that the expense of the importation of goods, including freight, commissions, insurance, and all charges, together with the difference in exchange, amounts to at least twenty per cent.; and the expenses of the importation of iron are said to be thirty per cent. It can hardly be supposed, therefore, that coal can be imported at less than fifty per cent.; and he believed that one hundred would probably be found nearer the truth. Without going into other considerations, Mr. N. said he thought it was clear that the domestic coal trade was not exposed to suffer from foreign competition, even if the entire duty were repealed. And if this were the case, then the only effect of the duty was to raise the price of the American coal something like two dollars per ton above its minimum value. This must be the effect of the duty on foreign coal, unless there is sufficient domestic competition to keep down the price, without the aid of the foreign trade, which he did not believe was the case. Mr. N. said that he had thrown out some suggestions, intended to show that the coal duty was not required for the protection of the home trade; but, even if he was incorrect in this, he believed that there were objections to this duty so serious and weighty that, in any view which can be taken of the subject, a high rate of duty could not be defended as consistent with the principles of justice or humanity. He would barely allude to some of these objections: The duty on foreign coal is necessarily a partial tax; and, as it operates unequally and partially, it is unjust. The duty on foreign coal tends to raise the price of the domestic article, so far as they come in competition with each other, and no farther. This competition is wholly confined to the cities and towns on the Atlantic border. Imported coal never has been, and never can be, conveyed west of the mountains, or any considerable distance into the interior. That section of the Union has an inexhaustible supply of native coal, abounding in all directions, so that foreign coal, if there were no duty, could never interfere. It is only the inhabitants on the seaboard who have any interest in this question; and the tax, both on the foreign and domestic article, is paid by them alone. This tax, therefore, is too limited and partial in its operation to be just. Another and more serious objection to the coal duty is, that it is a tax on one of the prime necessaries for upholding life, and is extremely burdensome and oppressive to the poor. In a country where the winters are so long and severe as in a considerable portion of the United States, fuel is one of the first necessaries of life. During the last year, not less than nine months a fire was required for comfort, and at all times is indispensable for cooking and family purposes. Coal is the cheapest kind of fuel; and a tax on it is peculiarly burdensome to the poorer classes, especially in our cities. Next to rent, fuel is one of the most expensive articles; the very poorest families cannot get along with less than three tons of cost yearly. Considering the tax as two dollars per ton, it will amount to six dollars per annum to the poorest families. This would be a heavy tax; but it is not all nor the worst of the case. They are subjected to a still more oppressive tax, by the second-hand ho'ders and regraters, as the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. BENTON] called them the other day, in speaking against the salt duty. He exposed the foul practices and oppressions of the regraters, in relation to the article of common salt, in the most eloquent and forcible manner. Mr. N. said that he really wished he could have the benefit of the talents and influence of that Senator on this question. In his speech against the salt tax, it appeared to him the gentleman was actually inspired; his eloquence was too fervid and sublime to be confined to the sober style of prose; it broke directly into the more elevated and pathetic strains of poetry. He (Mr. N.) [FEB. 24, 1837. concurred in most that the Senator said on that ques tion, yet still he believed that most of his remarks would apply with more force, justice, and truth, to the onerous tax on fuel. Salt, it is true, is one of the first neces saries of life, more universal in its use than coal or fuel of any kind, as it is required for the subsistence of beasts as well as man. But the amount of the tax, especially that paid by the poorer classes, was trifling compared with the tax they pay upon fuel. The class of families to whom he had referred as consuming three tons of coal would not use probably three bushels of salt & year; so that they would pay a salt tax of thirty cents, and a fuel tax of six dollars. What the honorable Senator had said of the practices of the regraters in the salt trade would apply with more force to the regraters in the coal trade. And how far these practices were sustained and kept up by the duty, might be a question; but he verily believed that if the duty was repealed, and foreign competition let in, the extortionary and oppressive measures of the regraters would be at an end, or their enormity very much dimin ished. The selfishness and rapacity of second-hand dealers and regraters in the coal business were greatly fa vored by the condition of the trade: anthracite coal, which was the kind used in the Northern cities, came almost entirely from Philadelphia, an inland port, which was closed nearly three months in the year, and during that period when the demand for fuel was most pressing; the duty excluded foreign coal, and the ice shut out any additional supply from Philadelphia at the setting in of winter. This gave the holders the control of the market, who have nothing more to do but to combine, to enable them to regulate the price at their pleasure. This they have done the last three years, in all the cities north of Philadelphia. During the last long and severe winter, these merciless regraters in New York, as