Mr. WILLEY. According to the statement of the honorable Senfrom Maine it is admitted that 100 or upward of 100 gallous of oil may be exPressed out of a ton of this Albertite. Is that ordinary coal? Is that an article that ought to be placed in the category of our ordinary bitumine us coal, subject to the same duty and to the same conditions, one producing at the very highest only 40 gallons per ton, and this rich article producing 100 gallons and sometimes more than 100 gallons per ton producing as much oil per ton as this asphaltum does, and therefore placing itself, it seems to me, upon pretty much the same reason for the same protection? It is true, you may call it by another name, but the result is the same. You may call it coal, but it produces 100 gallons of oil, and ordinary bitumine us coal only produces 40 from 20 to 40. And now, if I can get the attention of the Senate, I beg to correct the Senator in some of his material statements. I know nothing of the character of the gentleman who place these facts in my hands personally; but he comes to me recommended as a gentleman of the highest integrity, and I am sure that he is a gentleman of the finest intelligence. Except so far as the Senfrom Maine states facts resting upon his personal knowledge, the Senate have only the written statement of one Gentfrom Portland, Maine, on the one side, and a Gentfrom NewYork on the other. As to the allegation that nothing has been done to develop the rich mine of asphaltum alluded to in WestVirginia, and that this proposition is one wholly prospective in its character, I beg to correct the Senfrom Maine. Already $100,000 have been expended in building a railroad to this mine, and retorts are in process of erection at the mine for the purpose of exPressing the oil. In addition to that, extensive brick buildings have been erected and are in process of erection. Many 1000s of brick have been made at the place for the purpose of erecting buildings; and buildings are in process of erection, and a large and heavy amount of capital has already been expended; and this company is just on the eve of commencing operations there, unless it should be cut down by this discrimination against it. You say it is “Albertite” in Nova Scotia; you say it is “asphaltum” in WestVirginia; yet the Nova Scotia Albertite is as rich in the identical article of oil as the asphaltum is in WestVirginia. Whether you call it Albertite or asphaltum, the reason for protecting the one is just about the same as for of the other by a duty. Now, sir, I am no mineralogist; but I have had the specimens before me, and if I were to Present them to any Senator I venture to say that from the external appearance of them there could be no distinction made in them. They look precisely alike. There may be, and doubtless is, according to the statement of the Senfrom Maine, a difference in them in some respects, enough to give them a different name; but the result of the manufacture of each is about the same; and now the question is, whether as regards 2 articles that produce the same results, although in their crude state you may call them by different names, the do Inestic article shall not be protected against the introduction of the foreign article; that is to say, whether coal oil, whether this oil which is identical in its character, whether exPressed from asphaltum or exPressed from Albertite, shall be introduced from abroad in competition with the domestic manufacture at home. Some of the facts stated by the Senfrom Maine may have their weight upon the Senate; but I am very certain that the character and standing of the Senfrom Maine, the position he occupies upon the ComFinance, and justly occupies in the estimation of the Senate and the country, is a matter much more difficult for me to encounter than the real facts and merits involved in the case. I repeat, sir, the same results accrue from the manufacture of these articles, whether you call them one name or the other. Why do you call one thing “Albertite” and the other “asphaltum? ” he name Albertite is a mere compliment, I believe, to Prince Albert himself. A certain species of stone found in Nova Scotia, not very long ago had the cognomen of “Albertite” iven to it in compliment to Prince Albert. Sompare them together and they look exactly as if they. ithe same resine us qualities. The results as stated by the Senfrom Maine show that such is the fact, that both produce 1sometimes a little over 100 gallons of oil to the ton, the same kind of oil, to be applied to the same purposes. Now, the question is, whefour own domestic capital and our own fellow citizens here at home and our own industry are brought into competition with the introduction from abroad of an article which, though having a different name, produces the same result, shall they not have a discrimination of protection in their favor? It is with the greatest regret imaginable that I am driven to this position as against the Senfrom Maine; but looking to the interests of my constituents, and I think to the general interests of the country, and relying upon the general principles of this bill which, all through it, in all of its provisions, proposes to extend protection to domestic industry and to domestic manufactures and to domestic capital, and to protect our own interests against foreign, competition, I cannot see upon what principle a discrimination in this single article producing the same results, simply because it. a different name, shall be made; and I trust that the Senate will allow the clause to remain as it is.