Mr. MORRILL. In relation to coal, Mr. Chairman, we have proposed the same rate of duty that was in the former hill. The gentleman objected that We should reproduce the same rates, because that bill was rejected on motion of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania. I beg to remind the gentleman that the bill did not have its enacting clause stricken out on account of this coal question simply. It was stricken out because of the reluctance on the part of the House to legislate in relation to the provisions of a iariff for the Cana dian Provinces upon any different principle or rates than what we would for all the world. The House did not wish to have any part of the reciprocity treaty reproduced in any possible shape, and that was why that bill was rejected. The grGentfrom Maryland suggests that it is only for the interest of a few men in Bos ton and NewYork that the fate on coal coming from no more than 30 degrees east long gitude is inserted. Why, sir, the whole coast north of NewYork is interested in this matter. The poor people that have hard work to pick up in the streets the little fuel that may be necessary to keep themselves warm during our severe winters have an interest in this bill. They are dependent for their fuel upon coal, and is it reasonable and proper that we, in order to benefit a company that has subsisted for the last 11 years without any protection whatever, shall now ask that these people shall paly at least $1 60 a ten more for their fuel? certainly cannot conceive that it is necessary that this should be done for the benc fit of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company. And then let me say that in our internalrevenue bill we have benefited that company and the States of Maryland and Pennsyl vania to the amount of over a million dollars by exempting coal from any tax whatever. We have benefited the railroad company by exempting them from any tax on freight. low, is it reasonable that they should ask for anything more? Certainly it appears to me very unreasonable. Now, Mr. Chairman, this article is used in manufactures. We tax the manufactures after they are made. Is not that enough? It is used for making gas, and there is not an article in the whole list of manufactures that is taxed more heavily with the exception of tobacco and liquors, than gas. Is it not enough to tax an article after it is produced, without taxing the raw material? The Baltimore and Ohio railroad, to recur to it again, the Gentfrom Maryland has alread stated, was in the habit prior to the war of sending something like 300,000 tons annually to market, during the war only 90,000, and since the war 346,000 tons. Now, it does seem to me if they can recover and recuperate without this hea duty on coal, they can do so when we levy fiy cents upon it, which the gentleman acknowledges to be 10%. upon the cost. It does appear to me that if we levy a duty of 50 cents perton on all the coal that comes from Nova Sco tia, that is enough. And I will say to the House that in our experience when coal was entirely free, holfof all the bitumine us coal we received from abroad, or nearly half, came from Liverpool or somewhere else besides Nova Scotia. Here the hammer fell.]