i94 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



Wilson administration. If they had acquiesced in a moderate reduction 

 of duties in 1909, it is probable that they would have been spared the 

 heavier reduction in 1913. If they had permitted the Payne bill to 

 pass the Senate substantially as it passed the House, in place of amend- 

 ing it until it is doubtful whether it revised the tariff upward or down- 

 ward, the country would probably have accepted the measure as a satis- 

 factory settlement of the question. By overreaching themselves they 

 incensed public opinion and invited a more thoroughgoing reduction 

 of duties. 



Among the arguments against protection is that it inevitably makes 

 business the football of politics. When the tariff is under discussion, 

 business usually slows down until the outcome is foreseen. The average 

 tariff has a short life. Moreover, discussion that does not end in legis- 

 lation often disturbs business as much as that which does. As a conse- 

 quence, the protected industries seldom enjoy a long respite from the 

 uncertainty which the discussion of the tariff necessarily entails. The 

 history of the tariff since the Civil War, however, indicates that in the 

 end the protected interests have usually come out on top. After the 

 war, the internal revenue duties on many commodities of domestic pro- 

 duction were either reduced or abolished without any corresponding 

 reduction in the import duties. In other words, the margin of protec- 

 tion was substantially increased. The attempt to reduce duties in 1867 

 was unsuccessful. The reduction of ten per cent, in duties in 1872 was 

 repealed in 1875. The act of 1883 lowered some duties and raised 

 others, but it left the protective system substantially intact. Mr. Cleve- 

 land's famous message in 1887 urging a reduction of duties ended in the 

 McKinley act raising duties to a new high level. The democratic tariff 

 of 1894 reduced duties so slightly that Mr. Cleveland refused to sign it. 

 In 1897, the McKinley duties were practically restored, and it is doubt- 

 ful whether the act of 1909 made any reduction in the average level of 

 duties that served a protective purpose. During all these years, more- 

 over, besides the ad valorem duties that were avowedly protective, an 

 additional amount of protection was concealed in specific duties that 

 purported merely to compensate for the tariff on raw materials. As par- 

 liamentarians and political strategists, the protected interests have been 

 more resourceful than their adversaries. The alliances between wool 

 growers, woolen manufacturers and other interests have repeatedly 

 carried the day. The tariff of 1913 marks practically the first discom- 

 fiture the advocates of protection have suffered since 1860. 



But perhaps the discomfiture is more apparent than real. Taking 

 the country over, the business interests have shown little concern over 

 the reduction of duties. There has been less alarm than preceding the 

 tariff of 1894. With the exception of a few industries, the volume of 

 business has continued at a high level. The net earnings of many indus- 

 tries and of some railways have increased. Apparently, a high tariff 



