FAVOR OF REPEALING THE PRESENT DUTY ON CONTEMPORARY ART.

NEW YORK, January 30, 1913.

To the honorable the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives:

THE PRESENT DUTY UNDER THE ACT OF 1909 AND UNDER ACT OF 1897.

I. Paintings. Prior to the act of 1909 paintings in oil or water colors, pastels, and pen and ink drawings carried a duty of 20 per cent.

By the act of 1909 this duty was reduced to 15 per cent (par. 470 of act of 1909), but by paragraph 717 of that act works of art, including paintings in oil, mineral, water or other colors, pastels, original drawings and sketches, etchings, engravings and sculpture, more than 20 years prior to the date of their importation were to be admitted duty free.

II. Statuary.Under the act of 1909, section 470, statuary and sculpture were required to pay a duty of 15 per cent. Under the act of 1897 that duty was 20 per cent. The same exemptions as to the importation free of other works of art over 20 years old were extended by paragraph 717 of the act of 1909 to sculpture and statuary. The term "painting" in this brief will be used in the same sense as defined in the present law and will be understood not to include such paintings as are made wholly or in part by stenciling or any other mechanical process.

The terms "statuary" and "sculpture" are used in this brief in the sense defined in the present law, and are understood to include only such statuary or sculpture as are cut, carved, or otherwise wrought by hand from a solid block or mass of marble, stone, or alabaster, or from metal and such as are the professional productions of a sculptor only.

But it is important to observe that the terms "sculpture" and "statuary" as used in this brief does refer to and is intended to include and should include a cast in bronze, iron, or other metal from a clay, plaster, or wax model or a model of any other substance which is the professional production of a sculptor only.

III. Present and past revenue from tariff on art.-Prior to the placing of works of art that are 20 or more years old upon the free list by the act of 1909 the revenue derived from the importation of art was very large.

The following figures are taken from the Government "Report of Imports and Duties for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1894, to 1907, inclusive;" and also from other Government publications, in particular the one relating to commerce and navigation of the United States, which covers importations from June, 1907, to June, 1911; and also from the publication of the Department of Commerce and Labor entitled "Imported merchandise entered for consumption in the United States and duties collected thereon, 1912: "

The act reimposing a tariff on works of art went into effect in the year 1898, a duty of 20 per cent being imposed. The following are the figures down to the year 1909, giving the year, the value of the imports, the rate of duty, and the amount of duty collected.

There were reciprocity agreements with certain countries under which a duty of 15 per cent only was in some cases imposed.

In 1909 the duty was taken off works of art over 20 years old. The following are figures showing importations of art under 20 years old, with the revenue derived therefrom at the reduced rate of 15 per cent.

The following gives the gross importations of art over 20 years of age since the act of 1909 went into effect from which no duty was derived:

1 Free on and after Aug. 6, 1909. Figures for 1910 cover period from Aug. 5, 1909.

IV.-Reasons advanced in 1909 for discriminating against contemporary art by imposing a tax thereon while letting in art over 20 years old duty free.-During the tariff hearings before the Committee on Ways and Means of the Sixtieth Congress, certain artists, representatives of certain business interests, appeared before this committee of the House and asked that a specific duty of $100 on all works of art be imposed.

Mr. James B. Townsend, representing the American Art News, recommended a specific duty on all works of art, claiming "there should be some limitation upon the importation of the cheap art of Europe from the fact that its artisans and artists can live much more cheaply than we do here; and that they have a natural faculty for the production of art, particularly in the south of Europe." (Vol. VII, Tariff Hearings 1909, pp. 7229-7231.) He recommended a duty of $100 on paintings and sculpture on the following grounds: "European artists living more cheaply than can our artists and artisans, can afford to produce their imitation and copies at a low figure, to sell them also at low figures, and without some restriction these copies and imitations can be brought here, * * with the result that our art lovers and collectors can be imposed upon and large and illegitimate profits made by the sellers of these spurious works;" that European art was "for the most part distinctly debasing to taste and uneducational in every way"; and further, and more surprising than all, that ours "is a country which has not yet had sufficient age to acquire general art knowledge and taste"; and that a specific duty would tend to minimize fraud in the selling of the works of art at auction and at private sales." (Vol. VII, Tariff Hearings 1909, pp. 7235-7239.)

