McKinley Tariff

Last updated
William McKinley c. 1880 Mckin.jpg
William McKinley c. 1880

The Tariff Act of 1890, commonly called the McKinley Tariff, was an act of the United States Congress, framed by then Representative William McKinley, that became law on October 1, 1890. [1] The tariff raised the average duty on imports to almost 50%, an increase designed to protect domestic industries and workers from foreign competition, as promised in the Republican platform. [2] It represented protectionism, a policy supported by Republicans and denounced by Democrats. It was a major topic of fierce debate in the 1890 Congressional elections, which gave a Democratic landslide.

Contents

Democrats replaced the McKinley Tariff with the Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act in 1894, which lowered tariff rates. [3]

Description

After 450 amendments, the Tariff Act of 1890 was passed and increased average duties across all imports from 38% to 49.5%. [4] McKinley was known as the "Napoleon of Protection," [5] and rates were raised on some goods and lowered on others, always in an attempt to protect American manufacturing interests. Changes in duties for specific products such as tinplates and wool were the most controversial ones and were emblematic of the spirit of the Tariff of 1890. [6]

The Act eliminated tariffs altogether on certain items, with the threat of reinstatement as an enticement to get other countries to lower their tariffs on items imported from the US.

Eliminated tariffs

The Act removed tariffs on sugar, molasses, tea, coffee, and hides but authorized the President to reinstate the tariffs if the items were exported from countries that treated U.S. exports in a "reciprocally unequal and unreasonable" fashion. The idea was "to secure reciprocal trade" by allowing the executive branch to use the threat of reimposing tariffs as a means to get other countries to lower their tariffs on U.S. exports. Although this delegation of power had the appearance of being an unconstitutional violation of the nondelegation doctrine, it was upheld by the Supreme Court in Field v. Clark in 1892, as authorizing the executive to act merely as an "agent" of Congress, rather than as a lawmaker itself. [7] The President did not use the delegated power to re-impose tariffs on the five types of imported goods, but he used the threat of doing so to pass 10 treaties in which other countries reduced their tariffs on U.S. goods. [8] [9]

Tin-plates

Tin-plates were a major import for the United States. Tens of millions of dollars in these goods entered the country each year. [6] In the preceding 20 years, tariff rates had been raised and dropped multiple times on tin-plates with no change in import levels, and domestic production had remained inconsequential. In a last attempt to stimulate the infant domestic tin-plate industry, the Act raised the duty level from 30% to 70%. [10] It also included a unique provision that stated tin-plates should be admitted free of any duty after 1897 unless domestic production in any year reached one-third of the imports in that year. [11] The goal was for the duty to be protective or not to exist at all.

Wool

The new tariff provisions for wool and woolen goods were exceedingly protectionist. Wool was previously taxed based on a schedule: more valuable wool was taxed at a higher rate. Through a multitude of complicated tariff schedule revisions, the Act made almost all woolen goods subject to the maximum duty rate. [12]

Also, the Act increased the tariff on carpet wool, a wool of very low quality not produced in the US. The government wanted to ensure that importers were not declaring higher-quality wool as carpet wool to evade the tariff. [13]

Reactions

The tariff was not well received by Americans who suffered a steep increase in prices. In the 1890 election, Republicans lost their majority in the House with the number of seats they won reduced by nearly half, from 171 to 88. [14] Also, in the 1892 presidential election, Harrison was soundly defeated by Grover Cleveland, and the Senate, House, and Presidency were all under Democratic control. Lawmakers immediately started drafting new tariff legislation, and in 1894, the Wilson-Gorman Tariff passed, which lowered US tariff averages. [15]

The 1890 tariff was also poorly received abroad. Protectionists in the British Empire used it to argue for tariff retaliation and imperial trade preference. [16] The McKinley Tariff had the effect of raising the bilateral American tariff toward Britain from 35% in 1890 to 43% in 1891, whereas the average American tariff actually fell on account of the McKinley Tariff placing a number of tropical commodities on the free list. [17]

Background

Tariffs (taxes on foreign goods entering a country) served two purposes for the United States in the late 19th century. One was to raise revenue for the federal government, and the other was to protect domestic manufacturers and workers from foreign competition, known as protectionism. [18]

