importation of luxuries bearing the higher rates.  The average rate of the three (fiscal) years 1873 to 1875 was 39 per cent on dutiable (a fall of 9) and 28 on free and dutiable (a fall of 16).  The ratio of imports entering free, which in 1872 was still only about 1 in 14, became the next year 1 in 4.  But government revenues falling short in 1874, advantage was soon taken of the circumstance to repeal in 1875 with little discussion the horizontal cut of tariff rates made in 1872.  The specific rates that had been reduced in 1872 were little changed, however.  From 1876 to 1883 (8 fiscal years) nearly a third of the imports consisted of goods on the free list.  The average rate on dutiable was over 43 per cent, and on free and dutiable was 30 per cent.

The tariff was a leading issue in the campaigns of 1876 and 1880.  In 1876, the Democratic party’s platform contained a plank for “a tariff for revenue only.”  It was a time of great industrial depression, and as is usual in such cases a large number of the electors held the party in power responsible for business adversity (as in turn they credit it with any more or less fortuitous prosperity).  The Republican candidate Hayes, after a long contest in Congress, was declared elected by a margin of one electoral vote.  His opponent, Tilden had received a quarter of a million more votes in the country as a whole.  In 1880, when business prosperity was rapidly returning, the party in power was successful by a goodly margin of votes in the electoral college, tho having a bare plurality of the popular vote.  Garfield, the Republican candidate, was known as one of the more moderate protectionists and his opponent, General Hancock, who was without any political record, declared the tariff to be a “local issue,” to be determined in the Congressional districts.  The tariff issue was thus not very sharply drawn.  The tragic death of President Garfield left no clear leadership.  The tariff question from 1876 to 1884 was politically in the doldrums.

Yet there was undoubtedly a somewhat growing popular demand for some moderation of the very high duties.  To this demand the friends of protection who were in power felt compelled to concede something—­or to appear to do so.  Congress appointed a Tariff Commission of which the Chairman was secretary of the wool manufacturers’ association, and after a report the tariff act of 1883 was passed.  The net results were almost nil.  Some rates were lowered, while others were raised with a definite protectionist purpose.  The average rates for the next seven years, 1884-1890, were 45 on dutiable (an increase of nearly 2 per cent) and 30 on free and dutiable (unchanged as compared with the period ending 1883).  In 1884, the Democratic party elected its presidential candidate (Cleveland) and a majority of the House, but as it did not control the Senate it could not pass any of the various proposed measures for a “reform” of the tariff.  In 1888 the protective principle was a leading issue in the campaign.  Altho Cleveland received a few ten thousands larger popular plurality than he had obtained four years before, and held the electoral votes of 18 of the states, he lost New York and Indiana by very narrow margins, a result in which other issues played a large part.  Harrison was elected and the party favoring a high protective tariff came into power.