Mr. JOHNSON. 150,000 tons of that he says are imported from a point outside of the line which he has designated. The other is imported from this side of that line. If he succeeds in persuading the Senate to reduce the tax determined upon in committee to 50 cents he will reduce the revenue, provided the coal can be imported some 375,000 dollars, so that the honorable member is wrong in supposing that the tax of $150 is not a tax that will bring additional revenue into the Treasury. Now, I understand the honorable member to say that the proposed tax of $1.50, upon coal imported from Nova Scotia, which by the line that he proposes to adopt will be included within this side of that line, will be an enormous and an unjust tax upon the poor of NewEngland. He does not propose to take care of the poor anywhere else; he is very willing to leave the tax of $1 50 upon the coal to be imported from Europe, and he is willing to do that because, that coal is England; not imported into New it goes to NewYork or the ports south of NewYork, and if the duty on it operates at all to the prejudice of the poor it is to the poor of NewYork and the poor elsewhere than in NewEngland. So that the very enlarged view that my friend takes of what should be the philanthropy and charity of the Government is confined entirely to the poor of NewEngland. I do not know that what I am about to state is true, but I rather suspect it is true. A tax of 50 cents is to operate to the benefit of the NewEngland manufacturers as well as the NewEngland man who uses Nova Scotia coal in his own fireplace. To that extent, therefore, NewEngland is benefited to the prejudice of the rest of the country who have to use, if they use imported coal, coal imported at a revenue tax of $1 50. But NewEngland may be very materially benefited from another consideration. If her citizens own the Nova Scotia mines in whole or in part, as I have heard is the fact, then they are benefited by having the exclusive market for the coal. Then coal sells at any price they may think proper to charge for it less than the price at which Cumberland or any other bitumine us coal can be purchased. NewEngland is ben efited therefore to the extent that her manufactures are benefited by the cheap fuel, while some of her citizens are also benefited as the owners of the Nova Scotia coal. Now, sir, I say in great sincerity to the honorable member from Massachusetts that I am as far from desiring to legislate either now or at any time to the prejudice of NewEngland as he himself. I have a very sincere reverence for NewEngland. It is unnecessary to say why. The reasons are to be found in the history of the country, and they are sufficient as I think to challenge for her the admiration and the respect and the gratitude of all the rest of the people of the U.S.; but while she is seeking to take care of herself she ought to be magnanimous enough to look to the interests of her fellow citizens elsewhere. This tariff system I hope my friendfrom Maine will indulge me for a moment in saying turing nation, but also a great commercial na a word on the general subject was forced upon NewEngland by southern votes, but she has availed herself most enterprisingly and most wisely of the system, and she has grown rich (although she protested againstit) in consequence of the system. At any rate, she has not grown poorer than her neighbors because of the system; she gone on to prosper about as rapidly as of the people of the neighboring States. What has built up the large and valuable manufactories of NewEngland? Were they not brought into existence and are they not now kept in existence by meansof a protective tariff? Frequently a tariff protective upon its face and designed to be protective; at other times a tariff incidentally protective because of the revenue derived from the tax itself. Now, what does she ask us to do in Maryland and NewYork and elsewhere? We have in Maryland mines inexhaustible in supply, but at adistance from the sea board of some 300 miles. We have to get the material to the sea board to supply the wants of the wholecommunity. Maryland has been obliged to construct a railroad from Baltimore to the mines, and she has almost entirely for there wasvery little aid obtained elsewhere in the construction of the canal constructed the Chesapeake and Ohio canal. The investment in the latter, the Chesapeake and Ohio canal, hasnever yielded her one dollar, and perhaps neverwill. The investment in the railroad for yearsand years did not give her a dollar. It is now becoming a remunerative enterprise. But the coal never could have been brought to market except by means of the railroad, and we are able to get now to the sea board coal at aprice of some 4 or 5 dollars. The Present toll upon coal on the railroad may be for aught I know too high; but notwithstanding the toll and the expense of taking it to market it can be sold for some 5 or 6 dollars in Baltimore, and sold in Boston after awhile for some 7 or 8 dollars. Now, why does my friend object to our having the protection i.this duty will afford us as against Nova Scotia, coal? Why, to put it in another form, do we legislate in reference to a foreign Government territorially? Is such a thing done anywhere by any other Government?. Bring your coal from Europe, ” says my friend's amendment, “and we will charge you $1.50; but we choose to protect your territory. your Provinces, and if you will bring it from your territories or your $o, we will charge you only 50 cents.” Suppose the NewEngland people did not own Nova Scotia coal, would they think of discriminating against the proprietors of coal mines in Europe by makingthem (although the expense of bring.ing the commodity to market is 5 or ten times as great as that of bringing the commodity to market from Nova Scotia) pay $150, and only charge the Nova Scotia coal 50 cents? I am satisfied they would not, and o a thing never has been done anywhere. The only reason that can be assigned for describing the line as the honorable member's amendment does is because it includes the Nova Scotia mines, in which many of his constituents are interested as owners. I have every reason to believe that the honorable member will not contradict me in that particular; and the rest of them who are not interestedas owners are interested as the owners of the factories. Then, Mr. President, if he is right in his statistics, if you reduce the tax from $1 50 to 50 cents you lessen the revenue between 3 and 400,000 dollars, and while you are lessening the revenue to the amountof 3 or 400,000 dol rs you are striking a blow more or less serious upon the domestic interests of our own country.