Mr. FTHOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out from the paragraph just read the words, where they 1st occur, “ 30 degrees of longitude east from Washington, ” and also the words, “on all bitumine us coal mined and imported from any place not more than 30 degrees of longitude east of Washin on, 50 cents perton of 28 bushe s, 80 pounds to the bushel.” The House will remember that early in the present session we had before us a bill which was intended to take the place, so far as this article was concerned, of the expiring reciprocity treaty and it Will be remembered, too, on that occasion that a proposition, having the same object in viewI now have, was then submitted by myself, and after the subject was so far discussed as the rules of this jouse will permit, and upon examination of the bill in etail, the chairman of the ComAppropriat moved to strike out the enactin clause of the bill and a large majority rati ed that motion1 Under these circumstances I must be permitted to express a little surprise that such a as this, to which propose to ad(prreospsoas itfioenw remarks, should have been again submitted to the present Congress. And I must still more express my surprise, with all respect, that the chairman of the ComWays&Means did not think proper, in the very elaborate an alysis in which he indulged of the entire bill, to turn the attention of the committee to this peculiar anomaly and justify its introduction into such a measure. I can only account for' it by the belief that ifa few sentences had been interpolated in that speech in vindication of the policy looked to in this provision, there wou d have been the most palpable, obvious, direct antaglonism between those sentences and the entire theory of the speech itself. The chairman of the committee very ably vindicated the protective policy of the country, and for that he has my most decided thanks. For no man in his public capacity has ever been truer than I to the belie that the government of the U.S. has that power, which has sometimes been contested, of protecting domestic industry from injurious foreign competition; nor has any man in his public life been truer than I to practicing up to that prece t. What I complain of now is this: that or some occult, sinister purpose in their advisers, the Committee of ays and Means have permitted themselves to be prevailed upon to incorporate in this bill a provision directly in antagonism with the whole polic for which the chairman himself contends with such distinguished zeal and ability. Upon what is the policy of protection founded? In what idea? That it is wise foresight in the Government to levy duties upon such prod ucts of industry as may become necessary to our independence as a nation, with a view to the encouragement of ca ital and labor to embark in such pursuits; that in the event of a contingency that often happens in this condition 0 civilization, name, war, we may be proudly independent of every nation on the globe, having within our jurisdiction all the means of sel preservation and self protection, and of subduing the enemy with whom we may come in conflict. That policy was inaugurated 50 years ago. It has been adhered continuously to ever since it has never been departed from. And, sir, I know not an instance in the history of the government and I have watched its progress for 40 years of my life with earnestness I know not an instance where such enormous protection, ay, such prohibitory protection, has been incorporated in a tariff bill as that which is spread all over the face of this measure, until you come to the very item that I now propose to rectify in this regard. I need not point to instances of these high duties. Gentlemen have all read this bill; duties from 100 to 100 ‘and 50%. on iron, and on woolen and cotton c oths. Very few items that are largely manufactured in those sections of the country from whence a majority of this committee come are to be found that have not a duty of over 50%. advalorem. I do not complain of their policy. I desire to move in that column, for I am one of those who believe that whatever might have been originally the wisdom, patriotism, and propriety of embarking in this system of protection we have waded in so far that it would be harder to return now than go on. And if gentlemen have had speculative opinions about the wisdom of such a policy, I hold that the experience of this country during the late war, that the logic of facts and events, must eradicate every doubt in an American mind that such policy was wise and patriotic and indis pensable to this Government. We have been able to command the means for roseenting the war in our own jurisdiction, when all the crowned heads of Europe, with erhaps a single exception, were against us nring the' late conflict. And but for the existence of our domestic manufactures is it not. easy to be seen that our attempt to vindicate the authority of the Government must have been a signal failure? Now, why is the coal interest, a domestic industr to which I have referred, ne lected in this bill? It is not allowed under the proposed tariff even a revenue duty. This bill proposes to impose a duty of $1 50 perton upon coal that has to cross the ocean. But they have very adroitly incorporated novelties in this bill such as I think are vnotto be found in any other tariff law that has ever been upon our statute books. They have very adroitly run a certain line, and you must have some geographical knowledge to know for what special purpose that line was established. They have sai of a certain line of longitude shall pay a duty of only 50 cents a, ton. Why not say in plain words, just what that means, that lcoal brought from the coal mines of Nova Scotia, owned in part by speculators of the U.S., shall come in at a duty of 50 cents perton, at a duty HSS than we impose now for revenues? I say that is not oven a revenue duty. 