refinements of civilization. Art lends dignity to life. It helps to give meaning to life. It is not a luxury but a necessity for any well-ordered life or high civilization. Our artists need no protection. They and our public require and ask that contemporary art be admitted duty free. Our artists need to see and study contemporary art as a stimulus to their work. To-day students of art or artists are compelled to go abroad to see and study examples of the work of living artists and of the work of men of their own generation. If contemporary art be admitted duty free, the best examples of living art may be acquired and exhibited here, and thus save our art students from the expense of going abroad to study living art.

Artists to-day do not paint in the same. way or the same subjects as did the artists of a hundred or two or three hundred years ago. The methods of painting are different.

The educational value of contemporary living art is greater than the educational value of historic paintings or old art, however intrinsically interesting or important. Living American artists do not require or need protection. They should not be placed on the same level as ironworkers or glass blowers or cloth weavers or cotton spinners or boot and shoe makers. If our artists can not compete with the work of contemporary foreign artists, that itself demonstrates the need for the importation of living art free of duty from abroad in order that the standard of American art may be so raised by the stimulus and the educational value of foreign art that it can compete with it or will be enabled to do so.

Art belongs to no country. Genius can not be fostered or created by a tariff act. A duty of a thousand per cent upon musical productions or compositions would not compel the birth of a Wagner or Beethoven or a Strauss or a Debussy.

Some American cities and some States, and even the Federal Government itself, have made efforts to foster American art in a Chinese fashion, and with results that can only be described generally as lamentable. Just across the square from where these hearings are being held, in the Library of Congress, is an illustration of an effort on the part of the Federal Government to foster American art to the exclusion of contemporary artists generally. The result is an aggregation of paintings many of which are distinguished only by their bad color, cheap sentiment, or poor drawing, and decorations many of which are not worthy of the consideration of a serious critic or artist or student or any other human being.

The present law tends to make works of art the luxury of the rich. It should be in the power of our public generally to acquire good contemporary art before it is 20 years old and then falls into the hands of the art dealers and becomes merely the luxury of the rich.

We should bring art within the reach of the man of moderate means. We should not permit art to become a matter of the duty of the rich towards the poorer classes. A taste for art, for the enjoyment of books, and for the possession of culture, a delight in the arts generally, should not be confined to a few rich collectors. Even on the basis of economy, art will pay in the end. The American people, who want and need nourishment for their imagination, will take the best if they can get it. Of course not all contemporary art is good art. Much of it is poor; some is the work of pretenders and charlatans; but much of it is the work of great masters, great draftsmen, and great colorists. If American art needs protection from contemporary living art, then it is weak and not worthy of protection. If it is strong enough to compete on its own ground with contemporary foreign art, then again it needs no protection. It needs no protection against what is inferior, and has no right to demand protection against what is good.

It is a mistake for economists to think only and to talk only in terms of cash. Economists should be humanists. Political economy is no longer the dismal science it was half a century ago. The talk about inexecrable economic laws is going by the board, and it has come to be recognized that economics must be adjusted to life and not life to economics. There is a school of writers and or artists who speak of art for art's sake, just as there are economists who preach economy for economy's sake. We prefer art for art's sake, economics for life's sake, politics for life's sake. We ought to favor politics, science, economics, art that will make a finer life possible. In this effort art may walk between science and phylosophy as their equal sister.

As a citizen of New York it is not often that I envy another American city. But I do envy Boston one art treasure, the splendid decorations by Puvis de Chavannes in the Boston Library, perhaps the greatest artist of the nineteenth century and one of the great artists of all time. And yet, under the present law and under the former tariff act, works by this great modern master could not have been imported into this country without paying a duty formerly of 20 and now 15 per cent.

Some people may question the statement that art is a necessity, and may say that copies are as good as the originals, as Mr. Andrew Carnegie is reported to have said

that copies were as good as originals. Mr. Carnegie's dictum, if he ever uttered it, reminds one of the story told, I think, by Plutarch, of the Roman general who had conquered a province in Greece and who for the Emperor or the Consul at Rome instructed the captain of a Roman ship to pack the priceless marbles, statues, and other works of art carefully and transport them to Rome. He warned the captain that the captain would be held liable personally if any damage came to them, and he said: "If you allow any of these to be broken or destroyed, I will compel you to replace them."

Art is a necessity of a worthy life. John Ruskin began life as an art lover and became a reformer and a political economist because he wanted so to change the conditions of life that art, as a necessity of life, could be brought within the reach of the man of moderate means and accessible even to the poor. The same thought and feeling inspired the life of William Morris.

I appeal to the teachings of these two great men to prove the worth, significance, value, and necessity of living art to a civilization worthy of the name.

The Association of American Painters and Sculptors, on whose behalf I speak, feels that American art to-day suffers from the lack of the stimulus that would be afforded by the free entry of modern contemporary art. The rich art dealers, who make fortunes out of the importation of old pictures at fabulous prices, do not appear here pleading for this. Their customers are mainly the rich. These dealers not only have no interest in removing the duty on contemporary art, but they constantly make the argument to their wealthy patrons in favor of the purchase of old art, that old art comes in duty free.

