Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, as is the case with my friendfrom Maine, I have from the 1st been in favor of protecting the domes tic industry of the country by Congress, having no doubt either as to the power or as to the expediency of doing so. It is useless now to say anything on the subject of the power or in relation to the expediency, as it is true that, since 1828, to go no further back, Congress at various times have exerted the power; and as far as I am advised, and as I believe, the pros perous condition of the country, and that condition which enabled it to go through the late war, through which we have gone successfully, is to be referred in a great measure to the existence of that system. No country in the world could get on without the power to adopt it; nor, as I believe, without exercising that power from time to time, as the exigencies of every country would require it to be exercised. The States before the adoption of the Constitution had undoubtedly the power, and that power consisted in their authority to legislate in relation to commerce and their authority to lay duties. When the power of regulating commerce between the to. States and foreign nations was conferred upon Congress, and from its very nature became exclusive of the same power in the States, and when the power to levy duties was vested in Congress with no limitation at all except that of requiring them to be uniform throughout the U.S., the States ceased to have that power. If there is no authority under either of these branches of power to protect the domestic industry of the country the result would be that it caun.9t be protected at all. But I agree with my friendfrom Maine that the protection may be carried to a very mischievous extent, and that that is particularly the case in the existing condition of the country. We have now a debt of 1000s of millions, and the greater portion of that debt we have promised to pay in gold. The war made it necessary for us to issue a currency not redeemable in gold, and to make it available in the discharge of individual debts and in the discharge of Government debts, as between the Government and its individual citizens; but the character of the Government I mean its character abroad and the necessities of the Government, when they were obliged to contract loans, demanded, in order that they should sustain the one and contract the other upon better terms than they could otherwise do, that they should promise to pay the interest of the debt, and eventually when it should fall due the debt itself in coin; and they have provided that, for that purpose, the duties upon imports shall be paid in coin. There is not now upon our statute book any other recourse which the Government has to receive the coin with which to pay its debts, unless you force it to go into the unarket and buy it; and I do not suppose that any Senator would desire to see the country in that situation. The practical working of the system as it now stands has been to satisfy the public cred itors, and to satisfy those wo may wish to invest their funds in the stocks of the U.S. that the faith of the Government, as to the mode of paying the debt when it matures and the intervening interest, will be strictly observed. We have now in the Treasury some 100 millions I believe of coin, and we can go on from time to time to enlarge it if it shall be necessary, and in that way to prepare certainly the means of meeting our engagements with the public creditors, and eventually to enable us to return to a specie paying currency. If this bill, therefore, has the effect materi ally to reduce the revenue from imports, it is, in my judgment, injudicious. Whether it will materially reduce that or not I am not sufficiently acquainted with the subject to say. The Commissioner, to whose intelligence every one bears testimony, and the ComFinance of the Senate, who are known to us to be familiar with the subject, think that the passage of the bill in the present form will not materially affect the revenue from imports. If they are right in that judgment, and it is not for me to say they are wrong, then the danger in which the country would be involved if the revenue from that source was materially diminished does not exist, and that being the case in their judgment, and I have faith in their judgment, I shall support the present tariff bill in its leading features. There are some provisions in the bill which do not meet exactly with my approval. I do not mean those portions of the bill which in pose, a tax upon foreign importation exclusively, except only in relation to certain articles. My friendfrom Ohio has, I think properly, stated that in principle there is no distinction between the labor which man employs in producing one commodity for practical use and that which he employs in producing any other commodity for practical use. In his State they raise sheep; and they are very rapidly increasing in the culture of sheep. The same thing is true of several of the western States. It it true, as we know, of the State of Vermont. In order to make that source of wealth remunerative it costs a great deal of time and labor. If it be right in itself, as I think it is as a general principle, to protect the commodity which the time and labor of the manufacturer in the ordinary sense of the term have bestowed on the manufactured article, it is equally right and proper to protect the grower of the wool whose time and labor have been used for that purpose. That is not the only commodity. In Maryland and in other States there is an article which enters into the use of every family as well as every manufacturer, more or less, finds its way across the ocean on board our steam: ers, that is produced through the time and labor of the men who are engaged in it, the miners. The wealth is almost incalculable, or rather will be incalculable if the commodity be reasonably protected; and in Maryland it is to be found some 300 miles more or less from the sea board. At the mine it can be produced ready for shipment as cheap as can the coal of the neighboring islands, Nova Scotia, and other phaces; but the difficulty of getting to market because of its distance from the port of exportation to the rest of the country is such as to require a very large disbursement; and if our miners are brought into competition without any protection at all with the miner who has nothing to do in the way of expense but to send his commodity here on ship board with little or no railroad transportation, they enter in the market with a competition which they are unable success fully to meet. The anthracite coal of Pennsylvania requires no protection. There is no anthracite imported into the U.S., I believe; certainly very little if any; but there is a large quantity of bitumine us coal imported. Now, in the bill as it passed the HoRep at the last session the duty upon bitumine us coal imported was fixed at $1.50 a ton. This bill proposes to reduce it to 50 cents. I will not say that this will entirely destroy the coal trade of Maryland and of WestVirginia, in which a very large amount of capital is in vested, but it will very materially injure it and prevent that further development of that article which is sure to be the result provided the owner of the mine sees before him something like a certainty of profit. Now, it so happens that Maryland can, I believe, bring her coal to market so as to supply the State of Delaware and perhaps the State of Pennsylvania with her bitumine us coal; but she cannot go to NewYork or to Bos ton or any of the eastern cities and compete with the oarticle, except at a sacrifice. As I understand, under the present duty she can sell coal in the markets, including NewYork and north of NewYork; but pass this bill as it now stands, and that demand, as I am advised, will be, if not entirely cut off, very much diminished. I am aware that the NewEngland manufacturers (I do not speak of NewEngland with any view of disparagement) and all other man. ufacturers would desire to have the duty upon the imported article diminished, or, if they could, entirely taken off, because it lessens to them the expense of the production of the articles which they are engaged in manufacturing. But if it be right to encourage the NewEngland manufacturer so as to enable him to compete with the foreign manufacturer, is it not equally just and right to encourage the domestic miner to enable him to compete with the foreign miner? What reason can be given for excluding the one from the benefit of the protection and admitting the other? How have the manufactures of NewEngland grown up? They have grown up under the benefit of the protective system. What has been their experience during the last war? Foreign trade being more or less entirely cut off they have been making enormous profits. They stood in neol of no protection then. The papers of the day which disclosed to us their dividends from time to time told us that they were dividing 25, 30, 40, 50, and as high as severity%. Nobody complained of that. That grew out of the actual condition of the country. But the country now is in a state of comparative peace, and as I hope, is soon to be in a state of actual peace throughout all our limits. Our relations with the European world are resumed, and now she stands in need, as she says, of additional protection. I am willing to give it to her, perfectly willing; but in giving her additional protection do not accomplish it in part by taking away from us the protection which we have heteto fore had, and without which we cannot live unless we live in a lingering condition. It is impossible almost for those who have not studied the wealth which lies in the mount ains of Maryland and in WestVirginia and in Kentucky, and in several of the western States, to compute the value of the coal mineral which lies imbedded in their respective mountains. All that is necessary to bring them into actual operation, and to diffuse that wealth practically among all the citizens of the U.S., is to encourage the miners to mine by holding out to them a prospect that they will be compensated for their labor; but the moment you reduce the duties upon the foreign article to an extent which will enable the foreign article to sell at prices which the domestic article cannot be sold for you break up the trade. Now what material difference does it make to the NewEngland manufacturer; take the cotton or the woolen manufacturer? He wants to get coal free of duty or almost free of duty. Why? Because he can manufacture cheaper. That is one mode by which he is enabled to attain that end. The other mode is that by laying a duty upon the foreign article which he is engaged in manufacturing you enable him to sell advantageously in competition with the foreign article. The latter is all right. Why cannot both be protected? If the wool grower is to be protected why should not the grower, so to i. of the bitumine us coal be protected? I think no sound reason can be given for the distinction; provided it be true, as we know it to be true in point of fact, that the coal in the state in which it is placed by nature is of no value to anybody. Its actual value is in its use, and its use depends upon its being brought into the market; and if you cannot bring it to market so as to enable its owner to compete with the owner of the foreign imported article, he lets it lie in the mountains where nature placed it. I have said thus much, Mr. President, not because it is involved in the particular amendment, but following the example set by my friendfrom Ohio and my friendfrom NewJer sey I supposed myself at liberty, even upon this amendment, to speak to the general question. Now, upon the particular amendment I agree with the honorable chairman of the ComFinance that it is not advisable to adopt it at this time. And as I am unable to give any reasons for that opinion even as satisfactory to my own mind perhaps as those assigned by the chairman of d. committee, I content myself with saying in conclusion that I adopt, for the reasons he states, that opinion.