SHOULD A REPUBLIC ENCOURAGE THE ARTS. 



the state; that it is much better that such matters should be left for free development by 

 the people at large; and that the government should not mix up any irrelevant matters 

 with its own special department. 



To take the last expression of pseudo-policy first, it is surely clear, that however it may 

 apply to art or architecture, or anything in general, it is manifestly impertinent to the par- 

 ticular case under consideration — the case of a public building — because the people at large, 

 whatever their wish, have no opportimity to develope, except through their government, 

 anything in a matter that is unavoidably under the sole control of that government. 

 Therefore, this pseudo-policy points simply to utter non-development in national instan- 

 ces, which alone are being discussed. Next, of the unavoidable tendency to corruption; 

 that is the positive basis of the objection. It is at once confessed that it is not without the 

 bounds of possibility that this objection may be a true one; but if true, let us see what is 

 the position it involves. In the first place, it palpably admits that all the laws are insuf- 

 ficient, either to prevent, detect, or punish dishonesty. If not, why can it not be prevent- 

 ed, or detected and punished, in such a flagrant case as the one under discussion, — one 

 that must of necessity occur under the immediate eye of the very makers and guardians 

 of those laws. In the second place, it asserts that all the professional and business men 

 in the country, M'hose abilities or interests are connected with the erection of buildings, are 

 rogues, for if there is one honest man among them, it is the natural course for faithful 

 agents to see that he, at least, is fully employed. In the third place, it asserts that all the 

 members of the government are rogues, (corruption pre-supposing collusion.) For if 

 there is one honest man among them, it is the clear policy, even of the dishonest whocon- 

 stitue the remainder, to appoint that one to see that, (in a matter in which they are not 

 individually, as dishonest persons, interested,) they are not injured by the mis-appropria- 

 tion of funds, that each, in his capacity of a member of the community, is taxed to real- 

 ize. In the fourth place, it asserts that all the political majorities of the constituencies are 

 rogues, for if there is one honest man in any of them, aye, or out of any of them, even in 

 the minorities, why is he not elected to the government office, when it must be clear to all 

 the remainder, (rogues though they be,) that healonehas the capacity for acting in a manner 

 disconnected with unprincipled private interest, — the only man, in fact, whom any one of 

 them would feel safe to be any gainer by appointing. The objection then, reduced to its 

 elements, is practically a four-fold accusation against the character of the laws, the pro- 

 fessional men, the government, and the people of the United States. This insulting accu- 

 sation will hardly be allowed, and yet it may be said, " the thing don't work, it won't 

 work, it has been proved not to work, and therefore, in spite of all far-fetched conclusions, 

 it is better to get rid of it altogether." All that can be said to this is, that if it does not 

 work ; it is without a particle of doubt because some of those conclusions or accusations, 

 are actual in some point — and whatever that point maybe, it is respectfully recommended 

 that it forthwith be discovered, and exhibited to the government as a discredit to the na- 

 tion, and as an appropriate opportunity for employing anj'- "getting rid" force that may 

 be at hand; and if this course is asserted by objectors to be impossible, it only 

 remains, in the beautiful language of iheimniortal bard, to " pity their ignorance, and des- 

 pise 'em for it." C. V. 



Netvbursh, Jan., 1852. 