*

One Charles J. Taylor, of New York City, filed a brief in advocacy of the retention of the duty on works of art, and alleged that "an artist is a workman," and that "painting was and is a trade.' (Vol. VII, Tariff Hearings 1909, pp.7239-7242.)

One Richard N. Brooke, president of a society of Washington artists, favored a specific duty on works of art on the ground that to make art free would be "indulging in sentimentalism at the cost of our younger artists"; and on the further ground that we would be flooded with paintings of a class "which can not even pay the present duty." (Vol. VII, Tariff Hearings, 1909, pp. 7257-7258.)

One J. H. Strauss, of New York City, a dealer in oil paintings, water colors, engravings, and etchings, wrote advocating the placing of a specific duty on paintings on the ground that such a duty would "protect the dealer from unfair competition in the way of consignments or otherwise." (Vol. VII, Tariff Hearings, 1909, p. 7258.) One W. B. Closson, of Washington, D. C., also recommended a specific duty on painting and other works of art, also to "prevent the flooding of this country with either inferior art or that which is better but not great," and to keep out "such work as would come in competition with that produced by the younger artists of this country." (Vol. VII, Tariff Hearings, 1909, pp. 7260-7261.)

One Henry E. F. Brown, of Bethlehem, Pa., after whose name the following initials appear, "F. A. A. S.," and who signed himself "artist, author, and historian," also favored a specific duty on art, not of a $100 as did the other advocates of a tariff on art, but "a specific duty of $1,000 on each and every painting in oil, without regard to size, condition or merit." (Vol. VII, Tariff Hearings, pp. 7261-7262.)

One David C. Pryer, of New York City, designated as "formerly editor of the Collector and Art Critic," suggested a duty of 20 per cent, but in no case to exceed the sum of $100, claiming that that sum "would not interfere with the importation of valuable works of educational value." (Vol. VII, Tariff Hearings, pp. 7265-7266.) Certain Cincinnati, Ohio, artists petitioned for a specific duty of $100 on all pictures and sculptures "to keep out trash and poor art, as well as the copies of good pictures brought in and sold as originals afterwards." (Vol. VII, Tariff Hearings, pp. 72687269.)

Charles H. Davis, of Mystic, Conn., argued that with free art the United States would soon become the dumping-ground for European trash and that "we want all that we can get of the good art of Europe; a small specific duty would encourage its importation." (Vol. VII, Tariff Hearings, pp. 7272-7273.)

It is difficult to believe that some of those arguments could have been taken seriously by the then Ways and Means Committee of the House. When an artist, or a man purporting to speak on behalf of artists, comes before a committee of Congress and says that artists are tradesmen, he merely condemns himself and those on whose behalf he speaks. The gist of the plea for protection was that the American public was lacking in taste in artistic matters, and that the tax of $100 asked for upon all works of art, irrespective of their age, would protect the American public from its own ignorance. That argument came to this; that ignorant people or people without taste should be protected from their own ignorance by keeping them ignorant.

The argument that such a duty would prevent the sale of forgeries was also an absurdity, because if men are going to forge old works of art, a duty of $100 will not only not prevent it, but will aid it, by giving a certain governmental stamp of authenticity to the forgery.

The argument that such a duty would prevent the reproduction or copies of works of art, falls to the ground in view of our request that only original works of art and not mere reproductions should be admitted duty free.

V. Arguments before the House committee of the Sixty-ninth Congress, 1909, in favor of admitting works of art free.-A lucid and able argument was made by Mr. Robert W. De Forest, president of the Municipal Art Commission of New York and chairman of the executive committee of the Free Art League of New York, in favor of free art on the following, among other grounds:

(1) The duty of the Government to encourage art.

