Mr. KELLEY. I am not prepared to say that my substitute contains all the provisions it should; that it may not. be amended with advantage; but I do say that it is infinitely preferable, for every leading interest of the country, to the bill now under consideration. Why should we have asecial tariff law for the British Provinces? what have they done to Win our love? Why should we sacrifice our interests to protect or advance theirs? The Gentfrom Vermont [Mr. Men BILL] said in the course of his remarks that we should not base our action on hatred or fear. I do not propose to base any of my acts in this House upon any of the passions. I mean tobe governed by cooljudginent. But, Sir, I remeniber when we were in a death grapple With our insane brethren of the South, the people of these Provinces smote us 1st on one cheek and then on the other; and I know, air, if we were prepared to forgive them 7 times 70, their transgressions against us had exceeded that number before they organized a raiding party and sent it into the outle mans own State to rob theibanks an mar der the citizens who attempted to defend them. Backed as they are by the power of England, they are our most dangerous enemies, because they are our nearest; and I do not find it laid down even in the Christian code of morals that we shall innre ourselves and impoverish our families an country to benefit those who would have disseminated poison among us, who would “ have burned our cities and towns, and who did all that the devilish ingenuity of the madmen of the South could suggest to injure us and destroy our country. They are foreigners to our soil, and let us regard them as we do the people of other countries, as friends in peace an enemies in war. Let us legislate for them, as the substitutcI have submitted proposes to do, precisely as we do for the rest of mankind. I can understand, sir, in the light of the invaluable book from wBeh I have had an extract read, why every provision of the socalled reciprocity treaty was adverse to our count. Both parties to it meant mischief to us. gill. I cannot understand why a bill should be reported by the ComWays&Means which if adopted would inevitably strike down several of the principal or leading interests of our country. It might well be entitled a bill to destroy the fisheries, salt works, and lumber trade of the country, and to prevent the workin of bitumine us coal beds cast of the summit of the Alleghanics and within the limits of the U.S. Should it become a law it will ruin all those great branches of industry. The Gentfrom Vermont, in introducing the bill, said with great plausibility more plausibility than candor, I “ am sorry to say: Coal is a raw material and for every ten of iron made at least 3 tons of bitumine us or 2 of anthracite con] areconsumed. It is themotivepower of railroads and steamboatsaswell asof manufactu ring establishments. We tax iron and all other manufactures when produced and sold, and we tax roll roads and steam cats on their business. Can we not afford to have our coal free? It is. too. an article of universal consumption, reguired in our rigorous climate in large quantities y those unable to clothe themselvesin heavy and abundant woolcns or thick and costly furs: by the poor as well as the rich. There are hardly moreJeasons for a tax on coal than upon firewood. In addition to this, our owncoal flelds are unsurpassedin extent and quality by any in the world. “But our expert to the Uganda of coal from Ohio, Virginia and Penns lyaniii, bids fair to equal in amount all that we ruez from the Provinces: the value of our experts in 1ibeing $555, 332a.nd that ofourimports So that under any circumstances here is one article which approachestheidea of reciprocity, and an interchange effectseconomy in long lines of freight, relieving ourselvesas wellas othersfrom positive loss.” Carlyle tells us that nothing lies like figures, although the general proposition is that figures never ie. I say, then, testatement made is as plausibly delusive as a statement each of the propositions of which is in itself true can be. Sir, is chalk cheese, or cheese chalk? In speakingabout bitumine us and anthracite coal we spea of 2 distinct articles, as unlike as cheese and chalk. This bill does not in any way, or by an possibility, affect either advan tageousl or is advantageously the anthracite coal tra e and interests of the country. Canada must have our anthracite coal. She has none of it, nor can she obtain it elsewhere. Our Pennsylvania anthracite coal fields are a God given monopoly, as are the long staple cotton fields of the South. Our anthracite interest asks no protection so far as Canada is concerned. Were it constitutional to impose an export duty you might put a light one on anthracite coal, and the Canadas would still buy it from us. The $555, 332, worth of coal exported under the treaty in 1864 was anthra cite, and in fact, therefore, has no part in a discussion relating as this does to the bitumi nous coal interests of the country. The article bears the name of coal, and there is no other reason why it should be named in connection with this bill. From what fields, and to what provincial ports, have we exported bitumine us coal from Ohio? I ask the well informed gentlemen who compose the Ohio delegation to tell me if there be one line of steamers, or any other kind of boats, employed in carrying Ohio coal to the British Provinces. Why, sir, they could not sell it at the wharf in any provincial town for its cost. Virginia coal go to the British Provinces! It cannot, in the nature of things, have gone there save as a curiosity for miner alogical cabinets. It never went there as an article of commerce. The st of the gentlemans argument is that we nee cheap coal. Why, then, does he not propose to take the duty of a dollar and a quarter perton of? British coal, so that we may have itstill chea er? Where is his logic? Mr. MORRIL Does the gentleman desire an answer?