[Footnote 13:  For example, the maximum alteration in any year might be limited to 3.65 per cent of the value of the goods and in any case not to exceed one tenth of the old duty, this change to be applied day by day.  Thus, if, on a valuation of $1000, the duty collected under the old rate has been $400, and under the new law is to be $290.50, three years would be required for the full change to become effective, the reduction each day being $.10 per $1000 valuation.  The administration of such a rule would be simple, and it has been favored by men of practical commercial experience.]

CHAPTER 15

AMERICAN TARIFF HISTORY

Sec. 1.  Prevalence of protective tariffs.  Sec. 2.  Specific and ad valorem rates.  Sec. 3.  Some technical features of the tariff.  Sec. 4.  The tariff, 1789-1815.  Sec.5.  The tariff, 1816-1845.  Sec.6.  The tariff, 1846-1860.  Sec.7.  The tariff, 1861-1871.  Sec. 8.  The tariff, 1872-1889.  Sec. 9.  The tariff, 1890-1896.  Sec. 10.  The Dingley tariff, 1897-1909.  Sec. 11.  Sentiment favoring lower rates.  Sec. 12.  The Payne-Aldrich tariff, 1909-1913.  Sec. 13.  The Underwood tariff, 1913.  Sec. 14.  Some lessons from our tariff history.  Note on Tariff legislation and business depressions.

Sec. 1. #Prevalence of protective tariffs.# For a century and a half most serious students of economics have favored a larger measure of freedom, if not absolute freedom, in foreign trade.  But the actual practice of most nations has never been in accord with the principles laid down by the philosophers.  Great Britain alone among the larger countries has, since 1846, steadily pursued a low tariff policy for revenue only, and her example has been most nearly followed by Holland and Denmark.  Germany, which had always had restrictive duties, adopted still more protective measures under Bismarck in 1879.  France, Italy, and most of the other nations of Europe have strong protective tariffs.  The United States has followed a restrictive policy since near the beginning of the last century.  The explanation of this contradiction between precept and practice is not entirely simple.  Great interests are affected by foreign trade and certain of these interests are able to influence opinion and to dominate legislation.  Free trade is not the most desirable thing for every one.  The general policy of free trade between nations, as advocated by most English economists since Adam Smith, has usually been rejected by the people and the legislators of other countries.

In its details American policy in tariff legislation under the Constitution has been varied and vacillating.  The changes have been determined in most cases by motives of temporary partisan advantage or by the political activity of the immediate beneficiaries rather than by clear knowledge and consistent purpose of the electorate as a whole.  Thus its lessons for the student are largely of a negative nature, but they well repay serious study.