(2) The refining influences of the art of a nation.

(3) Ours almost the only civilized country that taxes art.

(4) Most of the Governments of Europe have bureaus of fine arts and make liberal appropriations for art museums and art schools.

(5) That the highest development of art can only be attained by freedom and the unhampered exchange of ideas between the artists of this and other countries. (6) Regard for education forbids a tax on knowledge and good taste.

(7) The study of drawing and art essential to education and that the educators of the country "are a unit in their opinion that works of art should be free of import duties."

(8) That free art will add to the wealth of the country by benefiting and improving many of its industries, in whose production form, design, or color play an important

part, such as silk, cotton, jewelry, carpets, furniture, wall paper, pottery, lace, glass, chinaware, architectural features in metal and stone manufacture, and they might have added mantles, fixtures, carving, and woodwork, and even the common and most useful kinds of painting and decoration, and all the other industries where even some art education is a necessity.

(9) That European countries which have applied art education to industry have produced manufactured "articles of superior design.'

(10) That France by following such a policy for so long has produced artisans whose "artistic taste and skill gives greatly increased value to their work."

(11) That Germany through a study and widespread knowledge of eastern taste and standards "has secured and held an enormous trade in Japan.

"

(12) That our artisans and artists should have the advantages "which are now found in a superior measure in countries abroad."

(13) That free art and the multiplying of art objects will develop artistic taste among our people which will in turn create a demand for artistic products, which will give employment at high wages to skilled workmen and artisans, both men and

women.

(14) That free art will benefit American artists because

(a) Art education will create an appreciation and an increased demand for art; that an increased knowledge of art has in fact aided American art and increased the patronage of our art.

(b) That American artists, with few exceptions, for many years have favored free art.

(c) That free art will tend to remove the necessity for our art students going abroad for their art education.

(d) Foreign galleries and exhibitions welcome the work of our artists free of charge, and they compete on equal terms for the prizes of foreign Governments.

That our tariff on art hampers our own artists and benefits no one.

That the duty prejudices American artists in the eyes of American purchasers "by adding an artificial value to imported works of art.

(14) That our museums would benefit by free art because—

(a) Free art will contribute to the establishment of new and the growth of our present museums.

(b) Our museums depend for their growth upon gifts, loans, and bequests by individuals.

(c) More than one half of the imported art in our museums has been acquired by the gifts or the loans of private collectors.

(d) Our public art collections would be richer to-day but for the duty on art and that

(e) The duty on art sacrifices the growth of our own art museums to the increase of foreign museums.

(Vol. VII, Tariff Hearings, 1909, pp. 7206-7217.)

VI. The arguments before the committee of 1909 in favor of removing all the duty on art were not heeded by the Congress of 1909, but their action resulted only in an unsatisfactory compromise.

These arguments were made by the American Free Art League (Vol. VII, Hearings, 1909, pp. 7218-7219); by the secretary of the Fairmont Park Association, principal of the Pennsylvania Museum and School of Industrial Art, and vice president of the Art Club of Philadelphia (Vol. VII, Hearings, 1909, p. 7220); by the president of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (ib., p. 7221); by the secretary of the Chicago Art Institute (ib., p. 7222); by the president of the American Scenic and History Preservation Society (ib., p. 7223); by a former president of the National Sculpture Society (ib., p. 7224); the vice president for New York of the American Free Art League (ib., p. 7225); by Mr. Robert Underwood Johnson, the editor of the Century Magazine (ib., pp. 7226–7229); by Mr. Thomas Nelson Page, of Washington, D. C. (ib., pp. 7233–7234); by the National Institute of Arts and Letters (ib., pp. 7242-7243); by the Iowa Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, asking that "a tax on civilization be removed" (ib., p. 7243); by Mr. Henry L. Higgenson, of Boston, Mass., on behalf of the Drexel Institute of Arts, Science, and Industry (ib., pp. 7246-7248); by the president of Bryn Mawr College (ib., pp. 7248-7249); by the director of the Buffalo Fine Arts Academy (ib., pp. 7250-7251); by J. W. Barwell, speaking for the people of Chicago, and stating "that a duty on works of art is like shutting out sunlight" (ib., p. 7252); by the Hon. Seth Low, formerly president of Columbia College and mayor of the city of New York (ib., pp. 7252-7253); by Mr. Lloyd Warner, chairman of the committee on education of the Society of Beaux-Arts Architects, who wished "free art in the interests of young architects and draftsmen" (ib., pp. 7253-7254); by the Chamber of Commerce of Cleveland, Ohio (ib., p. 7254); by Prof. Allan Marquand, professor of art and archæology in the University of Princeton, who wished the tax on all works

