Mr. FTHOMAS.R. Chairman, the coal region that I represent upon this floor is able to supply ten million tons aiinuall for 1,000s ot years to come to the At antic sea board, and avenues of communication hav been O ened, or will be opened, which will bring t iat quantity to market whenever there is a demand or it. But instead of encouraging this vast field of domestic industry we are now required to reenact the reciprocity treaty so far as this domestic industry is or was concorned. I have other documents upon this subject, but I cannot dwell on them. It is only necessary to call the attention Of gentlemen to the principles and invite them to reflect. Ever gentleman has abundant facts within his knowledge from which to draw conclusions just as readily as I can. Mr. Chairman, this is a contest of interests between the coal trade of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and WestVirginia, and the coal trade of the British Provinces. Forif this bill should pass in its present shape, the law of 1864 will O reealed)so far as the bitumine us coal of the Britis Provinces is concerned. The lawof1864 imposes a duty on all foreign bitumine us coal of $1 25 perton. This bil proposes to repeal that law, and imposes only filft cents perton if imported from the same provinces, and leaves the duty imposed by the law of1804 on all other coal importation, and in effect makes law in that respect the provisions of the reciprocity treaty. Let us see how the reciprocity treaty operated on the interestI am considering. I have here a report of the secretary of mines, socalled in one instance, and in another the commissioner of mines of Nova Scotia, made in 1864, showing the effect upon capitalists of this country of the low rate of duty or rather the want of duty 11 on that coal under the reciprocity treaty. romthatreportitap ears that a large amount of American capita has been embarked in those foreign coal fields, and that a large number of Americans were engaged in opening up avenues for that trade in our own country, superseding altogether the production of the bitumine us coal fields of Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia. It also a pears fromother documents I have, but wilI not anse to read, that the profit de rived from dint coal trade under the recipro city system has been so great that in some instances companies engaged in coal mining in Nova Scotia have divided 175%. on the capital employed, and in others from 20 to 40% and yet the interest that I desire to protect has without profit to capitalists absorbe in the Allegheny mountains $20,000,000, and will sink $20,000,000 more unless the Congress of the U.S shall now interpose its authority and what do I ask? I ask for in constituents that you take up this branch O public industry and consider it in connection with the other industries of the country, and that you shall not look to that oul as a source of revenue but as to its condition, and see what further protection it needs from this border competition with which it is contending. Mr. Chairman, I need not go into detail. I only advert to the fact that the Pictou coal of Nova Scotia can be brought to Boston for 4 dollars a ton less than the same article can be broughtfrom the Allegliany mountainsof maryland or Pennsylvania. Now, we do not want the Government of the U.S. to foster other branches of domestic industry that you may put a tariffu on this coal, only that you shall omit to legislate on the subject altogether. We do not ask for a new law; we ask only to have the tariff law of 1864, which imposes a duty of $1 25 perton on bitumine us coal of 40 cents perton on anthracite coal, an of 25%. advalorcm on coke and the culm of coal may not be repealed. With that veiw, I shall at the propertime move to strike out of this bill all that which relates to bitumine us coal, anthracite coal, and coke and culm of coal, leaving in force the provisions of the law of 1864. By the law of 1864, I repeat, Congress has imposed a duty of $1 25 perton on bitumine us coal brought from foreign countries, no matter where. You impose a duty of 40 cents a ton on anthracite coal brought from foreign countries, and a duty of 25%. on coke and culm of coal imported from foreign countries. Now, all we will ask will be that we shall be placed upon the same basis, upon the same onndaticn, and be treated and considered and cherished not only as a source of reveuue, but as a great interest of the country, just as other interests are revided for and cherished and protected by he tariff of, 1864. Gentlemen who are not familiar with that law can rest assured that I am accurate in saying that while this duty now proposed of 50 cents upon bitumine us coal would not amount to anyting like 8%. adealm em, the duty upon rolled iron, and the duty upon manufactures of wool and manufactures of cot ton, is in specific duties equal to from 45 to 80 and sometimes up to 90%. advalorcm. These duties are levied perhaps wisely. I do not propose to discuss that question now; but I do ask this House to cooperate with me and the other representatives of the bitumine us coal interest to strike from this bill all the provisions that relate to that branch of industry, and leave it to the operation of the law of 1804. Sir, there is no room here for a discussion about a protective policy in this country. We have progressed too far in that direction now to retreat. No man today would propose to repudiate the entire protective po icy of this country;. to obliterate from the statute book all our tariff laws, and to prostrate thereby the millions on millions of capital that have been embarked under the fostering care of the government of the U.S. But, let me say to gentlemen, very respectfully and it is a warning not entire y out of place that if one interest of this character is to be treacherous to another, inevitable ruin imends over the whole. If one branch of industry is to have the lifeblood trampled out of it, what security have others? Do gentlemen suppose that my constituents will a rec that enormous burdens shall be piled upon t iem for the consumption of the very necessaries of life; that we shall pay double prices for the iron we consume in the construction of our railroads and in the manufacture of the machinery ueccssary for the working of those railroads? Do they expect that we would pay double price for the manufactures of wool an cotton under the law of 1864, when we find the special purposes of local interests are sought to e ronioted by this death blow aimed at one of the most important, one of the largest, one of the mos vital interests to which the attention of the councils of the country has at any time ever been directed? I repeat that our coal fields are the very tap root ot the towering tree of manufactures that is spreading all over our land its beneficent branches. Strike at that interest and leave the railroads and canals to erish which have been constructed for its deveihpment, and what becomes of the pretense that we will be independent of the supplies of foreign Governments in the event of a tldreign war? We shall have to lay u our steam marine in dry dock in the event O non-intercourse between us and Nova Scotia or Liverpool or any other port from which we draw our coal supply. Sir, I will not dwell longer on this point because it is only necessary to refer to it with gentlemen of intelligence. I have only to repeat that our great domestic interests are to be safely protected only by the perfect fidelity of all its subdivisions, their standing by each other in all the emergencies that may come upon them.