Editing Payne–Aldrich Tariff Act (section)

==Impact==
The Payne Act had the immediate effect of frustrating proponents of reducing tariffs.<ref>Paolo E. Coletta, ''The Presidency of William Howard Taft'' (1973) pp 45–76.</ref> 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.<ref>[[F. W. Taussig|Frank W. Taussig]], ''The Tariff History of the United States'' (8th ed. 1931), pp.&nbsp;361–408. [https://archive.org/details/tariffhistoryofu0000taus_h6v9 online]</ref> 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.<ref>Stanley D. Solvick, "William Howard Taft and the Payne–Aldrich Tariff." ''Mississippi Valley Historical Review'' 50.3 (1963): 424–442 [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1902605 online] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210307035528/https://www.jstor.org/stable/1902605 |date=2021-03-07 }}.</ref>

In an article for the ''[[The Quarterly Journal of Economics|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."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Taussig |first=F. W. |author-link=F. W. Taussig |date=1909 |title=The Tariff Debate of 1909 and the New Tariff Act |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1886056 |journal=The Quarterly Journal of Economics |volume=24 |issue=1 |pages=1–38 |doi=10.2307/1886056 |jstor=1886056 |issn=0033-5533}}</ref>

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 [[Fourth Party System|Progressives]] and [[Old Right (United States)|Old Guards]] and led the split party to lose the 1910 congressional election.<ref>[[Lewis L. Gould]], "Western Range Senators and the Payne–Aldrich Tariff." ''Pacific Northwest Quarterly'' 64.2 (1973): 49–56 [https://www.jstor.org/stable/40489113 online] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161221002620/http://www.jstor.org/stable/40489113 |date=2016-12-21 }}</ref>

===Corporate Income Tax===
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).<ref>John D.  Buenker, ''The Income Tax and the Progressive Era'' (Routledge, 2018).</ref>