Mr. SUMNER. I make no complaint of course of the Senator's introducing it; I simply referred to the fact. It is stated: “The importations of provincial coal for the year 1863 are erroneously and deceptively stated by Mr. Wells to have been only 291,839 tons.”. There is certainly a grave charge against Mr. Wells, whose report is on our tables and whose faithful attention to this question all Senators must have already recognized. You observe the language in which he is characterized. It is absolutely unjust. Refer to his report, and you will jo is not in any respect sustained. In that report he sets out in the form of a table the tons introduced each year, beginning with 1855 and ending with 1866, under 2 different heads, the tons under the reciprocity treaty and the tons paying duty. The tons paying duty in 1866 were 2 91,839; and this article says that this is erroneously and deceptively stated by Mr. Wells. I think, sir, a cause that requires such. language from those who rePresent it ought to be suspected. I do suspect the cause. I do suspect that peculiar interest which is now trying to intrude into the legislation of the country to such an extent as to be positively opPressive in that part of the country from which I came. It not only asks much for itself, but in the support of its cause it misrePresents and vilifies responsible gentlemen who stand in the way. However, I have said enough on this cal umny; and now, as I have the report of the Commissioner of Public Revenue, to which reference has been made, in my hands, I will go further with the indulgence of the Senate and ask your attention to a few sentences. I think if you will listen to them you will find an answer to all that my eloquent friendfrom Maryland on my right [Mr. CREswell] said yesterday, and to all that myingenious and able friendfrom Maryland on the other side [Mr. JOHNson] said. Mr. Wells thus reports: “Is there any reason why a furnace in Georgia Maine or should have the cost of its iron increasedby a duty on the coal which it consumes, or by the cost of transportationfromPennsylvania, while the pennsylvania manufacturerhas his coal at cheaper, his own door at least, by the cost of its transportation? Is it wise to adopt a policy which inevitably tends to concentrate so important a manufacture as this in a single section of the country? : the American coal proprietor obtains a sufficient price for his coal is evident from the prices which prevail in the markets where there is no competition: He suppliesthe Ohio and the Mississippi and their tributary streams, and through all the territory which they water, with coal at a les; expense than on the sea board. He receivedno morefor his coal at the minein 1866, with a duty on foreign coal of $1.25in gold, than he did in 1865, when provincial coal was free. It has beenno boon to him that NewYork and the NewEngland Stateshave had the cost oafmthilelioirnbidtuomllainrsouins ccuorarlesnicnycrveaaluseedpmaiodreinththaenfhoarlmf of duties. the miner has not received the benefitfrom this protection, it must have inured to the benefit of the transportation arrangements. If, however, neither the miner nor the transportation company hasde rived any benefitfrom it, the duty has been of no avail asprotection. "The object of a duty is either revenueor protection. A smaller duty would increasethe revenue by increasing importations. The Presentduty does not seem to have afforded protection. “It is, perhaps, unnecessary to recapitulate here the well known argumentsfor makingcoal free of duty. all The manufacturing industry of any country, to bepermanentlysuccessful, mustbe basedon cheap raw materials; and if there be any article then that should be exempted from taxation, both internal and customs, and afforded at the cheapestpossible rate to all consumers, it is coal. Every person in country this has a direct interest that his house shall be warmed and lighted at the lowest cost, and that his fcohoedasphall becheaplycooked; while cheapsteamand iron are essential if the country is to maintain its position with other and competing commercial andmanufacturing nations. general commissioner, therefore, havingin view the welfare rather than any special interest, recreommomveenddosrtphlaactetdhe duty on coal be either entirel at the loWestPoint consistent with the requirementsof the Treasury for revenue.” Now, I am ready to adopt every word which is so well said by the commissioner. I agree with him that you ought not to impose the duty you now propose, because you in that way will interfere with the general welfare. I plead for that general, welfare which is one of the objects of our Constitution; but I plead still further that you should not impose any tax which in its nature is peculiarly opPressive on a particular part of the country, especially when there is no corresponding advantage derived from it. On that principle I am ready to stand and to accept its application to all the interests on which I have to act. I say therefore, sir, in one word the proposed tax on coal is contrary to the general welfare of our country, and it is a positive opPression on an important part of the country.