| ||
---|---|---|
27th President of the United States
Presidential campaigns
10th Chief Justice of the United States Post-presidency ![]() | ||
The Payne–Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909 (ch. 6, 36 Stat. 11), named for Representative Sereno E. Payne (R–NY) and Senator Nelson W. Aldrich (R–RI), began in the United States House of Representatives as a bill raising certain tariffs on goods entering the United States. [1] [2] [3] [4] The high rates angered the Republican "progressive" faction, and led to a deep split in the Republican Party.
Protectionism was the ideological cement holding the Republican coalition together. High tariffs were used by Republicans to promise higher sales to business, higher wages to industrial workers, and higher demand for farm products. Progressive insurgents said it promoted monopoly. Democrats said it was a tax on the little man. It had greatest support in the Northeast, and greatest opposition in the South and West. The Midwest was the battle ground. [5]
One provision of the Payne Aldrich law provided for the creation of a tariff board to study the problem of tariff modification in full and to collect information on the subject for the use of Congress and the President in future tariff considerations. Another provision allowed for free trade with the Philippines, then under American control. Congress passed the bill officially on April 9, 1909. [6] The bill states it would "take effect the day following its passage." [7] President Taft officially signed the bill at 5:05 pm on August 5, 1909. [8]
The Democrats took control of the House in the 1910 election. President Taft was challenged for reelection in 1912 by former president Theodore Roosevelt for the 1912 Republican nomination. Taft prevailed and Roosevelt and his "progressive" faction formed a new third party. The result was a Democratic landslide making Woodrow Wilson president. The Democrats sharply lowered the tariff in 1913. [9]
The Payne Act had the immediate effect of frustrating proponents of reducing tariffs. [10] In particular, the bill greatly angered Progressives, who began to withdraw support from President Taft. Because it increased the duty on print paper used by publishers, the publishing industry viciously criticized the President, further tarnishing his image. Although Taft met and consulted with Congress during its deliberations on the bill, critics charged that he ought to have imposed more of his own recommendations on the bill such as that of a slower schedule. However, unlike his predecessor (Theodore Roosevelt), Taft felt that the president should not dictate lawmaking and should leave Congress free to act as it saw fit. [11] Taft signed the bill with enthusiasm on 5 August 1909, expecting it would stimulate the economy and enhance his political standing. He especially praised the provision empowering the president to raise rates on countries which discriminated against American products, and the provision for free trade with the Philippines. [12]
In an article for the Quarterly Journal of Economics , F. W. Taussig wrote that the congressional debates about the tariffs were "depressing for the economist. There is hardly a gleam of general reasoning of the sort which is applied in our books to questions of international trade... That there should be general acceptance of the protectionist principle, and that the only question in debate should be whether duties were "unreasonably" high, was natural enough. Most people get used to existing conditions, and cannot easily conceive of anything different." [13]
The defection of insurgent Republicans from the Midwest began Taft's slippage of support. It heralded conflicts over conservation, patronage, and progressive legislation. The debate over the tariff thus split the Republican Party into Progressives and Old Guards and led the split party to lose the 1910 congressional election. [14]
The bill also enacted a small income tax on the privilege of conducting business as a corporation, which was affirmed in the Supreme Court decision Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. (also known as the Corporation Tax case). [15]