Mr. MADISON, (of Va.) I cannot concur with gentlemen who think the present an improper time or place to enter into a discussion of the proposed motion; if it is taken up in a separate view, we shall do the same thing at a greater expense of time.  But the gentlemen say that it is improper to connect the two objects, because they do not come within the title of the bill.  But this objection may be obviated by accommodating the title to the contents; there may be some inconsistency in combining the ideas which gentlemen have expressed, that is, considering the human race as a species of property; but the evil does not arise from adopting the clause now proposed, it is from the importation to which it relates.  Our object in enumerating persons on paper with merchandise, is to prevent the practice of actually treating them as such, by having them, in future, forming part of the cargoes of goods, wares, and merchandise to be imported into the United States.  The motion is calculated to avoid the very evil intimated by the gentleman.  It has been said that this tax will be partial and oppressive:  but suppose a fair view is taken of this subject, I think we may form a different conclusion.  But if it be partial or oppressive, are there not many instances in which we have laid taxes of this nature?  Yet are they not thought to be justified by national policy?  If any article is warranted on this account, how much more are we authorized to proceed on this occasion?  The dictates of humanity, the principles of the people, the national safety and happiness, and prudent policy requires it of us; the constitution has particularly called our attention to it—­and of all the articles contained in the bill before us, this is one of the last I should be willing to make a concession upon so far as I was at liberty to go, according to the terms of the constitution or principles of justice—­I would not have it understood that my zeal would carry me to disobey the inviolable commands of either.

I understood it had been intimated, that the motion was inconsistent or unconstitutional.  I believe, sir, my worthy colleague has formed the words with a particular reference to the Constitution; any how, so far as the duty is expressed, it perfectly accords with that instrument; if there are any inconsistencies in it, they may be rectified; I believe the intention is well understood, but I am far from supposing the diction improper.  If the description of the persons does not accord with the ideas of the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. JACKSON,) and his idea is a proper one for the committee to adopt, I see no difficulty in changing the phraseology.