What we need, perhaps, most in this country is the sense of fellowship, and that sense is quickened by great art. In France there lives to-day a sculptor whose work has been compared to that of Michelangelo. It is impossible to look at some of the work of Rodin, at his great statue "The Man with the Broken Nose," or his profoundly conceived figure, "The Thinker," or his "Burgers of Calais" without feeling a sense of the dignity of man even though bowed with toil, without a deeper understanding of and quickened thought for the people he depicts.

I make this plea at the close, or near the close, of the long sessions of this committee. To every man who devotes himself to politics or to public life there comes, perhaps, at some time in his public life the thought or question whether his life could not have been better spent, whether his name may be long remembered, or whether, perhaps, some poet or artist or musician, now unknown, may not have a surer passport to posterity than the work of even the greatest statesman. The name of Shelley in his life was unknown at Westminister Hall, but his name may endure when the names of the cabinet ministers of that time are forgotten.

But when one considers the great functions of this committee and looks over the vast field that their labors embrace; when one thinks of the thousands of items dealt with and considered here, the cost of which enters into the daily life of all our people; of the things they wear, their articles of food, the things they live on, the cost of their homes, of their clothes, of almost every article used by them from the time they are born until they die, all of which are here discussed, considered, and the cost or price to the consumer fixed by the deliberations of this committee, one comes to realize that the work of easing the burdens of all our citizens and of adjusting taxation equitably for the poorest as well as the richest of our people, is one of the highest duties that can be performed by man. Swift said that the man who made two blades of grass grow where but one grew before deserved best of the race. To arrange the taxation of a nation with wisdom and justice may not be so dramatic as to win a fight against some trust that produces one or a few articles, like tobacco, or oil, or steel, or iron, or sugar, or beef, but it is the highest and most important duty that can engage the attention of a true statesman. I am sure that the deliberations of this committee will be characterized by wisdom, a deep sense of justice, and a breadth of judgment that will make the Underwood Tariff Act a monument to justice, equity, reason, and high statesmanship.

We ask for a recognition of the higher needs of life. We have enough Chautauquas and Chautauqua lecturers. The rich man may have his palace stored with works of art, but we want to bring living art within the reach of the man of moderate means, and even of the poor. There is no reason why a duty, which is a tax upon knowledge and upon one of the chief agencies of civilization, should be levied by this Government, and why we should be the only civilized nation of the world that puts a tax upon what other nations foster and encourage.

France and other countries maintain funds for the education of their artists and send them abroad to study contemporary art. The French Government not infrequently purchases out of its public funds the work of American artists, of Sargent, Whistler, St. Gaudens and others. The French nation out of moneys raised by taxation, acquires

the best example of the contemporary art of other countries, while we, under our present tariff act, impose a tax on the importation of contemporary art. We erect a Chinese wall 15 per cent high against the importation of contemporary art. Art sweetens or ought to sweeten life. It adds to the dignity of men, broadens their sympathy, quickens their vitality and love of life and beauty, and ought to increase their faith in life and faith in man.

Conclusion. The present provisions imposing a duty on paintings and sculptures are found in paragraph 470 of Schedule N-Sundries.

If this committee shall determine to place contemporary art on the free list, then the present paragraph 470 should be dropped out, and there should be added to the free list following Schedule N-Sundries, a paragraph like this:

(I) Works of art, including paintings in oil, mineral, water, or other colors, pastels, original drawings and sketches in pen and ink or pencil and water colors, etchings, not to exceed 20 numbered impressions, and engravings not to exceed 20 numbered impressions, and lithographs not to exceed 20 numbered impressions and original sculptures, including not more than two replicas or reproductions of the same, shall when imported into the United States or into any of its possessions (except the Philippine Islands and the island of Guam and the islands of Tutuila) be exempt from duty; but the term "sculpture" as used in this act shall be understood to include professional productions of sculptors only, whether in round or in relief, in bronze, marble, stone, terra cotta, ivory, wood, or metal, or whether cut, carved, or otherwise wrought by hand from the solid block or mass of marble, stone, or alabaster, or from metal, or cast in bronze or other metal or substance, or from wax or plaster, made as the professional productions of sculptors only; and the word "painting," as used in this act, shall not be understood to include any articles of utility, nor such as are made wholly or in part by stenciling or any other mechanical process; and the words "etchings" and "engravings, as used in this act, shall be understood to include only such as are printed by hand from plates or blocks etched or engraved with hand tools and not such as are printed from plates or blocks etched or engraved by photochemical or other mechanical processes.

(II) Strike from the free list forming part of the present act that part of section 717 relating to works of art, as above defined, which have been in existence 100 years, but retain that part of said section 717 relating to other works of art (except rugs and carpets) in existence over 100 years.

(III) Strike out of paragraph 661 the words "statuary and casts of sculpture for use as models or for art educational purposes only," retaining the other portions thereof.

(IV) Strike out of paragraph 714 the words "works of art, engravings."

(V) Add to paragraph 416, after the word "engravings," the following, "except as provided in paragraph of the free list forming part of this act," and also insert after the word "etchings" in said section 416 the following, "except as provided in paragraph of the free list forming part of this act."

