SHOULD A REPUBLIC ENCOURAGE THE ARTS. 



higher education which grows out of a direct encouragement of the arts, as having a spe 

 cial influence in enlightening and refining the people at large, by the erection of fine build- 

 ing, galleries of pictures, statuary, &c. The following remarks, from one of our corres- 

 pondents, have been written in answer to this doctrine, and are worthy of attention. 

 Ed.] 



It is argued that the members of a republican government, like that of the United 

 States, being appointed solely for the purpose of carrying out in practice the political will 

 of the people, are not justified, in their official capacity, in devoting either their own time 

 or attention, or the funds of the nation, to any other purpose whatever, and consequent- 

 ly, that the fostering or advancement of the national taste, in matters of art, having noth- 

 ing to do with politics, is a subject over which the members of the government have no 

 control, and one with which they have no manner of business. This position, according 

 to the strict limitation of the official powers, members are at present delegated to exercise, 

 appears incontestible, and it seems evident that without being anew specially authorized 

 by the people, the government has no right to sanction the expenditure of public time or 

 public money, for any such purpose. It is, however, not uncommon to hear it asserted 

 on this ground, that no outlay of thought or money on national public buildings, is justi- 

 fiable, beyond what is necessary to procure, in the most commodious, substantial, and eco- 

 nomical manner, the accommodation required. Moreover, that architecture demands 

 something beyond skillful planning, sound materials, and good workmanship, and that 

 this " something beyond," not being absolutely requisite for the convenience or stability 

 of the structure proposed to be erected, and having nothing to do with politics, is beyond 

 the province of the government. As this deduction, though plausible, does not seem in- 

 contestible, it may be worth while to investigate its merits. 



In the first place, then, it seems clear that the providing suitable national buildings, as 

 public exigence requires, is a necessary part of the business of government — there is no 

 other authority by which such works can consistently be set on foot; and it will hardly be 

 denied by any one, that it is a duty of every government to take care that the public is 

 not injured for want of proper attention being bestowed on such matters. Now, the art 

 of building is every way in itself, as far removed from politics as the art of architecture; 

 yet it appears that it may, (or rather must,) become the true policy of every government 

 to have something to do with the art of building — consequently, it is evident that the sim- 

 ple non-connection of any subject with political questions or politics, according to the po- 

 pular definition of the word, is not of itself, a sufficient reason for its being considered 

 beyond the scope of the government, for the rule that fails in the one case, can scarcely be 

 held binding in the other. Before the consideration of any subject can be rightly ignored 

 on this ground, it must be fairly proved to have no legitimate bearing on any act that the 

 government, in its trul}-- political character, is bound to perform. The representatives of 

 the nation, therefore, being forced, from the nature of the case, to undertake the responsi- 

 bility of erecting suitable buildings for all the national exigencies of public business — are 

 apparently bound to decide on the claim of architecture to a place in their calculations — 

 not on the ground of its connection or disconnection with political questions, not in any 

 way with reference to the encouragement its admission to consideration may give to art, 

 nor to the effect it may have on the tastes of the people — but simply on the ground of its 

 suitability or unsuitability per se, to the particular national buildings they are called on to 

 construct. This view of the matter, if correct, will at once materially narrow the question 



issue, if we allow the word suitable to be only properly applied, when used to embody 

 dea of that perfect special fitness which it is the duty, as well of individuals as of pub- 



