Mr. SHERMAN. Taking it at his own measurement, then, the Senator proposes that we should surrender $625,000; or, if we reduce the duty to 50 cents, $375,000. If we do that on the article of coal, and then on the article of scrap iron throw off about 100,000 dollars, and go on in that way with regard to various articles which are consumed wholly in the East, along the coast, we shall subject this tariff bill to the very objections already made against it by western senators. I preferred to keep the duty on coal at $125, but in voting for the proposition of the Senfrom Maryland to fix it at $1 50 my motive was simply to secure the revenue derived from the article. The U.S. possess more coal than is possessed in all the continent of America besides. The U.S. contain more coal than is contained in all Europe, and our coal is finer than any in the world, our anthracite being unsurpassed anywhere. If, therefore, there is any article that ought not to be imported into this country it is the article of coal, because we have the raw article in unbounded extent, it is quarried out by bur own miners, thus giving employment to a class of hardy and adventure us laborers; we employ in its transportation our own railroads and canals, thus supplying our internal im Understanding, however, that I simply rise to exPress provements; and our ships carry every ton of coal that is transported along the sea coast from one port of the country to another; so that every item in the price of coal in Boston is American labor; and hence if there is any article to which the doctrine of protection ought to apply it is coal. Now, you propose to surrender the revenue derived from coal under the tariff, upon the principle that cheap coal would be advantageous to NewEngland. Then you surrender the whole argument. If it is important to have cheap coal in NewEngland, is it not important to us in Ohio to have cheap iron? Is it not important to us to have cheap cloth? Is it not important to us to clothe. the poor people with the coarse jeans that are necessary for their comfort? Is it not necessary to reduce the price of the commodities which enter into our consumption? Are not food and clothing and all those articles which we purchase as important to us as coal is to NewEngland? think Senators ought to apply the principle logically. I believe f have not in any case voted to reduce the duty on any article that now yields a revenue, and I think I shall not do so. I consented originally, at the urgent request of several others, to waive it on coal to a certain extent; but, on consideration, I think that if we waive it on so important an article of revenue as coal, we shall subject this bill to the criticism that has already been very forcibly made against it, and we shall probably lead to its defeat, because we cannot surren der the revenue derived from these various sources without endangering the passage of the bill; and certainly the revenue consideration is the only reason I have for supporting the measure. I shall vote, therefore, for a reasonable dut on coal. Now, a duty of $1.25 a ton, althoug it appears to be high, is only about 30%., and therefore a less rate of duty than is imposed on many other articles. The value of Cumberland coal in the mountains, I suppose, is not more than 2 dollars a ton; but when brought to market at Baltimore it is worth 5 or 6 dollars, I Presume, so that a duty of $1 25 is only about 25%. on the article in the market. It is at the lowest revenue rate. It seems to me that to throw off this duty or to reduce it to 50 cents a ton, which is only ten%. on the market value, when the article yields $625,000 according to the Senfrom Massachusetts, is going too far.