of art removed (ib., p. 7255); by President Cyrus Northrop, of the University of Minnesota (ib., p. 7258); by the American Free Art League of New York (ib., p. 7262), showing that a circular had been sent to all the artists in the United States asking an expression of opinion on the tariff, and that of 1,435 replies received 1,345 petitioned for the removal of the duty on art (ib., pp. 7262–7264); by the Federated Club Women of the District of Columbia and by the secretary of the American Free Art League (ib., p. 7271).

The legislation of 1909 was a poor compromise. All of the arguments advanced for free art were against it. This committee should be logical and place all art, irrespective of its age, on the free list.

It will thus be seen that art has been free during some 27 years out of the last 90. The act of 1832 was a protectionist measure, and yet it placed art on the free list. The act of 1846 was passed by the Democratic Party as a free-trade measure, and one of the principles of Mr. Walker was that the maximum duty should be placed upon luxuries. Yet that Democratic act placed art on the free list. So, too, the act of 1857 kept art on the free list. Finally the Democratic Wilson bill of 1894 also put art on the free list. The act of 1861 as passed by the House made art duty free. The McKinley bill of 1890, as reported by the committee, put art on the free list.

V. A tax on art is a tax on culture and education.-The United States is the only civilized country in the world that places a tax upon art. Germany, which is a protectionist nation, does not tax the importation of act, either contemporary, modern, or old. Some countries value art so highly that they place a tax upon its exportation. Other countries, like Italy, have laws that prohibit the exportation of old works of art and impose severe penalties for the violation of their laws. Both these kinds of laws are wrong; but a tax on the export of art is more justifiable than a tax on its importation. A tax on its export tends to save it for the people of a country; a tax on its importation deprives a people of it. Germany is a great commercial country, and yet I am informed that, under the German law, art or art objects, designed for public exhibition, are carried upon the German State-owned railways free of freight.

We are the only great nation that puts a tax on the importation of modern art. The 20 years' limitation as to the age of art before it may come in duty free is an absurdity, an anachronism, and is a tax on knowledge and culture.

The result of the present law is to give a practical monopoly of art to the rich. Old art, ancient art, art even over 20 years old, has less educational value for the artist than contemporary living art.

I do not make my plea for free art in a spirit of sentimentality. I base the plea for untaxed art upon the recognition of the fact that the desire and appetite for art is not a sign of a nation's decay, not a proof of sentimentality, that art is not a luxury, but on the ground that living art, which has always sprung up in the heyday and the youth, health, and vigor of a great nation, is a necessity to a rich cultivation and to a well-ordered life.

The collection of old works of art by many men of wealth in the United States is splendid and in some cases beyond praise, and they are entitled to the pride and pleasure which they find in it. But that is often only a rich man's hobby. We want to bring to the man of moderate means, within the reach of a poor man even, the opportunity to see and to acquire examples of the best contemporary art. To place a tax upon living art is, therefore, to tax knowledge and the means of culture and pleasure, and is uncivilized.

Art is not a luxury, although the ancient Hebrews forbade it and some present-day Puritans seem to think it is sinful also. There is too much of the atmosphere of the old Puritan in the world to-day. Too many persons would like to pare us all down to one common denominator and pigeonhole us and classify us according to this or that pet economic theory or doctrine. A plea for free art is a plea for one of the