owering 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.

Sec. 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,