Mr. FESSENDEN. No, sir, not the Cum berland coal. I understand it cannot be used for that purpose, and is not. I think the senator, ifi. makes proper inquiries, will find that he is mistaken. So it does not interfere with that. It might interfere possibly, but for the large additional freight, with the Westmore land county coal of Pennsylvania, out of which gas is made, and which is sent down to Philadelphia and other points for that purpose. ow, let me state another fact of some import.ance, and that is that the Cumberland coal already has an additional protection of one dollar in the fact that in the same marketit always commands a dollar more per ton than the Nova Scotia coal for the very use to which it is put I mean for use in manufacturing iron. It is a better coal and commands a dollar a ton more, and this added to the gold duty of 50 cents, as the committee propose, would be a protection as it stands now of in fact $1 70 a ton in currency. Under these circumstances the committee thought that, in view of the large additional duties that are placed upon iron manufactured so largely in Maryland and Pennsylvania, and which fall very heavily upon the workers in iron, it was no very great boon to ask that those who have the coal at their doors precisely where they get their iron should allow the iron workers elsewhere to import the very small quantity that they use, 70 or 80,000 tons, free from the additional burden of the increased duty. In Maryland you have your coal and your iron upon the spot. We must carry our coal to Maine and carry our iron to Maine to manufacture it. Now, is not a protection of $1 70 per ton upon the coal sufficient for the Maryland workers in iron and the Maryland owners of coal? It is strange to me that under these circumstances the very small quantity that is used for that purpose and for gas making purposes cannot be allowed to be imported at the rate of duty now proposed to be stricken out; and such was the opinion of the ComWays&Means of the other House, as well as of the ComFinance of the Senate. The truth is that with reference to all these matters many things are to be considered. The tariff on iron proposed by this bill will bear very heavily upon the population of NewEngland. I think that men should consider in framing a tariff applicable to so many different sections of this great country, having different interests in many particulars; that the rule of “live and let live” might well be applied. It should not be insisted upon by the owners of these large coal mines, whose trade is so very large, that this article, which is mainly used by persons in the U.S. who were formerly accustomed to get their coal free under the reciprocity treaty, and who have not been able to raise the importation to over 500,000 tons, should be subjected to the heavy duties imposed upon other coal. I have now stated the facts in relation to the matter, and until the Senator can tell me why the Cumberland coal trade grew up from almost nothing to over 600,000 tons a year under the reciprocity treaty, when there was no duty on Nova Scotia coal at all, I shall be unable to see how the Cumberland coal trade can be destroyed by a duty of 50 cents, and I cannot consent to vote for this amendment. If he could prove that as a matter of statistics I should be inclined to look with a little more favor on his argument.