dutiable goods alone, and on all goods, free and dutiable
combined. There may be an element of error, even of misrepresentation,
in such estimates. They do not give the simple test of the relative
height of duties, or of the degree of "protection" that we might at
first suppose. Just to the extent that a new and higher rate really
operates to exclude imports (and thus is protective in its effect) the
goods subject to that rate cease to form part of the total imports.
For example, if the average rate of duty were 25 per cent, and a
50 per cent rate on an article were increased to 75 per cent, it is
possible that this rate would prove to be absolutely prohibitive.
This raise of rate, therefore, would tend to reduce the average rates
collected on all dutiable articles. Changes in general conditions
of industry from causes quite apart from the tariff may result in
shifting the proportions of imports that are dutiable so that the
average rates go either up or down while the tariff law has remained
unchanged on the statute book. A failure to consider these and related
facts leads to much confusion in popular and political discussion of
the tariff.]

[Footnote 2: Usually given as 20 per cent. However a good many rates
under the full operation of the act worked out as 21-1/2 or 23 per
cent, and a few at 26 and at 29 per cent. Besides there were
numerous specific rates, the _ad valorem_ force of which cannot be
determined.]

[Footnote 3: The political argument that the small tariff reduction of
1857 caused the crisis of 1857 will not bear serious examination. See
below, sec. 13.]

[Footnote 4: See ch. 14, sec. 2.]

[Footnote 5: See above, sec. 2, note 1.]

[Footnote 6: Internal revenue receipts in 1866 had been $309,000,000;
in 1872 they had fallen to $131,000,000, yet the government's surplus
for the three years 1870-1872 was little less than $100,000,000 a
year. This was almost half of the total receipts from customs, which
were $216,000,000.]

[Footnote 7: Other issues absorbed public attention in this
period--the Spanish war, colonial policy, "imperialism," railway rate
regulation, corporation control, etc.]

[Footnote 8: See above, sec. 2.]

[Footnote 9: Compare with ch. 13, sec. 5.]

[Footnote 10: Probably resulting from the rising prices, as explained
above, sec. 2. For example, in one year, from 1899 to 1900, the
average _ad valorem_ rate collected on dutiable goods fell 3 per cent,
and that on all goods fe