PARAGRAPH 470-PAINTINGS, ETC.

duty on contemporary art, the practice, study, and knowledge of contemporary art.

Mr. HARRISON. If I do not interrupt you

Mr. QUINN (interposing). You do not, Mr. Harrison.

Mr. HARRISON. I would like to ask whether there are any difficulties in the administration of the law dealing with art? In the first place, what is art?

Mr. QUINN. Books have been written on that single question and that difficulty is inherent in the present law and will be inherent in any law; but I think this committee can define the law so there will be no border line or any great dispute.

Mr. HARRISON. If you will pardon the further interruption, a few years ago, out in the Plaza in front of the Capitol, there was an alleged statue of the Father of His Country, which a paternal Government removed overnight and it disappeared. No doubt in his day that was art, but to-day that properly would be classified as "manufactures of stone not otherwise provided for."

Mr. QUINN. I think probably it would, and perhaps it was "otherwise provided for" after it was removed.

But the law, as at present it stands, covers paintings or sculpture as work made or produced by artists or professional sculptors, and that is as near as we can come to it.

Mr. HILL. What about wood carving?

Mr. QUINN. I am not interested in that, because that is nearer a mechanical process and has not developed to such a degree that we ask the duty removed, I think. I am speaking of art where the work of a man's hands or his eye enters. As to the definition of art in the law, you can not come any nearer to it than that. I might think a picture was a work of art, and some one else might think it a daub; but if made by a professional artist and I want to buy it, it ought to come in free.

You can not come any nearer to it than that. The Government would make itself ridiculous if it attempted to define what is and what is not art; and any official would likewise make himself ridiculous if he attempted to define what is and what is not art.

Somebody has said that morality is a question of geography. I do not say that is true, nor do I say that art is a question of geography; but it is a question of time, and place, and taste, and disposition, and training, and environment, and ideals, and differs in different places at different times. The ideals of one age may not be the ideals of another. It is rather a commonplace that ideals change and die and perish every day, and new ones come in vogue. The reformer of one day is the conservative of another, and the progressive in art of one generation is the reactionary in another, the same as in politics; so I do not think the Government should attempt in the act itself to define what is or is not art.

I will come, Mr. Harrison, in a moment to a section I have drawn, toward the end of my brief, and explain that more fully.

There are really no arguments in favor of the retention of this duty, except that the Government of the United States wants to keep out all contemporary art for the purpose of getting in a possible $200,000 or $250,000 a year. I have not estimated the expense of collecting that amount, but that expense should be deducted from that figure.

78959°-VOL 5-13-65

PARAGRAPH 470-PAINTINGS, ETC.

No artists, of any account at any rate, are asking for this protection. They do not need it. They do not want it. American art does not need protection from foreign art. If it does need it, if it is so weak it needs it, then it is not worthy of protection. If it can stand on its own merits, then it does not need any protection. It should not be protected from what is bad, on the one hand, which was one of the chief arguments in 1909. It does not need to be protected from what is bad, and it should not ask protection from what is good. One can not get away from these propositions.

The CHAIRMAN. If it will not interrupt you, Mr. Quinn, 4 years ago we put art over 20 years old on the free list. That class of pictures, for instance, is largely a very high-priced class that can only be bought by the very, very rich men?

Mr. QUINN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, we gave rich men their class of art free, and to the poor man or the man of moderate means we declined to give it free.

Mr. QUINN. You have hit the nail on the head, Mr. Chairman.

This committee should bring within the means and within the power of the man of moderate means-yes, even of the poor man-to acquire works of contemporary art before they become 20 years of age and appreciate in value and then fall into the hands of dealers and then become merely the hobby or exclusive possession of the rich.

If the committee will pardon me for being personal, I buy modern pictures myself, and I have paid a good many thousands of dollars in duty, and I always felt it was an outrageous thing that it should be so. I do not belong to the class of rich men who can indulge in Rembrandts, or Velasquezs, or Frans Hals, and other old masters, some of them good and some of them bad, and perhaps many of them forged. I want to buy the art of my own time. I prefer to be a man of my own time.

I

I think I speak for a great many other men of moderate means who want to buy the art of their own time, art that is within their moderate means; so I am pleading not only for this society but for myself and for all like me who want to be men of their own age. do not care merely to buy the ideals or work of artists of 100 or 200 years ago. I leave that pursuit to the rich man. I prefer the more exciting and interesting and enjoyable one, personally to me, of acquiring the living art of my own time.

Coming down to the practical question, if this committee shall decide to place art on the free list and have this country, therefore, take a stand as regards art with other civilized countries, how shall it be adopted and how shall it be accomplished? I will take the liberty of presenting to you, at the end of my brief, a paragraph which I will take out of the present Schedule N, that section imposing a duty upon works of art less than 20 years old, and put a comprehensive paragraph into the free list. I have also gone through the other sections dealing with etchings, statuary, etc., and have grouped them all in one section and followed that with suggestions as to amendments to other provisions of the present act.

