Mr. MORRILL.I will yield to the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. Bnoons] presently. Mr. Chairman, I perceive from the temperexhibited by this committee in regard to this bill, that it will very likely be amened and possibly be lost. But I desire to fully discharge my own duty in the premises. I was an earnest and an early advoeate of the termination of the reciprocity treaty. I perceive that members here have advanced very much perhaps beyond my standard. For oneI desired that we should terminate that treaty in order that we might obtain revenue from those articles which were locked up in the reciprocity treaty. I desired also that we might terminate that most unrcciprocal of reciprocal treaties which the with of man ever devised, because it was an unequal bargain. I hoped that we might obtain all that we had obtained under the JGCIpIOCliy treaty, and also obtain a very considerable sum of revenue for ourTreasury. But it seems that the present committee is not read even for that and I fear that they are disposed to take no action on this bill; to defeat it by laying it on the table or by recommitting it. The distinguished Gentfrom Maryland [Ma F. Tuonas] never rises in this House to address us butI feel the most profound respect for the statesmanlikc manner and the dignity and the ability with which he discusses equestion and yet when he announced in his remarks of yesterday that his State had invested $12,000000in a canal and $18,000,000 iuarailroad to bring coal to the tide water, it did strike me that he had not observed that in the course of the remarks which I had the honor to submit I gave the intimation that there was to be some compensation even in not allowing but 50 cents perton dut upon provincial coal. I suggested that the ommittce of Ways&Means mightvery possibly, and at an early day, report a bill by which the present internal duty on coal would be remitted), and also that the present tax n on the gross receipts for freight upon railroad s might be remitted. Let me say to the Gentfrom Maryland [Mr. FTHOMAS] that that amounts to twice or thrice as much as the specific duty on coal, for all of our coals have more or less to be transported a considerable distance before they reach a market. Then the coals that we receive from the Prov inces are not a majority of the coals that we receive from abroad. We receive much more coal from Europe than we do from the Prov inces, all of which pays, and willstill pay, $1 25 duty. That seems not to have been considered by the Gentfrom maryland. Now, it strikes me that i these millions of dollars of capital invested in the canal and in the railroad could have their voice here, they would be quite ready to compromise as we propose, and to say that if they could be relieved from the tax upon their gross receipts they would run their risk of finding a market for the cool they mine as well as that of any diminution of freight. A remark was made by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [ML KELLEY] which I will notic. briefly. I know it was not said in any unkind spirit; but he made a remark intimatin that the returns which I took from our book of commercial relations represented a falsehood to this House. What were those returns? That we sent into the Provinces $555,000 worth of coal in 1864, while we received from the Prov inces $883,000 worth. Now, is not that true? Then the gentleman represents that there is as much difference between bitumine us coal and anthracite coal as between chalk and cheese. I do not so understand it. I understand that for most purposes bitumine us coal can be used as well as anthracite coal, and anthracite coal as well as bitumine us coal. For gas purposel anthracite coal cannot be so used.