he was credibly informed, held their regular meetings, at which they consulted the thermometer, and the capacity of the citizens to endure freezing. As the cold increased, and the sufferings of the poor became more intense, they raised the price of coal from week to week, and even from day to day. So complete was this system of op pression, that the price of fuel formed a scale to deter mine the continuance and degree of the cold. The result of this system was, that coal which was probably worth seven dollars per ton when the navigation closed, was raised to sixteen dollars per ton. The sufferings of the poor, under such a state of things, might be con ceived, but could not be described. But (said Mr. N.) he would by no means assert that these regraters in coal were sinners above all other men: the evil, great as it was, ought to be ascribed to the con dition of the coal trade. The retail dealers had only done what nearly all men will do; they had only taken advantage of circumstances to obtain the highest price for their commodity. This, however unjust and oppres sive in many cases, is what the cupidity of the human heart will lead most men to do. It is the embarrassed state of the trade, the obstruction of the home trade, and the exclusion of foreign competition, which has occa sioned these results--which has led to practices so oppressive, cruel, and inhuman to the poor. Who can contemplate evils like these, and sufferings such as he had feebly attempted to describe, and believing that they are in any degree the result of our legislation, with out feeling an emotion of indignation springing up in his heart? There is (said Mr. N.) another cause that has contrib uted to the evils in the coal trade, which he had attempted to point out, and which, in his opinion, was a sufficient reason against continuing a high rate of duty on foreign coal, were there no other. He alluded to the fact that the coal trade was in the hands of a few large com. FEB. 24, 1837.] Reduction of the Tariff. panies, and to all intents and purposes was a monopoly in [SENATE. nessed their splendid rooms, their superb and costly fur- Mr. N. said he was aware that the proposed reduction of the duty on coal was inconsistent with the provisions of the act of 1833, commonly called the compromise act. It might, therefore, be proper for him to say a few words on that subject; and he was the more inclined to do so, from the remarks of the honorable Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] who declared, that if gentlemen from the manufacturing States remained silent, after the explanation he had given of his own course in relation to that act, he should consider them as bound to respect it, and to adhere to and carry out its provisions in good faith. Several gentlemen had expressed their opinions of the act of 1833, and he did not exactly concur with any of them; his own opinion was of no importance, except to his own constituents; yet, as representing a manufacturing State, and as a member of the Committee on Manufactures, it might be proper for him to express his sentiments in relation to that law. His State was as extensively interested in manufactures as any in the Union, with perhaps two exceptions, and he was not sure that it was behind Massachusetts or Rhode Island. It had no large manufacturing towns, no Wares or Lowells, for the reason, he supposed, that it had no Boston, no large commercial down, where the great capitals accumulated from commerce had sought employment in manufactures. He would not say that he rejoiced that his State had neither Lowells nor Bostons, but he would say that he preferred the manufacturing interests as they existed in his own State, consisting of small establishments, with moderate capitals, carried on by private companies and individual enterprise, spread all over the State, in almost every town and village, and embracing every depart. ment of manufacturing industry, and every description of mechanical employment. He much preferred this state of business to large establishments in the hands of wealthy corporations, which erected and owned entire villages. It was individual interests and personal rights which he regarded as the highest duty of Government to cherish and sustain. Sir, said Mr. N., it deserves our serious consideration whether there is not something wrong, radically wrong, in our whole revenue system. On what articles and on what portion of our population is the burden of taxes thrown? Look into your statute book, and see the long list of free articles! You will find among them tea, coffee, fruits, silks, linens, worsted stuff goods, and many others, which, if not, strictly speaking, luxuries, are articles most of which are consumed by the more wealthy classes. The bill now before us reduces the duty on wine to a mere nominal rate, the highest duty being but twelve and a half cents per gallon, and the lowest only three fourths of a cent. Is it the policy of this Government to throw the whole burden of taxation on the necessaries of life? If it is, and if this is a consequence of the protective principle, it deserves very serious consideration how far that principle, in its application, requires to be modified and restricted. He could not approve of that policy which throws the whole burden of taxation on the necessaries of life. It is unsound in theory, unjust and oppressive in practice. The wisdom and justice of all laws must be determined by their practical operation. Is there not great injustice in the operation of our Let any one during the late severe winter have visited one of our large cities, say New York; let him have entered the mansions of some of the wealthy citizens, the bankers and brokers of Wall street, who amass their thousands and ten thousands in a day, and Mr. N. said he did not concur in either of these opinlive in the magnificent style of princes; let him have wit-ions. Considering the circumstances under which that revenue laws? In respect to the act of 1833, the Senator from Kentuc. ky and some others considered it as a compromise of the interests of the tariff and anti-tariff States; and that it possessed the binding force of an actual compact, the national faith being pledged to maintain it. Other Senators considered that law as having no higher character, and as entitled to no more respect, than any ordinary act of legislation. VOL. XIII.