Again the political weather vane shifted. The month after the McKinley bill became law, the Congressional elections (November, 1890) returned an overwhelming Democratic majority in the House, altho this was a period of business prosperity, a fact usually favoring the party in power. In 1892, Cleveland, being again a candidate, was successful over Harrison by a largely increased plurality of the popular vote, and received almost double the electoral vote of his opponent. The House was Democratic, and the Senate soon became so. Business prosperity was rising again to a high level, but there were many features of financial and speculative weakness in the situation, intensified by growing fear of a cheap money (silver dollar) inflation under the act of 1878 providing for the annual purchase of silver. A financial panic occurred in September, 1893, six months after Cleveland's inauguration.
Nevertheless Congress enacted the next year, Aug. 28, 1894, the Wilson tariff act. The changes made by this legislation were not on the whole very great, but were nearly all in the direction of the lowering of the tariff. Most notable was the putting of raw wool upon the free list. Some rates on woolen goods were reduced, but hardly more than enough to offset the effects, upon manufacturers' costs, of the reduction of the tariff on raw wool. Likewise small reductions were made on cotton and silk goods, on pig iron, steel and tin plate and many other articles; and larger reductions on coal, iron ore, chinaware, and glassware. To make up for the expected reduction of receipts from other sources, a duty was laid again upon raw sugar, and an income tax law was passed (this soon, however, to be declared unconstitutional).
Under this law, for three fiscal years (1894-1897) the average rates were 41 per cent on dutiable and 21 per cent on free and dutiable,—pretty high rates. The proportion entering free under this act was actually less than under the McKinley act, partly because of the sugar item, and partly, probably, because of general business conditions.
§ 10. #The Dingley tariff, 1897-1909.# The campaign of 1896 was waged almost solely on the issue of free silver. Undoubtedly great numbers of voters supported William McKinley rather despite of, than because of, his high protectionist beliefs. But his inauguration was promptly followed by the passage of the Dingley act of July 24, 1897, which embodied a marked increase of protective rates. A duty was again levied on wool, and also on hides which had been untaxed since 1872. High rates were made for woolens, linens, silks, chinaware, and the rate on sugar was doubled. Provision was made for some reduction of rates by reciprocity agreements, but the conditions were so complex that the effect could not be great. This high protective tariff, thus enacted without popular discussion, remained almost unchanged for twelve years, the longest life, by one year, of any tariff act in our history,[7] The rate under the first full fiscal year of the law's operation, 1899, was the highest on dutiable in our history, 52 per cent, and was nearly 30 per cent on free and dutiable. In practical operation, however, the average rate steadily became more moderate because of the rapid rise of the general price level that was in progress throughout this period, amounting to 35 per cent from 1898 to 1909.[8] The average rate of duties collected for the period of 12 years was 47 per cent on dutiable and 26 per cent on free and dutiable. It was steadily falling and the last year, 1909, was 43 per cent on dutiable and 23 per cent on free and dutiable.
§ 11. #Sentiment favoring lower rates.# While the Dingley act was thus in operation showing declining average rates, sentiment was developing in every part of the country in favor of a further moderation of the tariff. This was due partly to the discontent resulting from steadily rising general prices, in which change the rise in the prices of food and of many other necessities was not fully compensated by the rise of the wages and incomes of the masses. Partly the growth of this sentiment accompanied the agitation against trusts and the belief that protective duties in some cases were an aid to the formation of domestic monopolies. But more fundamentally, this changing sentiment was the result of the changing industrial conditions in America. The character of our foreign trade had altered greatly since the early nineties. We were importing relatively less and less of manufactured and finished products, and more of raw materials; and we were exporting less and less of raw materials and more of finished products. A growing number of manufacturers were feeling the need of cheaper raw materials and were looking hopefully toward an enlargement of their foreign trade.
The Republican platform in 1908, in view of the changing public sentiment, formulated a new rule for maintaining "the true principle of protection," namely, that it "is best maintained by the imposition of such duties as will equal the difference between the cost of production at home and abroad, together with a reasonable profit to American industries." This rule is very attractive in its suggestion at the same time of the idea of a moderation of the tariff and of an exact practical (not to say scientific) standard for the determination of the proper rate in every case.
The rule is, however, fallacious. "Costs of production" mean here the monetary costs of the enterpriser. Now a first difficulty is that costs are not uniform for all establishments in any one industry, and a tariff high enough to protect some is entirely too low to protect others. As long as a tariff rate is too low to exclude every unit of the foreign product its importation is conclusive proof that for some home producers the tariff rates fall short of the "true principle" (better proof, indeed, than the most elaborate investigation by any tariff board could be). The indubitable truth is that no trade ever can take place (in a monetary régime) unless the monetary price is lower in the exporting than it is in the importing country. This virtually means that the product cannot be profitably exported unless the monetary costs of production ("together with a fair profit") of the article exported are for each party less than those of the other party in the other country.[9] The so-called "true principle" would lead thus to absolute prohibition of every article to which it was applied.
§ 12. #The Payne-Aldrich tariff, 1909-1913#. In the campaign of 1908 the Republicans admitted that the protective tariff needed to be revised, but they declared that it should be revised by its friends. It was doubtless the general understanding that "revision" in this promise meant revision downward, tho this was left somewhat unclear in a campaign wherein the tariff played a somewhat minor part. The tariff act of 1909 (the Payne-Aldrich act) was the attempt of the successful party to redeem its promise in this regard. Many changes of rates were made, both downwards and upwards. It was estimated that rates were reduced in 584 instances, affecting 20 per cent of imports. These changes included placing hides upon the free list (before taxed 15 per cent), and cutting down the rate on leather, shoes, coal, lumber, iron ore, pig iron, and steel-rails. But on the other hand rates were increased in 300 instances (including many items in the cotton schedule). The general belief that little reduction was effected, on the whole, was confirmed by the experience under the act. As compared with the last two years (1908-1909) of the Dingley tariff the first two years of the Payne-Aldrich tariff showed a decline of 1.5 per cent, and on free and dutiable a decline of less than 3 per cent. These reductions in the statistical results are no greater than occurred within like periods while the Dingley act continued in operation without change.[10]
No other tariff since "the act of abominations" in 1828 has called forth such widespread criticism as this one, and the tariff became a leading issue in the campaign of 1912. After 1910, the House being Democratic, many bills to reduce duties were presented, and some were passed by both houses, but all were vetoed by President Taft mainly on the ground that it would be best to await the report of the tariff board which had been authorized and appointed for the purpose of ascertaining the cost of production referred to in the "true principle of protection."
§ 13. #The Underwood tariff, 1913#. After President Wilson was inaugurated, March 4, 1913, the tariff was at once taken up by Congress. The general features of the act that was passed were as follows: