Mr. BOUTWELL. I renew it. Mr. Chair man, there are 3 vital and satisfactory reasons why this duty should not be increased. The 1st is that coal being a raw material, and in no sense a manufacture, does not come within the settled policy of the country to protect manufactures. It is an article of fuel as necessary to human existence as air and water, and therefore should be furnished to eve person ht the lowest possible cost. Secon and 3rd, the measure proosed is neither one of revenuez properly 5 ea.ring, nor of protection. I say it IS not one o reVenue, properly speaking, because if we deny the doctrine of protection and stand on the principle of revenue then we ask that the duty for the purpose 0 revenue shall be upon luxuries befbre ll; is imposed upOn articles of positive and prime necessity. We have stric 'en out of the internalrevenue system 50 articles, refusing to take revenue on them, not one, of which is to be compared with coal as an article of necessity for the people of the country. Now, sir, I say for the purpose of protection the tax of S1 50 per ton is whollyinadequate. It is well known that coal comes to this country in large quantities from Nova Scotia, the consumption of which is confinedto NewEngland an portions of NewYork; and with this duty of $1 50 perton it will continue to be imported, because on cannot transport Cumberland coal from the mines 5 100 miles away for anything like $1 50 perton. It costs 4 dollars a ton to transport Cumberland coal from the part of Georgetown to the port of Boston. hereforc, if you put the duty upon domestic coal even at 3 dollars a too we in NewEngland will still be obliged to pure use foreign cozil because we can procure it cheaper. Here, then, we impose a tax upon an article of prime necessity to all classes, and especially to manufacturers, while We allow articles of luxury to come in free from abroad. If you make this a protective tariff, you must put on a duty of at cast 5 dollars a ton in order to secure the coal miners of this country the monopoly of the NewEngland markets. But I say there is nothing in the whole range of possible taxation which ought not to be taxed for the purpose of revenue before you tax coal. If, howcver, you propose to tax for protection, a tax of $1 50 perton is totally inadequate. Here the hammer fell.