There is just one point that has not been dealt with, I think, in any act, and that was not dealt with at the time of the hearings in 1909.

PARAGRAPH 470-PAINTINGS, ETC.

That is the question of the number of replicas. They dealt only with questions of originals. One of the chief arguments in 1909 was that

it you took off the duty from all art we would be in danger of being swamped with copies and forgeries. I ask only that the duty be removed on originals as to pictures, whether in oils, whether in pastels, or what not, and as to copies only as stated in my brief.

As to statuary it is a little different. A sculptor may make one figure and may make one or two or three replicas. There comes a time as to replicas or copies when they perhaps cease to be art and become objects of trade; they cross the border line. For example, you may see in shops in this country examples of Rodin's "Basier, which is hardly anything but an article of trade. I would not call such a trade copy an original work of art; I do not think Rodin would. I have therefore taken the liberty of suggesting in my brief that sculpture be admitted free, and that two or three replicas of the same made by the artist only be admitted free. That would result in the original, if imported here, and the two or three replicas, being numbered and tagged. They would have to be numbered, and those two or three would be admitted free. Any other replicas would be

taxed.

That accomplishes several purposes. It does not compete with our molders or bronze foundries. It identifies the works of art, and it enables a museum or a private individual to obtain one of the one or two or three replicas of a celebrated work of art. I have put it at three, and think that is very conservative. I know several sculptors who limit their work to five replicas. Rodin makes a great many, and my suggestion as to limiting it to three would tax a great many of Rodin's things beyond four in number.

As to etchings and engravings I have also a practical suggestion to make. The number of etchings that may be made from a plate is almost unlimited. The first impressions, of course, as every member of this committee knows, will be better than the later ones. I have suggested that etchings or impressions shall be confined to 20, each one numbered, which shall be admitted duty free. Each one would have to be numbered and a record kept, and a man would have to swear or prove that it was one of the number of 20, and if they got a higher number than 20 or more than 20 were to be imported, they would have to pay a duty on them at the regular rate. words, they would pass the border line when they ceased to be art and became for the purposes of the act an object of trade.

In other

I make the same suggestion with reference to engravings. The committee may not agree with me, Mr. Chairman, as to where that line should be drawn. It should be drawn somewhere, both as to statuary and as to paintings of all kinds, engravings, and etchings.

The section I have sketched does not admit duty free anything into which the mechanical process enters. It is confined to work of art made by the artist's hand or from the work of his hands.

I find what I think is one curious oversight in the present act, and that is that apparently there is no provision made for works of art, such as bronze or other metals cast from plaster made by an artist. The artist makes only the plaster and then sends it to a workman to make the bronze and a strict interpretation of our present act would

PARAGRAPH 470-PAINTINGS, ETC.

tax at a different rate all bronze except those made by the artist himself, and in the proposed section I have included any sculpture that is made from casts made by a professional sculptor.

Mr. PALMER. Really an original?

Mr. QUINN. Really an original; yes, sir.

Mr. HILL. Then what would you do in this case? You have seen in the European galleries scores and scores of men and women sitting in front of a picture and copying it. So far as their work is concerned, it is original. So far as the idea is concerned, it is a copy. Would you admit that free for the purpose of merchandising?

Mr. QUINN. No, I should not admit that for the purpose of merchandising. I should admit that if it was bought by a private individual or for a gallery only. But if it is reproduced for purposes of sale I should tax it, beyond any question; although, if it has such educational value that it is for a gallery or for the use of some private individual who imports it, you might make it duty free to American citizens or galleries or museums, but I should not have copyists making these in Italy and Germany and other places and flooding this country with $25 original pictures duty free. It is only the original works of art that should come in free, or copies as thus strictly limited.

Mr. PALMER. We have a great many Americans going there and doing that same thing.

Mr. QUINN. Under the present law works by Americans come in free. I would retain that provision as to copies, perhaps. Mr. Whistler settled that question. Any copy by an American artist might be made duty free; but you must draw the line there against flooding the market with copies. I do not believe in copies myself unless they are done by great artists, and then if a museum is importing them or a person is importing them himself for his own individual use let them be free. In that case I should be inclined to let them come in free, but if they are copies, merely as articles of merchandise or trade, then I think they ought to be taxed.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The brief submitted by Mr. Quinn in connection with his remarks is as follows:

BRIEF OF JOHN QUINN, COUNSEL FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PAINTERS AND SCULPTORS (INC.), IN FAVOR OF REPEALING THE PRESENT DUTY ON ART LESS THAN 20 YEARS OLD.

NEW YORK, January 30, 1918.

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.

PARAGRAPH 470-PAINTINGS, ETC.

The term "painting” in this brief will be used in the same sense as defined in the present law and should 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 term "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":

Paintings in oil and water colors and all other art.

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 from 1898 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.