Editing McKinley Tariff (section)

==Description==
{{William McKinley series}}
After 450 amendments, the Tariff Act of 1890 was passed and increased average duties across all imports from 38% to 49.5%.<ref name="Reitano 1994, p. 129">Reitano 1994, p. 129</ref> McKinley was known as the "Napoleon of Protection",<ref>[[Karl Rove|Rove, K.]], ''The Triumph of William McKinley: Why the Election of 1896 Still Matters'' (New York: [[Simon & Schuster]], 2015), [https://books.google.com/books?id=Q_agDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA67 p. 67].</ref> and rates were raised on some goods and lowered on others, always in an attempt to protect American manufacturing interests. Changes in duties for specific products such as tinplates and wool were the most controversial ones and were emblematic of the spirit of the Tariff of 1890.<ref name="Taussig 1892, p. 273">Taussig 1892, p. 273</ref> The Act eliminated tariffs altogether on certain items, with the threat of reinstatement as an enticement to get other countries to lower their tariffs on items imported from the US.

===Eliminated tariffs===
The Act removed tariffs on sugar, molasses, tea, coffee, and hides but authorized the President to reinstate the tariffs if the items were exported from countries that treated U.S. exports in a "reciprocally unequal and unreasonable" fashion. The idea was "to secure reciprocal trade" by allowing the executive branch to use the threat of reimposing tariffs as a means to get other countries to lower their tariffs on U.S. exports. Although this delegation of power had the appearance of being an unconstitutional violation of the [[nondelegation doctrine]], it was upheld by the Supreme Court in ''[[Field v. Clark]]'' in 1892, as authorizing the executive to act merely as an "agent" of Congress, rather than as a lawmaker itself.<ref name="field">[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?friend=nytimes&court=us&vol=143&invol=649 FindLaw.com ''Field v. Clark'' decision text]</ref> The President did not use the delegated power to re-impose tariffs on the five types of imported goods, but he used the threat of doing so to pass 10 treaties in which other countries reduced their tariffs on U.S. goods.<ref>The treaties were with Austria–Hungary (May 20, 1892), Brazil (April 1, 1891), the Dominican Republic (Sept. 1, 1891), El Salvador (Feb. 1, 1892), Germany (Feb. 1, 1892), Guatemala (May 30, 1892), Honduras (May 25, 1892), Nicaragua (March 12, 1892), Spain (for Cuba and Puerto Rico, Sept. 1, 1891), and the United Kingdom (for the British West Indies and British Guiana, Feb. 1, 1892).</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1901/11/24/archives/reciprocity-treaties-with-other-countries-official-data-covering.html|title=Reciprocity Treaties with Other Countries|date=November 24, 1901|newspaper=The New York Times}}</ref>

===Tin-plates===
[[Tin-plate]]s were a major import for the United States. Tens of millions of dollars in these goods entered the country each year.<ref name="Taussig 1892, p. 273" />  In the preceding 20 years, tariff rates had been raised and dropped multiple times on tin-plates with no change in import levels, and domestic production had remained inconsequential. In a last attempt to stimulate the [[infant industry|infant domestic]] tin-plate industry, the Act raised the duty level from 30% to 70%.<ref>Taussig 1892, p. 274</ref> It also included a unique provision that stated tin-plates should be admitted free of any duty after 1897 unless domestic production in any year reached one-third of the imports in that year.<ref>[[Charles S. Olcott|Olcott, C. S.]], ''The Life of William McKinley'', vol 1 ([[Boston]]: [[Houghton Mifflin Harcourt|Houghton Mifflin]], 1916), [https://books.google.com/books?id=cxL5AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA172 p. 172].</ref> The goal was for the duty to be protective or not to exist at all.

===Wool===
The new tariff provisions for [[wool]] and woolen goods were exceedingly protectionist. Wool was previously taxed based on a schedule: more valuable wool was taxed at a higher rate. Through a multitude of complicated tariff schedule revisions, the Act made almost all woolen goods subject to the maximum duty rate.<ref>Taussig 1892, p. 262</ref> The Act also increased the tariff on carpet wool, a wool of very low quality not produced in the US. The government wanted to ensure that importers were not declaring higher-quality wool as carpet wool to evade the tariff.<ref>Taussig 1892, p. 258</ref>