-60 act was passed, the pledges upon the face of it, the acquiescence of the nation in it, and the impression which has prevailed very extensively, although by no means universally, that it had adjusted and settled the tariff question for ten years, he did not think it would be just or reasonable to regard that act as entitled to no more respect than an ordinary law of Congress. If the law itself was entitled to no more regard, something at least was due to public opinion, which had assigned to it a higher character. So far as that act has been considered as having settled the tariff question for ten years, to the same extent individual interests may have been influenced and regulated by it, as a supposed compromise which was not to be disturbed. Mr. N. said that he would respect and maintain the object and the general principles of that act, but he could go no further. He could not regard it in the light of a compact, which was binding on Corgress or the country, according to its precise terms, and in the same sense that a contract is binding. Are gentlemen aware of the consequences of assuming the position that the act of 1833 is to have the binding force of a contract? The provisions of the act are not limited in their operation to the year 1842; but some of them are to take effect after that time only, and are unlimited. If they cannot be disturbed or interfered with, then a law of Congress will have all the operation and effect of an amendment of the constitution, circumscribing within narrow limits the powers of this Government, on one of the most important subjects of legislation; one which, perhaps more than any other, will require the frequent action of the legislative authority. By the provisions of that act, after 1842, no higher rate of duties than 20 per cent. can be imposed on imports, under any circumstances; it also provides that all credits are to be abolished, and all duties to be paid in cash, and the valuation is to be according to the price at the port of entry. The act also specifies a list of articles which are to be imported free of duty, after 1842; and which, according to the terms of the law, can never be subject to a duty. These are important principles, which take away a large share of the power of Congress over the subject of raising a revenue by duties on imports. Some of these principles may be found inconsistent with the interests of the country or those of his own constituents; and if so, he should not consider himself bound by them. And it would not be consistent with his ideas of justice to take the advantages of the act, so far as it operates to keep on the high rates of duties, and deny its force afterwards. He could not regard the act as a compact above the reach of legislation for ten years, and then deny its binding force afterwards. But he would respect the general object of the law, and the leading principles of it, intended to secure that object. was the great object of that act, and the general principle of the adjustment of the tariff controversy? It was, that the high rates of duties were to be gradually reduced down to a certain point. This was the substance of the adjustment, and the rest is matter of detail, and of minor importance. To reduce the high duties at once, or very rapidly, would be a violation of the general principle of that act; but to increase the scale of reduction, or to reduce or repeal the duty on particular articles, which may not need protection, and where the duties operate unjustly or oppressively, would only interfere with its details. This be believed to be the case of the duty on coal and other necessaries. His own opinion was, that the better course would have been to bave increased the reduction of all the high duties, upon some general and uniform principle. Under the act of 1833, only one tenth of the excess above twenty per cent. is to be taken off biennially; which was a very slow reduction, amount ing to hardly one million of dollars on the whole revenue What [FEB. 24, 1837. every second year, or half a million annually. A much more rapid reduction than this might be made without injury to any interest. He could not believe that there was any manufacturing interest, or any other interest, that required the protection of a duty of fifty or sixty per cent. at this time, which could be sustained by a duty of twenty per cent. after the year 1842. The duty was either higher than was required now, or it would be found insufficient then. He was in favor of a reduction now, it being an object to avoid a surplus revenue; and should it be found in 1842 that twenty per cent. duty was not sufficient to sustain the woollen, or any other im portant manufacturing interest, he should not feel himself restrained by the act of 1833 from advocating a higher rate of duty. He regarded it as one of the highest obligations of the Government to sustain and protect all the important interests of the country, so far as it could be done by a wise and discreet adjustment of the reve nue, and a proper discrimination, calculated to favor the interests and industry of our own country. Mr. N. said that, should the amendment be adopted, he felt confident it would not affect injuriously the cral trade of Pennsylvania; its only tendency would be to reduce the price of coal to something nearer its fair minimum value at tide water, and in some degree to check and counteract the evil practices of the monopolizers and regraters in our cities. Mr. BUCHANAN said he would not impose upon himself the task of following the Senator from Connec