Mr. MORRILL. I believe the House acceded to my request to be allowed ten minutes to repiy to the Gentfrom Maryland, [Mr. F. faunas] Mr. Chairman, I know the very unequal task thatI have to perform when I under ta '0 to replyto the Gentfrom Maryland, who so rarely appears upon this floor, but when he does appear comes forth with such impres sive eloquence and is so earnest in his appeal to the House that whether he is right or wrong the House is disposed to follow his suggestion. lie is, I am happy to say, seldom wrong, but In this case I he love him to be entirely wrong. In the 1st place, the gentleman criticises the manner or form of the bill. The form is by no means unusual. It is in the same or a similar form that has been enacted for more than 50 years past in order to make a discrimination in relation to articles that may be imported from one side or the other of a given deree of longitude. In the next place, the gentleman criticises our proposed bill because it does not give coal caual protection to anything else in the bill. by, Mr. Chairman, the present bill, contrary to the opinion of the Gentfrom Maryland and others in the House, is not a bill for protection. It is a bill for revenue, and unless we adopt it we may lose, erhaps, $200,000,000 of internalrevenue. the bill is framed to protect our internalrevenue and for no other purpose. If it were not for that we should make no emendations to the tariff at all. If it were not for the vast flood of circulating medium at the present time we should not make any amendments to the tariif. But in consequence of the enormous inflation of the currency it is impossible that laboring men can live upon the same rate of wages that has been heretofore paid, and where we have the old specific rates in our tarilf it is impossible that those rates should be adequate to the necessities of either the Government or the manufacturers. If we had an advalorem tariff on a home valuation there would be no necessity now for an increase in the tarifi“. Now, in relation to the article of coal, as I have argued heretofore, it stands upon a different principle from a manufacture, or from wool, which the Gentfrom Maryland cited. We cannot by any possibility increase the amount of production, levy whatever tariff we please upon it, as we can upon manufactures or upon wool. Mr. Chairman, I have only one fault to find with the argument of the Gentfrom Maryland. I read what he said yesterday: "Sir. I‘very well remember and it occursto me Just at this moment aremark made by Mr. Weh ster in remonstrnting against. the annexation of Texas. He said that everyone accustomedto self, examination and self scrutiny discovers that there is in human nature an occult principle which inca pacitates a man for taking a ver lively interest in the atfairsof a communitysituat very remotefrom his own locality. That remark seemedto me at the time to be not a very apt illustration of the penetration, the deep analytic power which distinguished the philosop ic mind of that great statesman. I thought then, I think now. that this principle is to be tracedto selfishnessor self interest. New, sir, does not that remark apply to the Gentfrom Maryland as much as to myself? Is he not as remote from the NewEng land coast as I am from western Maryland? Sir, I scorn the imputation that I ever neglect a measure because it happens to interest California more than I would if it interested Connecticut. I scorn the imputation that I would neglect a measure that interested the Lake Superior region any more than if it interested Maine.