Mr. BLAND (of Va.) had no doubt of the propriety or good policy of this measure.  He had made up his mind upon it, he wished had never been introduced into America; but if it was impossible at this time to cure the evil, he was very willing to join in any measures that would prevent its extending farther.  He had some doubts whether the prohibitory laws of the States were not in part repealed.  Those who had endeavored to discountenance this trade, by laying a duty on the importation, were prevented by the Constitution from continuing such regulation, which declares, that no State shall lay any impost or duties on imports.  If this was the case, and he suspected pretty strongly that it was, the necessity of adopting the proposition of his colleague was now apparent.

Mr. SHERMAN (of Ct.) said, the Constitution does not consider these persons as a species of property; it speaks of them as persons, and says, that a tax or duty may be imposed on the importation of them into any State which shall permit the same, but they have no power to prohibit such importation for twenty years.  But Congress have power to declare upon what terms persons coming into the United States shall be entitled to citizenship; the rule of naturalization must however be uniform.  He was convinced there were others ought to be regulated in this particular, the importation of whom was of an evil tendency, he meant convicts particularly.  He thought that some regulation respecting them was also proper; but it being a different subject, it ought to be taken up in a different manner.

Mr. MADISON (of Va.) was led to believe, from the observation that had fell from the gentlemen, that it would be best to make this the subject of a distinct bill:  he therefore wished his colleague would withdraw his motion, and move in the house for leave to bring in a bill on the same principles.

Mr. PARKER (of Va.) consented to withdraw his motion, under a conviction that the house was fully satisfied of its propriety.  He knew very well that these persons were neither goods, nor wares, but they were treated as articles of merchandise.  Although he wished to get rid of this part of his property, yet he should not consent to deprive other people of theirs by any act of his without their consent.

The committee rose, reported progress, and the house adjourned.

FEBRUARY 11th, 1790.

Mr. LAWRANCE (of New York,) presented an address from the society of Friends, in the City of New York; in which they set forth their desire of co-operating with their Southern brethren.

Mr. HARTLEY (of Penn.) then moved to refer the address of the annual assembly of Friends, held at Philadelphia, to a committee; he thought it a mark of respect due so numerous and respectable a part of the community.

Mr. WHITE (of Va.) seconded the motion.

Mr. SMITH, (of S.C.) However respectable the petitioners may be, I hope gentlemen will consider that others equally respectable are opposed to the object which is aimed at, and are entitled to an opportunity of being heard before the question is determined.  I flatter myself gentlemen will not press the point of commitment to-day, it being contrary to our usual mode of procedure.