Mr. CRESWELL. I have before me a statement showing the amount of the coal imported during the years 1864, 1865, and 1866, varying somewhat from the statement made by the commissioner, and I think correcting some of the errors into which he has fallen. I admit that it is a very difficult matter to get precise information as to the amount of the product of bitumine us coal, and perhaps somewhat difficult to get the precise amount of importations. But, according to the volumes on Commercial Relations, published officially and by authority of the Government, it appears that in 1864 there were imported into NewYork, free of duty, under the then existing reciprocity treaty, 129, 375 tons of coal from Nova Scotia; and in the same year, from GreatBritain, 105, 924 tons, subject to a duty of $1 25 per ton under the present tariff. f 1865 there were imported into NewYork 206, 649 tons; and in 1866 151,590 tons from Nova Scotia, paying, after the 17th of March of the last mentioned year, the duty of $1 25 per ton. It thus apK. that the statement of the Senfrom Maine as to the markets reached by the Nova Scotia coal is incorrect. The proposition comes very insidiously when presented, as it has been, by the friends of this bill, namely, that all that is asked is that NewEngland shall be supplied from Nova Scotia with 250,000 or 280,000 tons of coal for purposes for.the Cumberland coal cannot be used, and that therefore it is unjust to impose more than a nominal duty. But I will inform the Senator that this is not a fair presentation of the point at issue. I ask him now what was the price of Nova Scotia coal before the repeal of the reciprocity treaty and during the war, when the ordinary aventies of communication and transportation for our coals were obstructed and sometimes actually closed during the rebellion, and when the operators at Pictou and Cape Breton could deliver their coals in Boston for half the price at which it could be sent from the Cumberland mines? if I am not incorrectly informed they charged then up to the full measure of what they could obtain, and they demanded and received in Boston 12 dollars per ton, having the exclusive control of that market. I hold then, sir, that the same theory will apply to this article as to all others, and that producers of coal will charge as much for it as they can obtain. It is not a question between the consumer and the producer, but it is a question as between the operators of coal mines in Nova Scotia and the operators of coal mines everywhere within the U.S. The argument assumes that shape, and we must necessarily occupy that ground in this discus. S10ll. The commissioner, in his statement, asserts that coal from Nova Scotia, during the year 1866, commanded in Boston $8 50 per ton, while that from Cumberland was sold at $8.25 per ton. That, taken in connection with the statement just made by the honorable Senfrom Maine, that the Cumberland coal is worth $1 50 more per ton than the Nova Scotia coal . o shows that even in the year just closed, upon their own figures, the Cumberland coal was placed in the market of Boston at a cheaper rate than the coal from Nova Scotia, after deducting the duty of S1 25 &n the latter, and that Cumberland coal was sold there at $3 50 per ton less than Nova Scotia coal was sold during the war, when it had almost the exclusive command of the trade. Now, sir, what is the fact in regard to this Nova Scotia coal trade? Every one knows that it grew up under the operation of the reciprocity treaty. Indeed, the distinguished Gentfrom Vermont now occupying a seat in the other J.House, who has been recently elected to represent that State in this body from the 4th of March next, asserted in public discussion that the reciprocity treaty was originally entered into, not in any expectation of any benefit to the agricultural or the mining or the fishing interests, but solely with a view to the benefits that would inure to the manufac turing interest; that the free trade policy of England, then recently established, had inspired hopes of a rich harvest to the enterprising capitalists of NewEngland, but that the whole scheme proved abortive, when the Provinces suddenly reversed the policy of the mother country, and as soon as they found they could profit by it imposed heavy duties upon manu actured articles and undertook to manufacture for themselves. The result was that everybody in NewEngland and elsewhere along the boun daries became disgusted with the reciprocity treaty, so far as it affected manufactures. They claimed, however, that the exportation of coal from this country into the western portions of Canada was about equal to the importation from the coal mines which had bean opened meanwhile in Nova Scotia under the operation of free trade, and that the coal business was a fair case of reciprocity when in fact there was no reciprocity about it. We sent into the Provinces anthracite coal, of which they had none, while they sent us in return bitumine us coal, of which we had an abundance already. We care not a straw about the provision in this bill imposing $1 50 duty on anthracite coal. Strike it out, or double it, the result will be the same." We can command the trade of the world in that and ask no favors. There is no region from which any importations of an thracite coal can be made; but it is with regard to the bitumine us trade that we have great anxiety. The truth is that when Nova Scotia coals came into this country free they were in competition with all the bitumine us interests, and without any equivalent. But at last the Provinces, having refused to receive our manufactures free at the dictation of the manufacturers, we of Maryland rejoiced in the belief that the Provinces could no longer import their coals free into this country. But it seems we were sadly mistaken. during the existence of the reciprocity treaty, in which we acquiesced from a disposition to aid our northern brethren, certain capitalists of Boston, or thereabouts, with perhaps some asso ciates from Maine, went into Nova Scotia, leased the coal fields of Pictou and Cape Bre. ton, and opened a very profitable trade with our Atlantic border as far south as NewYork. These speculators who transferred their capital into a foreign country, beyond the reach of all taxation, now turn upon us and say that they will continue their trade and will insist upon