Mr. FESSENDEN. The clause which has been inserted by the ComFinance here is the same that was inserted by the ComWays&Means in the House when they reported the original bill. It was debated very much in the House, and principally by one of the Representatives from Maryland, taking the same ground that the honorable Senfrom Maryland does now, and by a majority of one, I think, though it may have been 2 or 3, the duty was finally carried, as the senator proposes here. The Representative from Pittsburg gave his assent to it as proper and fair under the circumstances. Now, there are several reasons why the clause should stand as the ComFinance ar ranged it. The Senfrom Maryland has made a very general statement that it would destroy the mining interests of the Cumberland valley and of Kentucky if this duty of 50 cents only was imposed. In reply to that I want to say to him that during the existence of the reciprocity treaty, under which coal came in free from Nova Scotia, the whole trade of the Cum berland valley in coal, the peculiar coal they raise there, came up from about nothing to 600,000 tons. Although during the operation of that treaty the Nova Scotia coal came in without any duty, the trade in Cumber land coal grew up from a very low figure to about 600,000 tons. How can the Senator reconcile that fact, about which there is no dispute, with the idea that the imosition of 50 cents on it, instead of nothing, is to ruin the trade in Cumberland coal? It shows that the honorable Senator has made his statement without being fully acquainted with the data that exist in relation to the matter about which he has made his remarks to the Senate. Now, sir, does anybody know how much coal is imported from Novia Scotia at this time in the whole” Never over 500,000 tons in anyone year, and the whole coal trade of the U.S. exceeds 22 millions. Even when the Novia Scotia coal came in free its importation never exceeded 500,000 tons. How can that ruin the business in Cumberland coal? There are several other facts that I wish tomention for the information of the honorable Senator. None of the Novia Scotia coal goes south of RhdIsland to any appreciable extant. It is used principally in NewEngland for the purpose of making gas. All but about 80 lotons of it is used for the pur. ose of making gas, affording the light used y gas companies. Some of the gas companies do not use it, preferring to import their coal from England even at a duty of $1 50 a ton, and do so; but others use it to a great extent. There are only about 70 or 80,000 tons used for any other purpose than gas making. It is not used for fuel in families. The anthracite is used almost exclusively for that purpose. The 70 or 80,000 tons I speak of are used for the purpose of manufacturing iron in the iron rolling mills established in NewEngland. The Nova Scotia coal cannot be used by blacksmiths, and it is not used by blacksmiths or in machine shops. It does not answer their purpose; but it is used, as I said before, to that small extent in the manufacture of iron in the rolling mills in England. Now now, how will the use of Nova Scotia coal for gas interfere with the Cumberland coal? The Cumberland coal is not used for making gas and cannot be.