ticut [Mr. NILES] throughout his argument. If he were to pursue this course, we should not close our contest even at the rising of the stars, which was the time appointed for the termination of the ancient trials by bat tle. He should therefore content himself with some general observations on the subject. Mr. B. congratulated the Senator from Connecticut upon his rapid advance towards the true doctrine upon this question. Some weeks ago that Senator, as chair. man of the Committee on Manufactures, had reported bill to repeal altogether the duties upon the importation of foreign coal. After reflection, he now merely proposed to hasten, by a few years, the operation of the compromise act in relation to this article, by reducing the duty to one dollar per ton after September next, and to sixty cents per ton after September, 1838. Judging from this rapid change in his opinion, Mr. B. had good reason to hope that if the Senator could have a few weeks longer for further reflection, he would acknowledge himself to be wrong, and permit the re duction of this duty to keep pace with the reduction of duties upon other protected articles. It was now, under his proposed amendment, only a question of two or three years, sooner or later; but it was one involving the important principle whether this great staple of Pennsylvania was entitled to the same protection with other articles of domestic production. Mr. B. said he would undertake to demonstrate that coal was an article as clearly embraced, both by the letter and the spirit of the compromise act of 1833, as the woollen manufactures of Connecticut, or any other domestic fabric. Here he would take occasion to make some general suggestions in relation to this act. He had stated, on a former occasion, that when this bill bad passed he was in a foreign land. When be received the information of its passage, and that it had caused all the angry elements of political strife to subside, and produced peace and tranquillity at home, he hailed the news with more heartfelt joy than any other political event which he had ever heard. He did not then wait to examine its provisions. He was surrounded by per sons who were predicting that our Union was on the point of dissolution. The tone of our public papers, as well as the debates in Congress at that period, had led FEB. 24, 1857.] Reduction of the Tariff. [SENATE. those to believe, who did not understand the recupera- assumes the fact that although the tariff of May, 1824, tive energies of our constitution, that we were on the had raised this duty from 5 to 6 cents per heaped bushvery eve of separation. The passage of the compromiseel, there was no intention, by this increase, to afford bill dissipated this illusion throughout Europe. Upon subsequent reflection, he could not say whether, balancing the difficulties which surrounded the question, he would or he would not have voted for this measure, had he then been a member of the Senate. But this bill had received the sanction of all the competent authorities of the country. It was now the law of the land. It was the price which we had paid for domestic peace and tranquillity. It was the act which restored harmony to the Union. Under these circumstances, he could not consider it as a mere ordinary act of legislation. It is true we might repeal it; yet he thought there was a moral obligation imposed upon us to give it a fair trial. From the recent debates and proceedings in the Legislature of Pennsylvania, and from his own knowledge of the sentiments of the people of that State, he believed that, in expressing this opinion, he was speaking the voice of a large majority upon that subject, notwithstanding many might suppose that this act would not yield sufficient protection to some branches of our manufactures. What was the nature of this compromise? He would state it briefly. It provided for a gradual reduction of the then existing duties on protected articles, until they should sink to twenty per cent., on the 30th June, 1842; and after that period this amount of protection would be secured to the agricultural, manufacturing, and mining productions of the country. The credits for duties, which were now extended to importers, would then be abolished, and they must be paid in ready money. This would be an important advantage to our domestic in dustry; as it was notorious that, at the present time, importers of foreign merchandise converted the credits which they received from the Government into so much active capital, to be employed in making further importations. Besides, the compromise law provides that, after June, 1842, the duties shall be assessed on the val ue of the goods at the port of entry in this country, and not, as at present, on their value at the foreign port from whence they are exported. It also enacts that a number of articles essential to our manufactures, and which cannot come into competition with any of them, shall then be admitted free of duty. protection to the domestic article. For this reason, he contends that it is not within the spirit and meaning of the compromise act; that it is not one of the great interests intended to be protected by it; and that the question is left as entirely open as if we were now, for the first time, about to determine whether we should impose a duty on the importation of foreign coal. This was the scope of the argument contained in the report. Mr. B. must be permitted to say that the Senator had entirely mistaken the fact upon which his whole argument was founded. He believed he personally knew as much concerning the origin and progress of the tariff of 1824 as any man living, the Senator from Kentucky him. self [Mr. CLAY] not excepted. "All which he saw, and part of which he was." The gentleman who reported and carried that measure through the House, the late Judge Tod, was his colleague from Pennsylvania, with whom, during the whole progress of the bill, he had been in constant and daily habits of