bringing their foreign labor and untaxed capital into competition with our domestic labor, charged as it is already with the most grievous burdens. Shall we submit to this? Sir, I contend thay this is not doing as you would have others do to you, that this is not acting in the genuine spirit of protection. I advocate the policy of protection, and I believe that that theory of administering the finances of this Government is correct; I am willing to stand by the producers of woolen and cotton cloths and the manufacturers of iron and every other branch of domestic industry with a view to the protection of American labor everywhere throughout the length and breadth of our land. So believing and so acting, I trust that when I tell gentlemen that upon the coal interest in Maryland, WestVirginia, and Pennsylvania, 50,000 laborers dependentirely for subsistence, it will be conceded that I have a right to claim the same degree of protection for my own people, and the great interests of my State. It is no answer that even while the reciprocity treaty lasted a trade grew up in Cumber and coal equal to 600,000 tons per annum. How did it grow up? Every body knows that when the trade started, and when it received its impulse, labor could be procured at from 75 to 80%. cheaper than now. The country was then unvexed by a depreciated currency, and enter prise was unshackled by taxation. In that state of the case our miners were able to compete successfully with all foreigners, and our production increased steadily notwithstanding the influx of importations free of duty. But now we have to bear not only our own bur dens but also our share of the burdens of the Government, and if thus hampered we shall be obliged to enter upon the race of competition with those who are free from all embarrassments we shall certainly fall fainting by the way. The importation of 270,000 tons of coal into NewEngland is not of itself alarming, but we know from the representations of officials in Nova Scotia and from gentlemen who have invested in the mines in that Province that those mines are capable of a largely increased production. We have 200,000 square miles of coal lands in this country; and though gentlemen may seem amazed at the statement made by the commissioner that the U.S. produced last year 22 million tons, I believe that we are capable of producing 200 million tons per annum. All that we want is a reasonable encouragement in order to increase the product to that amount; I apprehend that when we get 200 millions of coal per annum we shall have as much as the country wants, and the result will be a decrease in the price. But in Nova Scotia they are also capable of the same degree of development; and if gentlemen look to this measure as a measure of revenue, they must consider that the 700,000 tons imported in 1865 would, at a duty of $150 per ton, yield $1,050,000. If they put the duty down to 50 cents, still regarding it as a revenue measure, there must be 3 times the importations in order to produce the same amount of revenue. If this rate of duty is established at 50 cents per ton it will not be ten%. advalorem, while gentlemen claim on many manufactured articles from 50 to 75 and even 100%. On coffee, an article of general use and prime necessity, this bill imposes a duty of 5 cents per pound, which is equivalent to 40%. ao. No, sir; this duty of 50 cents per ton has not been fixed for the sake of revenue, but solely for the purpose of inducing an increased production in Nova Scotia; and thus it becomes a battle fairly and squarely between the producer in Nova Scotia and the producer in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and WestVirginia; and that is the whole case in a nut shell. Now, are gentlemen prepared to say that they will encourage foreign manufactures and foreign labor to the exclusion of domestic manufures and domestic labor? I trow not. I am sure that Maryland interests cannot survive this policy. We might linger out a sickly existence; but that there would be any more investments with a view to the development of our immense coal fields I have not the slightest idea. It is now a struggle, with labor as it is, to produce coal and to convey it to market; but if this competition is allowed you will find the Nova Scotia coal not only coming into Bos ton and NewYork, but actually driving us to the wall in Philadelphia and Baltimore. All we ask is that there shall be imposed a duty of $1 50 a ton, equal to about 20 or 20 5%. advalorem, in order to enable us to overcome the natural obstacles in our way to the coast. It is well known that in Nova Scotia the natural advantages of location are very great over those of Maryland, WestVirginia, and Pennsylvania. Our mines are 200 miles from the sea board; theirs are within 6 miles of the sea board. It costs us about $1 80 per ton to convey our coals from Cum to Baltimore, and to place them in position there for shipment to other sea ports. t costs these Nova Scotia companies but a small fraction of that sum. The difference in that point of transportation alone is such that, with labor atits present high price, they would be able to drive us out of the eastern markets, and that state of affairs would be fraught with rulin. The commisssioner says that it is very important for everybody to have the means of warming and lighting his house at the lowest cost and of cooking his food cheaply; and one gentleman in the other House remarked at the last session I suppose I may allude to it without impropriety that it was absolutely necessary that the poor people in NewEngland should have cheap coal, because they were often unable to buy a sufficient amount of cotton and woolen clothing. I think it is quite as important that in Maryland we should have our due proportion of cotton and woolen fabrics. We desire to take them and are willing to buy them from the NewEngland manufacturers rather than from the importers, though we may have to pay a higher price, because we want to encourage the labor of our own country and keep every section of it in a prosperous condition. But let the principle be carried out in good faith, and be applied to all alike, so that the freelaborers of Maryland may, equally with their northern brethren, gather the choicest fruits of honorable toil and secure for themselves and their families the comforts and the blessings of life.