Mr. CRESWELL. This question was so fully discussed the other day that I do not deem it necessary to enter into any compli cated investigation of the figures as applicable to the amount of importations and the amount of revenue. It is sufficient, I think, to say, as the Senfrom Ohio said in reply to the Senfrom Massachusetts, that "the proposition cannot certainly in any light be regarded as a measure for revenue, because by the admission made by the Senfrom Massachusetts, there being an importation of 500,000 tons, under the Present rate of duty the amount derived would be $625,000. Now, sir, one of 2 things is true: either the gentleman expects that the revenue will be diminished, or else he expects that the importation will be greatly increased. Take either horn of the dilemma and he must abandon one or the other of the arguments which he makes, because in the 1st place he must no longer contend that it is with a view to revenue, or in the next place he must cease to insist upon the bill remaining as he designs it shall because of the small amount of importations into NewEngland when the very expectation entertained is that the importation shall be increased 4 or 5 fold. It fell with eat pertinency from the Senfrom NewHampshire when he said just now that this controversy was not as between the consumer and producer, but between different producers, and any gentleman who will review the history of this measure cannot but be led conclusively to that opinion. This measure started in the other House in the custody of this Nova Scotia interest; and the fact is that they were not content merely to insist that coal should be imported from a line west of the 30th meridian at a low duty, but in order to increase their profits they actually increased the rate of duty upon coal to be imported from any port east of that me ridian. Who asked for that increase? Was it the coal interest of Maryland or the coal interest of WestVirginia or the coal interest of Pennsylvania? Was it any coal interest in this country? No, sir; that addition was made to this tariff, started in the other House, in the interest of these Nova Scotia operators and with a view to give them an opportunity to charge an additional price for the coal they might import into NewEngland. How was it when the bill came to this House with the provision making the distinction by a geographical line stricken out and with a rate of duty on this article the same that we now ask for, namely, $150 a ton? This same interest went before the ComFinance, and they were not content there to have the duty remain as the entire coal interest of this country was content it should be, at $1 25 a ton; but in order to increase their profits, in order to give them an opportunity to charge an enhanced price in the ports of NewEngland, they again interpolated the same clause into the bill, and provided that there should be an increase in the rate of duty charged upon coals coming from any point east of the 30th meridian of longitude. o this country. Are there any petitions before this body, or werethere any before the other House, asking that Nova Scotia coal shall be imported free of duty for the reason that the consumers are affected? I ask if there has been before the ComFinance of either House of Congressone solitary man in the interest of the consumer asking that this Nova Scotia coal shall be admitted free of duty, or at the low rate proposed? If so, I wish some member of the committee would inform me of the fact. I havenot heard a word of that kind. It is only whengentlemen find themselves driven to the wall that they change their ground. The distinguished Senfrom Massachusettshas treated us to a free trade speech in the Senateof the U.S. The commentary of theSenfrom Indiana was just and correct; it was a deduction that he had a right logically to make; and I tell the Senfrom Massachusetts that his course in the Senate to dayis in its effects a better free trade speech thanhas ever been made in any of the middle Statesduring the last ten years. “Cheap coal” is theSenator's cry. Why not “cheap woolen goods?" Why not “cheap cotton goods o' I avein my hand a statement showing the advancemadein this tariff bill upon cotton goods, therateof duty being from 54 to 30 9%. upon everything; and yet they cannotallow us a duty of $1 25 on coal because theyuse it in their manufactures And that is the whole story. Sir, I have honored NewEngland; I have looked to NewEngland, during at least portions of my life, for lessons upon political economy; but I wish to tell the Senfrom Massachusettsthat if I am to regard his teachings logically I shall no longer look to him for any lessons on that subject. I must abandon him, because his position neither he nor any living man can Imf aintain before the people of this is to be the course of NewEngland, if this is to be the system she is to give us, dear upon everything that we con." sume, cheap upon everything that we produce and she consures; if this is to be her teaching, the Senator iras satisfied me and every man in the coal producing regions that NewEng land manufactures shall also be cheap, or else that they shall not compete with foreign manufactures. That is the whole case. The question then is, shall the hoae producer of coal be protected, or shall these gentlemen speculators I do not use the word in any offensive sense, for I know that pretty mucheverybody is anxious to make all that he can out of his money shall these operators who have left NewEngland, carried their capital into Nova Scotia, invested it upon such terms as they deemed profitable when the reciprocity treaty was in force, produce the coal? Or shall the men who remained at home in our own country with their capital, subject to all the taxation which it is necessary now to impose with a view to protect the creditand interests of this Government, have the benefit of this protection? If our policy is to be to take coal from the foreign producer let us vote down this bill; all the time we are expending on it is futile, and the only question we should consider is the question of revenue, and there is the end of the whole matter; and if it is not free trade, it is to be tariff only for the sake of revenue; no discrimination for protection. Sir, I am not jealous of NewEngland. I have no disposition in any way to restrict any industrial interest in NewEngland. On the contrary, it has been the study of my life, so far as I have been able to carry it into effect, to promote the interests of NewEngland and everyother industrial interest in the country. Upon that position I stand today, and upon at position I consider that my argument is e only consistent and the only proper one. I made a remark the other day to which I did not intend to allude again in regard to the operation of the reciprocity treaty and the purposesfor which it was made, but the Senfrom Maine took exception to it and said he was here in the Senate at the time that treaty was made, and that he perhaps under stood all about the treaty and the purposes for which it was made as well as any gentleman who was then in the Senate. I do not doubt it.