Mr. STEVENS. I do that because Pennsylvanias chief interest lies in her anthracite coal fields. Now sir, I object to this whole bill upon generai principles, and therefore I have made an amendment to conform to the present general rate in the tariff. Iobject to special legislation for special countries or special classes. I think it is introducing a most vicious system. If you are to legislate for Canada upon one particular subject, you may legislate for Sthomes on another, for Cuba on another, for South America on another, and then where has your general tariff bill gone to? You fritter it away until you have no general principle to stand upon; but you are making piecemeal tariffs for particular favorite neighbors, and not for particular favorite States. ow, sir, I go upon the question of revenue, and I am not alarmed at the competition of foreign bitumine us coal, for I do not think it would make much difference. I think under the tariff of $1 25 our NewEngland friends would use just as much Pictou coal as they will under a tariff of 50 cents or as they do now. I think they will use and import as much from Liverpool as they do now. The only difference will be one which I greatly regret, namely, that the manufacturers, the gas companies, and others, will pay a reve nue, according to last vearslim Ortations, of $338,000 more upon that coal than they will under the tarifl" of 50 cents per ton. how, I regret this very much. I wish that these enter prisipg gentlemen could ct the coal for nothing if the revenue would allow it. But as a revenue question, you are throwing away about half a million dollars. No, you are not throwing it away; you are bestowing it upon the most worthy peeple in the world, men who need encouragement. I am sorry that we must raise this revenue; but as we do have to raise it from every part of the country, and on everything that comes either from Pennsylvania or any other quarter, I am afraid ourfrieuds will have to bear this loss. Now, sir, as to gaining fisheries by this. my friend has taken the true ground. He repudiates the idea that was once contended for in the reciprocity treaty, and partly given up, that the fish that swim within a marine league of the shore of another country are not to be caught by our fishermen. T he idea that you are to be excluded from your fisheries in these vast bays by running a line from headland to headland instead of going around by the shore, it seems to me, is against all the publicists that I have ever read on the subject, and a principle which cannot be maintained. I admit that there is one advantage. Although you can go there and catch the fish, you are not permitted to land them unless these gentlemen who want your custom will allow it. That is the only thing you gain by it, and the Gentfrom Maine [Mr. PIKE] says his constituents do not want that. I therefore say you gain nothing, but you make a concession by giving up a great principle in the law of nations, namely, the right to fish anywhere on Gods highwa except within a marine league of shore; alt ough by this you give up the idea of drawing a line from headland to headland, and keeping out 1,000 miles within that straight line. For all these reasons I am opposed to this whole bill, and repose to have a vote taken upon this amendment. We may as well test the sense of the House in regard to the principles of the bill now on this amendment, unless the Gentfrom Vermont [Mr. Men nii.i.] chooses to do it on another, in which case I am willing to withdraw it.