In December 1887, President Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, devoted his entire State of the Union Address to the issue of the tariff and called emphatically for the reduction of duties and the abolition of duties on raw materials. The speech succeeded in making the tariff and the idea of protectionism a true party matter. In the 1888 election, the Republicans were victorious with the election of Benjamin Harrison and majorities in both the Senate and the House. For the sake of holding the party line, the Republicans felt obligated to pass stronger tariff legislation. [19]

William McKinley, of Ohio, was defeated by Thomas Brackett Reed to be Speaker of the House after the 1888 elections. [4] McKinley instead became chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and was responsible for framing a new tariff bill. He believed that a protectionist tariff had been mandated by the people through the election and that it was necessary for America's wealth and prosperity. [4]

In addition to the protectionist debate, politicians were also concerned about the high revenue accruing from tariffs. [20] After the American Civil War, tariffs remained elevated to raise revenue and to cover the high costs of the war. However, in the early 1880s, the federal government was running a large surplus. Both parties agreed that the surplus needed to lessen but disagreed about whether to raise or lower tariffs to accomplish the same goal.

The Democrats' hypothesis stated that tariff revenue could be reduced by reducing the tariff rate. Conversely, the Republicans' belief was that by increasing the tariff, imports would be lessened, and total tariff revenue would drop. The debate would be known as the Great Tariff Debate of 1888. [20]

Effects

Douglas Irwin's 1998 paper examines the validity of the opposite tariff hypotheses posed by the Republicans and Democrats in 1890. Irwin examined historical data to estimate import demand elasticities and export supply elasticities for the US in the years before 1888. He then calculated that tariffs had not reached the maximum revenue rate and that a reduction, not a raise, in the tariff would have reduced revenue and the federal surplus. That confirmed the Democrats' hypothesis and refuted the Republicans'.

After he examined the actual tariff revenue data, he concluded that revenue decreased by about 4% from $225 million to $215 million, after the Tariff of 1890 increased rates. Irwin explains that to be due to a provision for raw sugar be moved to the duty-free list. Sugar was then the item that raised the most tariff revenue and so making it duty-free reduced revenue. If sugar is excluded from import calculations, the tariff revenue increased by 7.8%, from $170 million to $183 million.

Irwin concluded that the tariff hastened the development of domestic tinplate production by about a decade but also that the benefit to the industry was outweighed by the cost to consumers. [21]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act</span> 1930 U.S. trade law placing and raising tariffs on tens of thousands of imports

The Tariff Act of 1930, commonly known as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff or Hawley–Smoot Tariff, was a law that implemented protectionist trade policies in the United States. Sponsored by Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley, it was signed by President Herbert Hoover on June 17, 1930. The act raised US tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods.

A tariff is a tax imposed by the government of a country or by a supranational union on imports or exports of goods. Besides being a source of revenue for the government, import duties can also be a form of regulation of foreign trade and policy that taxes foreign products to encourage or safeguard domestic industry. Protective tariffs are among the most widely used instruments of protectionism, along with import quotas and export quotas and other non-tariff barriers to trade.

The Tariff of 1828 was a very high protective tariff that became law in the United States in May 1828. It was a bill designed to fail in Congress because it was seen by free trade supporters as hurting both industry and farming, but it passed anyway. The bill was vehemently denounced in the South and escalated to a threat of civil war in the Nullification Crisis of 1832–33. The tariff was replaced in 1833, and the crisis ended. It was called the "Tariff of Abominations" by its Southern detractors because of the effects it had on the Southern economy. It set a 38% tax on some imported goods and a 45% tax on certain imported raw materials.

The Walker Tariff was a set of tariff rates adopted by the United States in 1846. Enacted by the Democrats, it made substantial cuts in the high rates of the "Black Tariff" of 1842, enacted by the Whigs. It was based on a report by Secretary of the Treasury Robert J. Walker.

