Mr. GALLATIN said, he would just notice what had fallen from the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. GOODRICH) which was the only thing like argument which had been used against the present proposition. As to what had been said about the quantum of tax falling on different States, or what had been said by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. POTTER) with respect to the personal property of the Eastern States, he did not see how it applied to the present question. If the proposed tax was certain, and the expense of collection would not be greater than would attend the collection of the tax in other States, he did not see any objection to it. The gentleman from Connecticut had said, that the expense of an annual enumeration of slaves would be great, and that it would fall upon the United States. He would inform that gentleman and the House, that when no assessment took place, but merely an enumeration, it would be attended with no expense on the collection of the tax. The distinction which he made was, when a valuation and enumeration were both necessary, and when an enumeration alone was necessary. In the first instance, the value of the property was to be ascertained, and the tax laid accordingly; but where an enumeration was only wanted, (the tax per head, according to age, &c., having been settled,) no expense would be incurred. Mr. G. said, he spoke from experience. In Pennsylvania there was a certain tax on personal property, the taking an account of which did not increase the expense. Every three years there was an assessment of personal property, amongst which was slaves; but the enumeration was managed in this way: the collector called twice upon persons--the first time he gave them notice to pay, and took an account of their property, which, consisting of few articles, and the value being already fixed, he could tell them at the time, the amount to be paid at his next call. As to any degree of uncertainty apprehended from this tax, that might be removed by throwing the deficiency, if there should be any, upon the land. He thought, therefore, the objections which had been urged against this tax would be completely obviated. Mr. COIT allowed, that nothing was more clear than that the manner in which the Southern States paid their apportionment of the proposed burden, could make no difference to the Northern and Eastern States; but the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GALLATIN) allowed there was some weight in the objections, with respect to the assessment and collection of the tax.