Mr. HOGAN. Good for them. I am very glad of it. All I have got to say in reference to that is, that if these accidental benefits have resulted to the laborer, I rather take it, it has been from the enormous price of coal. these capitalists were anxious to get labor in order to make the enormous profit on the coal. You have at 1,000s and 1,000s of dollars into the hands of these moneyed men. The might well say, we can get a dollar or 2 dollars more perton for our coal; if we pay these oo rfellows a few cents a.ton more for picking 1t, wewill get the dollar or 2 dollars and they will get the few cents. That has been the operation of the whole thing from the beginning. Now, I have no opposition, no feeling of an tagonism, to this great coal interest; I am in favor of it; I admire it. But while I am for iIt, want to see somethingdone thatwill benefit the great mass of the people and not increase the already exorbitant price of this necessary article. Let me say a word or 2 to the gentleman on the other side [Mr. PIKE] who wants an increase of duty upon fish. A great cry is raised here that we must increase the duty on fish; the fishermen of Maine and Massachusetts will be absolutely ruined, will be crushed to death, if you do not put another (1 llar of duty on fish, and the Provinces will may rethisa fish conntr if you do not stop the introduction of theirfis here. Now, I wautto ask how it is that during the last ten years, when all this was free, the still made money? Look at the price of ilSl now, and compare it with what it was ten years ago, before Canadian fish was allowed to come in free. The priceof fish hasbeen increasedab most 3 times what it was before this treaty allowed fish to come in free and these men have gone on increasing the production offish, have gone everywhere hunting fish, and yet all this time they have been absolutely nearly ruinedl It is strange how long these men can stand being ruined in this way. Ten years ago they did not begin to get the prices for fish that they have been getting for the last ten years while fish have been coming in free: yet now, when it is proposed to give them halfa dollar, a dollar, and 2 dollars perbarrel in the way Of duty, they say they will be absolutely drive" 0“. the water, and we will have no fish unless we ; snake the duty 3 and 4 and 5 dollars a barrel. Do the gentlemen know that my constituents and the people of the West have to pay these additional duties? Do they know that the great market for the sale of these commodities is all through our western country? The farmers and the laborers and the mechanics of the West are the men who will pay that additional duty, for they are the chief consumers. Do you suppose that the men who primarily pay that dollar as duty to the Government lose that dollar? No, sir; they add that dollar, with 50%. interest upon it, to the price of the barrel of fish; and because we in the West will have cod fish and mackerel we must pay that dollar and a half instead of the dollar which is in the 1st instance paid as duty to the Government. Now, sir, the some duty has been imposed upon every descrition of fish. The poor No. 3" mackere, which the poor man is compelled to buy, ays the same duty as the fine “ No. 1” mac erel, which the man of wealth alone can afford to purchase. No discrimination is made in favor of the laboring man who is obliged occasionally or fre nently to subsist in great part upon salt fish. iVe are urged to impose additional duties upon this article. without thinking of the men who consume it, because there are class interests to be regarded and protected in all the legislation of the American Congress. So again in reference to the question of wool, which is brought up by the Gentfrom Iowa, [Mr. Gnmssan] who wishes us to impose an additional duty of ten cents peround. ow, sir, why should we protect by this in, creased duty the wool grower in Iowa or any other portion of the West?One might almost expect that Vermont should ask a tariff discriminating against Iowa wool for the protection of Vermont. wool.