Mr. HOGAN. This subject, Mr. Chairman, has elicited a great deal O discussion and excited a great deal of attention. I had not up rehended that so much would be said in recrence to a question of this character. But it seems that almost, if not every gentleman that has spoken upon the subject, has had some peculiar system O advancing taxation to insist upon. how, I think it high time that we were beginning to inquire whether we are not run ning protection into the ground; and whether the people of this country have not the right to some little protection against the monopolies and systems fostered by legislation in the interest of the few and against the many. This bill, as reported by the committee is as far as possible an equitable adjustment of uties on that class of articles which the reciprocity treaty, now about to expire, admitted free. The committee, with a view to attainment of revenue and the relief of the consumer, but not to the detriment of an of the interests concerned, have proposed the duties in this bill in the be e of making it satisfacto to all; but from the remarks of gentlemen it seems very clear that they do not get such prohibitory duties asthey wish, and hence they propose amendments and seek to change those parts of the bill which even in so slight a degree look to the protection: of the consumer; indeed, to the masses of the people. i A great deal of attention has been given to this subject by every member of the committee, who have investigated it in detail, with a View to the establishment of such principles us, while producing a revenue, would afford incidental protection to the consumers, those whose necessrties we should look to in part at least. Gentlemen come forward and demand an increased duty on fish, others upon wool, others upon coal, and others upon lumber. All these things are sought to be protected, while nobody has called upon the committee or upon this Congress to make any provision at all)for the people who are to consume all these products and pay all these enormous duties. I speak of the article of coal. I have no objection to the development of the coal fields of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and WestVirginia, but I cannot understand how it is that just now every coal dealcrin the country is about to be ruined unless you give him a dollar and a unrter a ton protection. Why, sir, have nott ese coal fields been developed in the last ten years, and all that time the coal of Nova Scotia has come in free? Does anybody pretend to say that the coal men of Pennsylvania and WestVirginia and Maryland have not been making money all that time? The Gentfrom Maryland [Mr. F. Tnoruss] informs us that these men have sunk $30,000,000, and that unless they can get a protection of a dollar a ton, or 3 quarters of a dollar a ton, more than this bill proposes, they will have to cease the development of the coal fields entirely. Why, sir, in reference to all this matter let me say that these coal men have made more money during the last few years by the enhanced value of coal than they ever made before; and yet the people who have to consume and pay for the coal, what protection do you give them? This bill proposes a duty of 50 cents perton on coal. But gentlemen say that is not enough; you must may c it $1 25 at least. The hear coalowners, if the amendment be adoptet, will, by the operation, put into their pockets 75 cents per ton, which the consumer will have to payin the price of the coal, yet the Government will gain noth ing by the operation. Is there any protection proposed to the men who dig it, to the men who mine it, to the laborers who do all the work? Sir, have they not had to strike for higher wages in view of the fact that they could not make a living by the prices that were allowed them? and yet you propose to protect the monopolists, so that they may then bringtheir power to bear upon the men who do the work, and grind them down.