(VI) In place of present paragraph 470 of Schedule N provide for a duty of 15 per cent ad valorem on etchings, engravings, or lithographs forming part of a numbered or lettered edition above the number of 20; on bronze, marble, stone, alabaster, or metal replicas or sculpture or statuary as defined in the new free list, an ad valorem duty of 15 per cent on all such replicas, copies, or reproductions above the number

of 3.

This suggestion if adopted would admit original statuary or sculpture that are works of art made by artists, and three replicas of the same. All additional copies or replicas would be taxed, as suggested above, at 15 per cent ad valorem and would protect our bronze and iron or other metal founders and our trade engravers, trade sculptors, and trade etchers and lithographers and trade printers from competition with similar workmen abroad.

Respectfully submitted.

JOHN QUINN,

Counsel for the Association of American Painters and Sculptors.

SCHEDULE N, PARAGRAPH 451, CHAMOIS.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is some one representing the Alpha Quality Chamois Co., of Philadelphia.

Who is present representing that concern?
Mr. ROBINSON. I am here, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM ROBINSON, SR., ON BEHALF OF THE ALPHA LEATHER CO., OF FRANKFORD, PHILADELPHIA.

The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have no brief at all to submit, and only a very few remarks.

I am here in the interest of the Alpha Leather Co., of Frankford, Philadelphia. I notice on the calendar list of witnesses that gloves are stated as our line, but such is not the case, as we never made a finger of one.

My sole purpose before this committee is to ask your consideration, in making a provision in the coming tariff, for our line of imports, as there is evidently none in the present bill.

For nearly two years we have been importing from England rough split sheepskin leather, tanned but unfinished, and have been assessed on this 20 per cent ad valorem.

Mr. HULL. Under which section are you speaking?

Mr. ROBINSON. There is no section that I know of. It will come under section 451, if you can find it.

I want to impress on your minds that this is rough split sheepskin, tanned but unfinished.

On this line of imports we have to expend about 15 per cent of labor to put it in a marketable condition; yet the importer here imports the finished article, ready for sale, and only pays the same ad valorem, 20 per cent.

I have two samples here, one of the unfinished skin just as we import it, and the other a small piece which we have finished, similar to all our finished goods, and I would ask the committee if they think there is any equity in the present rating, after you see the contrast. We contend that our line should be placed on the free list, and especially so if it should be that a reduction is made on the finished goods. This line of industry is a new venture to my firm, and is practically only in its infancy, and I am of the opinion that quite a reasonable amount of exports are made yearly from England, at least, and we would like to foster the industry if we are given a fair chance, but we can not continue under present conditions.

I will now show you the difference in the two skins.

Mr. Robinson here handed two samples of chamois to the members of the committee.

Mr. ROBINSON. Ours has to be handled from ten to a dozen times before we can get it into this finished condition. This other sample [indicating] is exactly the same leather that comes from England,

72318 No. 24-13-2

finished and worked on the other side, and yet we pay the same amount ad valorem on our unfinished product-20 per cent.

Mr. HARRISON. Does not the ad valorem rate in itself mount with the value of the skin?

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes.

Mr. HARRISON. So when it is more highly finished and after these other processes have been worked on it, it is worth more than it is in the first form and the rate is higher?

Mr. ROBINSON. Not in our particular line, because ours is only a medium grade. It is not used for any manufacture of any kind. It is used for washing windows and for a lower grade of work.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the value of that skin which you have in your left hand?

Mr. ROBINSON. Just as it is imported, do you mean?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. ROBINSON. I could not say. They vary. The average runs about $4.80 a dozen at the present time.

The CHAIRMAN. What would be the value of that after you finished it.

Mr. ROBINSON. They vary, too. It just depends. You might buy a dozen skins and you would not get the same amount of leather out

of them.

The CHAIRMAN. But taking that particular skin, as you have it in your hand, and finishing it, what would be the value of that?

Mr. ROBINSON. As we sell it?

The CHAIRMAN. As it goes to the customer.

Mr. ROBINSON. This particular skin here?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. ROBINSON. I could not tell that.

The CHAIRMAN. You say that it would be $4.80 coming in that way?

Mr. ROBINSON. No; I take the average of the smaller size with the larger size.

The CHAIRMAN. What we want to do is to get some information. Can you not tell us what would be the value of that skin coming into the customhouse?

Mr. ROBINSON. The purchase price?

The CHAIRMAN. I mean the value of that particular skin by the dozen, coming in at the customhouse.

Mr. ROBINSON. Possibly about 40 cents.

The CHAIRMAN. What would it be the worth if it came in finished? Mr. ROBINSON. I do not know. We do not buy in that particular

way.

We do not buy them finished.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not know what is the import value of those skins with which you come in competition?

Mr. ROBINSON. They vary in size and quality. It just depends on the quality. The only thing I am in touch with is the selling of it. Mr. HILL. What is the other piece which you have there?

Mr. ROBINSON. This [indicating] is a small piece exactly as it is finished.

Mr. HILL. Is that cut off for any particular purpose?

Mr. ROBINSON. It is cut off for a sample or pattern. It is supposed to be a pattern of a certain size.