intimacy. That gentleman would have been faithless to his high trust if, in the general protection afforded to all the great interests of the country by that bill, he had neglected an interest which was then attracting great attention in the State of Pennsylvania, and enlisting public feeling strongly in its favor. His memory was not justly liable to any such imputation. Mr. B. knew the fact. It was true that in 1823, the year previous to the pas sage of this law, only six thousand tons of coal had been carried to market in Philadelphia; but the coal region had been explored, and it had been ascertained that a large portion of our mountainous territory was filled with this precious mineral. Without protection, there could not have been sufficient capital invested to extract it from the bowels of the earth, and transport it to market. A duty of six cents per bushel was therefore inserted in the original draught of the bill; and, according to his best recollection, no voice had been raised against this provision. What, then, had become of the cornerstone of the Senator's argument? The Senator says this was a mere revenue duty. How had he attempted to prove his position? Only by contending that such ought to have been the case. On the same principle, and by arguments equally conclusive, he might withdraw the protection now afforded by our laws from any other article of domestic production. In the whole range of these articles, there was scarcely one better entitled to the fostering care of the Government, upon the acknowledged principles of the tariff policy, than the article of coal. Mr. B. would feel more confidence that this duty of twenty per cent., with the other advantages secured to our domestic industry by this act, would be sufficient to sustain our manufactures after the year 1842, if it were not for one counteracting cause. He referred to the rapidly increasing amount of our paper currency. Should it become much more depreciated than it was at present, our manufactures would be in great danger. It was impossible that the manufactures of any country, where the currency was greatly depreciated, could sustain a competition with those of another country possessing any thing like equal advantages, where the currency was in a sound and healthy condition, without an amount of protection which the American people would never sanction. It was fortunate for us that, at the present moment, the currency of England was not in a better condition than our own. For his own part, he should give no vote at the present time which might tend to disturb this compromise. In this respect he would follow what he believed to be public opinion in the State which he had in part the honor to represent. Was coal a protected article which had been embraced by the compromise act? The whole argument contained in the Senator's report from the Committee on Manu-supply. Fuel is of such indispensable necessity to hufactures rests upon the principle that it was not. He alleges that the duty collected upon its importation had always been merely for the purpose of revenue; and he In selecting objects supereminently entitled to protection, two questions had always been asked: Were they necessaries of life? And if so, was there a fair prospect that, by affording protection to them for a limited period, they would afterwards be able to protect themselves without burdening the community? Let us test the article of coal by these principles. It would be vain to waste arguments for the purpose of proving that coal is one of the necessaries of life. Our forests are rapidly disappearing with the progress of improvement. This is the only article of fuel with which the Eastern cities and the Eastern portion of our Union can now be supplied. Without it, our people would be exposed to the greatest suffering, and many of our manufactories must cease to exist. Was it then wise, was it politic, to be dependent upon a foreign nation for such an article? If we were, a war with England would at once cut off our man existence, in our climate, that we must be greatly dependent upon any country from whence it is derived. But again. Although the bounty of Providence had furnished us with coal in the greatest profusion, yet a certain fixed protection was required to bring the native article into common use. Those who framed the tariff of 1824 believed that, with such a protection for a few years, the supply could be rendered abundant, and that the people would enjoy this article at a moderate price. The rapid progress of the coal trade in Pennsylvania and abundantly justified their prudent foresight. We then well knew that coal was to be found every where in abundance, throughout long and wide ranges of our mountains. But how were we to approach them? How were we to transport it to the commercial frontier of the country, where the chief demand for it existed? Only by penetrating these mountains by canals and rail roads. The enterprise and the capital of the State and of our people, under the protection which Congress had afforded, have already, to a great extent, accomplished this purpose. The six thousand tons of 1823 had in 1836 increased to nearly seven hundred thousand tons. Was there any example on record of an interest which had grown so rapidly? He should not undertake to estimate the amount of capital which had been invested in this business. In the memorial which he had presented to the Senate some days since, it was stated to be not less than forty millions of dollars. He believed that this statement did not exceed the truth, and the amount was still rapidly increasing. At the present moment, some of our enterprising citizens were engaged in constructing a difficult and an expensive canal from Columbia, on the Susquehanna, to the tide waters of the Chesapeake, which would open a vast coal region, and furnish an immense additional supply of this necessary article. This canal alone would cost not less than two millions of dollars. And