Viewing page 33 of 49

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

18

the possibility of a law-suit, but it also restores the value of the painting to atleast the $50,000 Mr. Goetz paid for it--and probably has increased it to about twice that sum, [[strikethrough]] [[?]] [[/strikethrough]] [[?]] + clear the dealer's reputation.

There are many other inconsistencies and ananchronisms (and infinite red tape) connected with the tariff regulations on art which make atleast a partial paradox of the legislation's intention. For example, x Gobelins' tapestries used as wall hangings are allowed free entry, but a modern tapestry designed by Miro exclusively for use as a wall-hanging is not; [[strikethrough]] frames made before 1830 are duty-free as antiques, but though the modern paintings they may contain are admissible at any port of entry, the frames, as antiques, can come in only though ten so designated; [[/strikethrough]] only an original and the first two castings of a sculpture can be admitted duty-free, [[strikethrough]] ( [[/strikethrough]] though to a collector all of the artists limited casts of [[evals?]] are of equal value-- [[strikethrough]] but [[/strikethrough]] and the fact that the castings are indeed the first and second must be proved; lithographs not over twenty years old are not considered "works of art"; etc.)

It is true that there has been some progress. Certain works of art instead of being designated various "manufactures" can be brought in under that "works of art not specially provided for" paragraph (though they are then dutiable at rates from ten to twenty per cent) and there have been some liberalizing interpretations of the law. But [[strikethrough]] the [[/strikethrough]] such wheels move very slowly.

[[lower-left margin]] by such [[reward?]] artist [[on?]] [[Pileno?]] or [[Braque?]] [[/lower-left margin]]

Transcription Notes:
unsure how to format the note in pencil on the left