'Let gentlemen look at the tariffof18'64 which we passed. In that tariff, in almost every instance, the duties for protection were not less than 40%. advalorcm. Duties for revenue in the same tariff are high. The duties in that bill are from 3 to 15 cents perpound on su ar; 5 cents perpound upon coffee, dte. ‘hose duties, levied chiefly with a view to revenue, not one of them was so small an advalorcm duty as this which is proposed on coal imported from the coal mines of Nova Scotia. I have taken pains to inform myself before I undertake to speak confidently upon this subject. I have taken the sins to ascertain the market value of a ton 0 this Nova Scotia. coal at the customhouses where it is delivered. And I say that‘this proosed tariff does not im ose aduty of more than 10%. advafhrem on that value. And let gentlemen look over this tariff and find a similar duty levied upon many articles; even for revenue alone. Vhy is this? Why not speak out before Congress that which we speak privately? At the time this matter was discussed before, I had read at the Clerk’s table an extract from a Nova Scotia newspaper, which was published in our debates, going to show that in the disturbed state of the coafinterests in this country, of which I shall presently speak so far as I am personally informed, a number of capitalism the North, in Boston and NewYork, had invested their money in these Nova Sqotia coal mines, having obtained leases upon the acre. I had also read by the Clerk in another aper a report of a commission appointed in Nova Scotia to examine into the condition and progress of the coal mining in that Province going to show that these ca italists had divide 50y%., 100%., even 155%., upon their investments. That state of affairs was produced b the disturbances of the late war. Ineed not well much on that. We all know very well that the great lines of communication betwan the bitumine us coal fields of WestVirginia and of Alleghany, Maryland, and the sen board, both by railroad and canal, were almost entirelyin terrupted by the operations of the enemy. A similar state of tings prevailed in the bitu mine us coal fields of Pennsylvania, not from the same cause, but from the fact that a large number of the laboring population engaged in minin volunteered to go to the war., without lookin to the diminution of the quantit brought in from the coaffields of ennsy vania, I can simply state that from the coal fields in Alleghany, Maryland, the transportation on the Chess cake and Ohio canal was reduced from 300,000 tons to 94,000 tons perannum. The transportation since the war has again run up to 346,000 tons. What was the consequence of this state of af fairs? Those gentlemen who speculated in the coal mines of ova Scotia put up the coal to 12 dollars a ton in the market, though there was nothing to prevent them selling after the war at the same price as before the war. Yet, sir, they place the price of coal at 12 dollars a ton; they could do it safely in the ab that coal brought here from this side. seuce of competition. Weare now engaged in a system of legislation, attempting to pass a w through Congress that will perpetuate that state of affairs and 'voto those lessees of Nova Scotia coal lands an opportunity to make enormous profits at the expense of alargo body of our own manufacturers and to the utter ruin and annihilation of a largeinterest in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and WestVirginia, of which I shall presently speak. Mr. Chairman, I undertake to predict, although no prophet is required to foresee the effect, that if you pass this bill without the amendment I propose it will be almost an interdict of coalf transportation on the Ches apeake and Ohio cans and the Baltimore and Ohio railroad, while it will insure the enor mous profit of from 40 to 50t%. npout e capital invested in the ova Scotia. mines. What is my proposition? I simpl propose to strike out the ines from this bll intended to secure advantages to dealers in Nova Scotia coal and to provi e, so far as the importation of that coal lS concerned, for the collection of the duty which is imposed by the bill upon coal coming across the ocean. If my amendment be adopted this clause of the bill will read: 0n candle or cannol coal, and on all bitumine us coal mined and importedfromany ort or place.8160 puershtocnl; oofntwaenntthyr accrigtch, tbanndshaellls, octihgeirtycopoolunnodtshteortchine otherwnsc provndedfor. 815operton of 28 bushels. 80 pounds to the bushel; on on c and culm of coal. 25%.ad valorem. I ask that all foreign bitumine us coal shall be put upon the same basis. I am at a loss to conceive how e can, with any compatibility, acting in accorance with the received opinion of the objects and purposes of a tariff law for revenue or protection, adopt any other measure. Now, 1st, as to the effect upon the revenue if the bill be passed as now reported. 700,000 tons of bitumine us coal was brought into the country in 1865. Estimating that at $1 50 perton, it would produce for us a revenue of $1,050,000. Estimat ‘ing it at 50 cents perton, it would producea revenue of $350,000, making a loss to the public Treasury of $700,000 a year. I am not about to maintain that the passage forthwith of this bill for the benefit of the holers of these coal lands in Nova Scotia will operate to the exclusion immediately from market of the products of the coal mines of this country. I am not about to maintain that a duty of$l 50 perton upon all coal from Live 001 will exclude that coal also; neither am Iaout to maintain that the coal operators of Pennsylvania and (Maryland and ir inia cannot stagger alon for some time under the operation of this bill; but I do maintain that the policy set forthin this billlooks to the exclusion of our do mestic bitumine us coal from market altogether. It contemplates the exclusion of the coal from Liverpool also; and it will in time, if persisted in, havethe inevitable effect of annihi ating the coal interest of Pennsylvania and Maryland. If this policy be pursued, instead of having only 700,000 tons of coal from Nova Scotia. we will have 3 million tons annually in place of that amount mined and sent to market from our own coal fields. I am notified by the chairman of the ComWays&Means that my time has nearly expired.