The Morrill Tariff was an increased import tariff in the United States that was adopted on March 2, 1861, during the administration of US President James Buchanan, a Democrat. It was the twelfth of the seventeen planks in the platform of the incoming Republican Party, which had not yet been inaugurated, and the tariff appealed to industrialists and factory workers as a way to foster rapid industrial growth.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act</span> United States tariff reduction in 1894

The Revenue Act or Wilson-Gorman Tariff of 1894 slightly reduced the United States tariff rates from the numbers set in the 1890 McKinley tariff and imposed a 2% tax on income over $4,000. It is named for William L. Wilson, Representative from West Virginia, chair of the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, and Senator Arthur P. Gorman of Maryland, both Democrats.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dingley Act</span> Historical United States tariff

The Dingley Act of 1897, introduced by U.S. Representative Nelson Dingley Jr., of Maine, raised tariffs in United States to counteract the Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, which had lowered rates. The bill came into effect under William McKinley the first year that he was in office. The McKinley administration wanted to slowly bring back the protectionism that was proposed by the Tariff of 1890.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fordney–McCumber Tariff</span> 1922 historical U.S. tariff

The Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922 was a law that raised American tariffs on many imported goods to protect factories and farms. The US Congress displayed a pro-business attitude in passing the tariff and in promoting foreign trade by providing huge loans to Europe. That, in turn, bought more US goods. However, five years after the passage of the tariff, American trading partners had raised their own tariffs by a significant degree. France raised its tariffs on automobiles from 45% to 100%, Spain raised its tariffs on American goods by 40%, and Germany and Italy raised their tariffs on wheat. According to the American Farm Bureau, farmers lost more than $300 million annually as a result of the tariff.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Free trade</span> Absence of government restriction on international trade

Free trade is a trade policy that does not restrict imports or exports. In government, free trade is predominantly advocated by political parties that hold economically liberal positions, while economic nationalist and left-wing political parties generally support protectionism, the opposite of free trade.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protectionism</span> Economic policy of restraining trade between states through government regulations

Protectionism, sometimes referred to as trade protectionism, is the economic policy of restricting imports from other countries through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, import quotas, and a variety of other government regulations. Proponents argue that protectionist policies shield the producers, businesses, and workers of the import-competing sector in the country from foreign competitors and raise government revenue. Opponents argue that protectionist policies reduce trade, and adversely affect consumers in general as well as the producers and workers in export sectors, both in the country implementing protectionist policies and in the countries against which the protections are implemented.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">F. W. Taussig</span> United States economist

Frank William Taussig (1859–1940) was an American economist who is credited with creating the foundations of modern trade theory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Report on Manufactures</span> 1791 report on economic policy by U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton

In United States history, the Report on the Subject of Manufactures, generally referred to by its shortened title Report on Manufactures, is the third of four major reports, and magnum opus, of American Founding Father and first U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. It was presented to the Congress on December 5, 1791.

The Tariff of 1842, or Black Tariff as it became known, was a protectionist tariff schedule adopted in the United States. It reversed the effects of the Compromise Tariff of 1833, which contained a provision that successively lowered the tariff rates from their level under the Tariff of 1832 over a period of ten years until the majority of dutiable goods were to be taxed at 20%.

The Tariff of 1832 was a protectionist tariff in the United States. Enacted under Andrew Jackson's presidency, it was largely written by former President John Quincy Adams, who had been elected to the House of Representatives and appointed chairman of the Committee on Manufactures. It reduced the existing tariffs to remedy the conflict created by the Tariff of 1828, but it was still deemed unsatisfactory by some in the South, especially in South Carolina. South Carolinian opposition to this tariff and its predecessor, the Tariff of Abominations, caused the Nullification crisis. As a result of this crisis, the 1832 Tariff was replaced by the Compromise Tariff of 1833.

The Tariff of 1857 was a major tax reduction in the United States that amended the Walker Tariff of 1846 by lowering rates to between 15% and 24%.

The Tariff of 1816, also known as the Dallas Tariff, is notable as the first tariff passed by Congress with an explicit function of protecting U.S. manufactured items from overseas competition. Prior to the War of 1812, tariffs had primarily served to raise revenues to operate the national government. Another unique aspect of the tariff was the strong support it received from Southern states.

Tariffs have historically served a key role in the trade policy of the United States. Their purpose was to generate revenue for the federal government and to allow for import substitution industrialization by acting as a protective barrier around infant industries. They also aimed to reduce the trade deficit and the pressure of foreign competition. Tariffs were one of the pillars of the American System that allowed the rapid development and industrialization of the United States. The United States pursued a protectionist policy from the beginning of the 19th century until the middle of the 20th century. Between 1861 and 1933, they had one of the highest average tariff rates on manufactured imports in the world. However American agricultural and industrial goods were cheaper than rival products and the tariff had an impact primarily on wool products. After 1942 the U.S. began to promote worldwide free trade, but after the 2016 presidential election has gone back to protectionism.

