Mr. CRESWELL. The coal interest in Maryland is one of the largest of our State. I suppose it equals in magnitude anyone of the manufacturing interests of NewEngland. In Massachusetts they have some 50 or 60 millions invested in the production of cotton fabrics. In Maryland we have directly invested in coal production $30,000,000. In addition to that, we have invested $18,000,000 in the Chesapeake and Ohio canal and $12,000,000 in the Baltimore and Ohio railroad, making in that State alone invested in the production and transportation of coal a gross capital of $60,000,000. I know, sir, that many gentlemen consider the article of coal as a raw material; and I believe the very able, energetic, industrious, and upright revenue commissioner, who has had this subject under, consideration has treated it from that stand point. I differ from him, but differ of course with great respect. I admit that coal in the mine is a raw material. In that condition it is worth 25 cents per ton only; but when labor is applied and the coal is removed from its bed and placed at the mouth of the mine you find that it is increased in value, according to that gentleman's own statement, about 8fold. Of that increase some 7 8th s, or 87%., depends upon the value of the labor bestowed upon the article. In the commissioner's statement he further proceeds to say, that when the coal reaches altimore the price of it in 1865 was 7 dollars per ton. We then have an increase of 28 fold in the value of the coal at Baltimore, as enhanced by labor and transportation, That almost equals the illustration so often given of the value of labor as exhibited in the manufacture of the main springs of watches from the raw material. The greater part by far of the value of coal when it reaches the market is chargeable to the labor necessary to its production and the cost of transportation. But the commissioner in the consideration of this question does not stand precisely in the same position as the committee. He argues it as a free trader; he says that it is essential that everybody should have cheap coal, and for that reason he recommends the entire abolition of all duties on coal. If his theory be correct, of course there should be no duties on coal coming from any quarter, and it would apply as well to the repeal of the duties on coal coming from England and Wales as that coming from Nova Scotia. But the gentlemen of the ComFinance do not ask for that. They incorporate in this bill a somewhat cun ningly devised provision I do not use the term in any offensive sense applying the rate of 50 cents a ton to coal coming from all sections west of the 30th meridian of longi tude, and $1 50 to all coal coming from any place east of the 30th meridian of longi tude. We are then immediately led to inquire, why this singular provision in the bill? Why are gentlemen obliged to go to the globes and maps to ascertain what it means? Why not say at once on its face, “We intend that Nova Scotia coal shall come into NewEngland and whereever else it can reach, for 50 cents a ton, and that all other coals shall be charged $1 50?” But the chairman of the ComFinance says that this coal is only imported into NewEngland. I do not know where he gets that information. I am sure it is a mistake.