yet this is the interest the protection of which the Senator from Connecticut thinks he may consider as a question entirely open. According to him, all the vast amount of capital expended upon it, under the faith of your laws, entitles it to no favorable consideration from Congress. Mr. B. said that with the very same or perhaps greater propriety, he might propose to violate the compromise, and reduce the duty on woollen or cotton goods, notwithstanding the amount which had been expended in the erection of woollen and cotton manufactories. He should be sorry to make any such proposition. The persons interested in the coal trade had only asked to remain on the same footing with the other great interests of the country. They know that before the year 1842 they will be able to protect themselves. Nay, more: they have expressed their entire willingness to share the same fate with other interests, in case Congress should deem it necessary to reduce the duties on protected articles generally to the standard of twenty per cent. more rapidly than the compromise act requires. Fair play is all they demand; and fair play, so far as he was concerned, they should have. The Senator says that the coal trade of Pennsylvania is a monopoly in the hands of a few corporations; and, therefore, it is necessary, in order to keep the price within reasonable limit, that there should be foreign competition. But the gentleman had been as much mistaken in this as in other particulars. Mr. B. could not conceive how such an idea had suggested itself to the Senator, unless it might have been from the statement in the memorial to which he had referred, that this coal was brought to the Philadelphia market on three canals which belonged to incorporated companies; and hence, without other information, he should infer that all the coal lands were owned by these companies. It is true this would not be a very logical deduction; but he could conceive of no other reason for the Senator's statement that the coal trade was a monopoly. What was the true statement of the case? The coal [FER. 24, 1837. region in Pennsylvania, if not boundless, was sufficiently extensive to be far beyond the reach of monopoly. It had been the subject of immense speculation. It was now held by a very great number of proprietors, all of whom had it in their power to send this article to mar ket. The supply was so bountiful as to place monopoly at defiance. The domestic competition, from the very nature of things, must reduce the price to the lowest point at which the article could be extracted from the bowels of the earth and transported to market, making a reasonable allowance for interest on the capital employed. The Legislature of Pennsylvania had fixed the tolls upon the canals and railroads which penetrate the coal region at reasonable rates; and the Senator himself might, if he thought proper, purchase coal land to almost any extent he pleased, and embark in this business, which he seems to consider so profitable. The value of the coal in the mines most accessible has not been estimated at more than from twenty-five to fifty cents per ton. The canal between Columbia and the Chesapeake, to which Mr. B. had referred, would be completed in less than two years. This would open a more extensive region of coal lands upon the Susquehanna than all which had yet been brought into use in other parts of the State, and would greatly increase the domestic competition, and the consequent supply in the Eastern markets. What, then, had raised the present clamor on the subject of coal? He would state the cause. The spring of 1836 was uncommonly backward. The canals continued to be frozen for several weeks later than usual; whilst the winter of that year commenced two weeks earlier. From four to six weeks' business was thus lost, averaging at the rate of 20,000 tons per week. Hence, although the quantity brought to market during the last year was about 140,000 tons more than that of the preceding year, yet it was less by at least 100,000 tons than what it would have been had not these adverse circum. stances occurred. This has been the cause of the scarci ty, and the consequent high price of the article. This price had been rendered still more extravagant by the opportunity for speculation which this state of things presented, and which had been eagerly embraced. But would it not be a miserable policy for statesmen to pur sue, if they should, on account of this accidental defi ciency in a particular year, rashly pass a general law to provide for a case which had never occurred before, and he should venture to predict would not occur again? During all the previous years, since this article had been brought into common use, with a single exception, large supplies had remained unsold at the close of the season. In the years 1834 and 1835, the price of coal in Philadel phia ranged between $4 75 and $6 per ton, according to the quality; and if it had now risen greatly beyond that price, the causes have been peculiar and transient. It was confidently expected, from the preparations al ready made, that more than 900,000 tons would be brought to market during the present year; and if the demand should justify it, this would be increased to 1,200,000 tons in the year 1838. It would seem that this blow had been aimed exclu sively at Pennsylvania; and thus it would be understood by her citizens, notwithstanding any disclaimer which might be made to the contrary. Let such an attempt proceed from what quarter it might, he should be unworthy of a seat there if he did not resist it with all his power. We had frequently been flattered by being told of the patriotism of Pennsylvania, and of her devotion to the Union; but when questions arose affecting her es sential interests, we had too often discovered that these compliments were words, nere idle words. An attempt was now made to exclude her most important interest from the benefits of the compromise act, whilst all other |