Postcard from the Past: The Tarriff Clash is Bad Medicine to Nation

No, this is not a modern-day headline. It was ripped from the front page of the Laramie Daily Boomerang, dated March 17, 1910. I discovered it while searching for an appropriate Saint Patrick’s Day Postcard, which will run next week.

The article reads:

Washington, March 18 – It looks this morning as though on the first of April a tariff war between Canada and the U.S. will be inaugurated which will operate most oppressively against the western part of this country. The trouble arises over the maximum and minimum clauses of the Payne-Aldrich tariff bill.

The commission, which recently verified Ottawa to bring about a settlement of the differences with Canada, reports it was utterly unable to reach a settlement with the Canadian statesmen.

Canada seems to be about unanimous in standing firm against the American demands. 

Both Liberal and Conservative members of the parliament take the ground the nation’s self-respect and equity – and the future independence of Canada in making her trade bargains with other nations – demands a continued and firm adherence to the attitude maintained throughout by the Canadian government, namely “that there is nothing in Canada’s tariff agreement with other countries which constitutes any undue discrimination against the U.S.”

A revolutionary tariff law

In all previous tariff laws, the minimum or general rates immediately became operative upon importations from all countries, and the maximum rates were put into effect only upon proclamation by the president. 

Now it requires the proclamation of the president to give to the other countries the benefit of the general or minimum duties.

The point at issue between Canada and the U.S. is Canada’s treaty with France, which gives tariff rates to the country of about 10 percent less than are given to the U.S. 

Canada maintains the U.S. has given no concessions to the Dominion and, therefore, it is not entitled to these rates.

What the U.S. contends

The secretary of the treasury holds this 10 percent preference given to French products by the Canadian government is an undue discrimination against the U.S. 

Canada, on the other hand, maintains the concession to France is in return for special concessions made by France to Canada, and the U.S. has given no concessions to Canada.

President Taft disturbed

A number of conferences have been held at the White House within the past two days, to one of which Sen. Aldrich was summoned by the president, and they have all had relations to the Canada situation. 

The president gives it to be understood there is not now any apparent loophole through which he can evade applying the maximum rates to Canada. 

It is impossible for this country to make concession to any nation under our tariff law. Wherefore the only escape lies in the making of concessions by Canada and this the Canadian officials have stubbornly refused to do.

History of tariff act

According to information found on the internet, the tariff act lowered the general tariff rate from 46 to 41 percent while it increased rates on items such as animal hides, iron ore and coal. It lowered 650 tariff items, raised 220 and left 1,150 untouched.

President William Taft came to the act’s defense against Democratic and progressive Republican charges that it was a token measure offering precious little relief from the conservative Republicans’ protectionist tactics. 

In fact, the new bill made only very small changes in the law, and many reformers had expected Taft to veto it. 

A disappointed Taft thought it was nevertheless better than the previous tariff. Therefore, he signed the Tariff of 1909 into law, but the president drew the ire of many by commending the act as “the best tariff bill the Republican Party ever passed.” It later caused him to be defeated in a bid for re-election.

Although the Payne-Aldrich Tariff was less protectionist than the McKinley Tariff of 1890 and the later Dingley Tariff, it was still protectionist. It remained in effect until the Underwood Tariff of 1913. 

The struggle over Payne-Aldrich clearly identified the growing fissures within the Republican Party. 

The progressive or insurgent element was growing away from the Grand Old Party Old Guard.