was 43 per
cent on dutiable and 23 per cent on free and dutiable.

Sec. 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 p