Mr. PEPS.R. Chairman, in view of the course the debate on this bill has taken, I do not propose to go into any extended remarks in the same line which gentlemen who have immediately preceded me have pursued, but I simply wish to call the attention of the committee to a few prominent considerations which will control my vote in opposition to the present bill. Under existing laws the tariff on the article of bitumine us coal now stands at $1 25 perton. Under the promsions of thif bill it is proposed to admit bitumine us coal coming from a certain locality, very much lower. It is proposed to admit bitumine us coal from the British rovince s at 50 cents perton. We have the further fact that, under the operation of this reciprocity treaty nowuboutto expire, for 11 ears the bitumine us coal interest of Maryland, eniisylvanin, WestVirginia, Kentucky, and Ohio has languished, while on the other hand the sameinterest competing with it in the British Provinces has thrived and flourished to an unprecedented extent, so much so that, as has been shown, some of these companies are making enormous dividends; as high in one case as 140%. It has been said there is not a single company east of the Alleghany mountains which is making more than a nominal dividend upon the capital invested in this business. If this thing is allowed to continue; if the coal from Nova Scotia, with cheaperlabor and facility for transportation is allowed to compete under the provisions of this bill with American bitumine us coal, that interest will continue to decline until we have almost a paralysis of that branch of American industry. I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without raising my voice in protest against the discrimination now proposed to be made. No such discrimination exists in favor of England or other foreign countries, but it is confined to the British Provinces. I ask for what these people have entitled themselves to our consideration or our sympathy? On what ground are they to be allowed to come in and claim this discrimination in their favor? Is it because of any sympathy or inateral aid we received from that quarter during the existence of the rebellion? I have heard of our muster rolls being swelled at least nom inally by 40,000 Canadians and I remember to have seen a communication from the Buffalo Board of Trade which may possibly furnish some light upon this large number of Canadian recruits to our Army. I have seen it stated that a certain city in the State of NewYork, being desirous to fill its quota, procured as many as 39 Canadians, at least their names appeared on the muster roll, at a cost of $39,000, as substitutes for drafted men. In less than 6 months there were but 2 of those substitutes to be found and they were in a town in Canada, in a inagisti ates office, quarreling over the distribution of the plunder. One swore he had enlisted 26 times, and the other only swore to 13. Only 2 out of the whole 39, pocketing $39,000, did any fighting and that was in a magistrates office in Canada. So much for bounty jumpers. The harbor afforded by the Provinces to piratical cruisers and the shelter to rebel emissaries have already been noticed. While we are legislating for the benefit of these people we are striking down and pros trnting if this measure is to become a law”. great and growing interest of a large section of this country, one which is necessary, in my judgment, for the continued prosperity of the city which in part I have the honor to represent on this floor. 2500 tons of Cumberland coal daily come to a market in the city of Baltimore. Half that quantity is consumed in her manufactories and steamers. 80 steamers, with a tonnage of nearly 50,000, ply in her waters in connection with that trade. It is estimated that, with the increased facilities to be presently afforded, the Baltimore and Ohio railroad will alone conve over one million tons from the mountains to tesea during the current year. This amount is in dependent of that transported by canal. The question is, shall t iis great interest, with the immense amount of labor and capital involved in it, be subjected without protection to a ruine us competition? Shall that capital be driven to amore lucrative development on a foreign soil and the labor be unemploed from the closing of the mines? Or, on e other hand, shall immigration be encouraged and the resources of the country developed by the moderate protection now provided for this interest by exrsting law? I earnestly hope the House will adopt the amendment proposed b my colleague [Mr. F. Tuonus] to strie out from the 1st section of the bill all that relates to a tariff upon coal of any kind, leaving the whole subject to be reulated by the act of 1864.