Protectionism in the United States is protectionist economic policy that erects tariffs and other barriers on imported goods. In the US this policy was most prevalent in the 19th century. At that time it was mainly used to protect Northern industries and was opposed by Southern states that wanted free trade to expand cotton and other agricultural exports. Protectionist measures included tariffs and quotas on imported goods, along with subsidies and other means, to restrain the free movement of imported goods, thus encouraging local industry.

Protective tariffs are tariffs that are enacted with the aim of protecting a domestic industry. They aim to make imported goods cost more than equivalent goods produced domestically, thereby causing sales of domestically produced goods to rise, supporting local industry. Tariffs are also imposed in order to raise government revenue, or to reduce an undesirable activity. Although a tariff can simultaneously protect domestic industry and earn government revenue, the goals of protection and revenue maximization suggest different tariff rates, entailing a tradeoff between the two aims.

The United States Senate Select Committee on the Tariff Regulation was a Select Committee for the U.S. Senate from February 25, 1823 until March 3, 1923. It is now a defunct congressional committee, having been consolidated into the Committee of Finance in 1923.

References

  1. ↑ Frank W. Taussig, "The McKinley Tariff Act." Economic Journal. 2 (1891): 326–350 online.
  2. ↑ Reitano, Joanne (1994). The Tariff Question in the Gilded Age: The Great Debate of 1888 . University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University. p.  129. ISBN   0-271-01035-5.
  3. ↑ Taussig, F. W. (1892). The Tariff History of the United States (8th ed.). New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons. p.  291.
  4. 1 2 3 Reitano 1994, p. 129
  5. ↑ Rove, K., The Triumph of William McKinley: Why the Election of 1896 Still Matters (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2015), p. 67.
  6. 1 2 Taussig 1892, p. 273
  7. ↑ FindLaw.com Field v. Clark decision text
  8. ↑ The treaties were with Austria–Hungary (May 20, 1892), Brazil (April 1, 1891), the Dominican Republic (Sept. 1, 1891), El Salvador (Feb. 1, 1892), Germany (Feb. 1, 1892), Guatemala (May 30, 1892), Honduras (May 25, 1892), Nicaragua (March 12, 1892), Spain (for Cuba and Puerto Rico, Sept. 1, 1891), and the United Kingdom (for the British West Indies and British Guiana, Feb. 1, 1892).
  9. ↑ "Reciprocity Treaties with Other Countries". The New York Times. November 24, 1901.
  10. ↑ Taussig 1892, p. 274
  11. ↑ Olcott, C. S., The Life of William McKinley, vol 1 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1916), p. 172.
  12. ↑ Taussig 1892, p. 262
  13. ↑ Taussig 1892, p. 258
  14. ↑ Reitano 1994, p. 130
  15. ↑ Taussig 1892, p. 291
  16. ↑ Palen, Marc-William (2010). "Protection, Federation and Union: The Global Impact of the McKinley Tariff upon the British Empire, 1890–94". Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History. 38 (3): 395–418. doi:10.1080/03086534.2010.503395. S2CID   159638185.
  17. ↑ Varian, Brian D. (February 2018). "Anglo-American trade costs during the first era of globalization: the contribution of a bilateral tariff series†: ANGLO-AMERICAN TRADE COSTS". The Economic History Review. 71 (1): 190–212. doi:10.1111/ehr.12486. S2CID   157711310.
  18. ↑ Irwin, Douglas A. (1998). "Higher Tariffs, Lower Revenues? Analyzing the Fiscal Aspects of 'The Great Tariff Debate of 1888'" (PDF). Journal of Economic History . 58 (1): 59–72. doi:10.1017/S0022050700019884. S2CID   154971301.
  19. ↑ Taussig 1892, p. 256
  20. 1 2 Irwin 1998, p. 59
  21. ↑ Irwin, Douglas A. (2000). "Did Late-Nineteenth-Century U.S. Tariffs Promote Infant Industries? Evidence from the Tinplate Industry" (PDF). Journal of Economic History . 60 (2): 335–60. doi:10.1017/S0022050700025122. S2CID   158083578.

Further reading

International impact

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.