“Except the 8th section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, and is hereby declared inoperative.”

On the day before yesterday the chairman of the Committee on Territories proposed to change the words “superseded by” to “inconsistent with,” as expressing more distinctly all that he meant to convey by that impression.  Yesterday, however, he brought in an amendment drawn up with great skill and care, on notice given the day before, which is to strike out the words “which was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, and is hereby declared inoperative,” and to insert in lieu of them the following: 

“Which being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.”

* * * * *

Now, sir, I think, in the first place, that the language of this proposed enactment, being obscure, is of somewhat doubtful import, and for that reason, unsatisfactory.  I should have preferred a little more directness.  What is the condition of an enactment which is declared by a subsequent act of Congress to be “inoperative and void?” Does it remain in force?  I take it, not.  That would be a contradiction in terms, to say that an enactment which had been declared by act of Congress inoperative and void is still in force.  Then, if it is not in force, if it is not only inoperative and void, as it is to be declared, but is not in force, it is of course repealed.  If it is to be repealed, why not say so?  I think it would have been more direct and more parliamentary to say “shall be and is hereby repealed.”  Then we should know precisely, so far as legal and technical terms go, what the amount of this new legislative provision is.

If the form is somewhat objectionable, I think the substance is still more so.  The amendment is to strike out the words “which was superseded by,” and to insert a provision that the act of 1820 is inconsistent with the principle of congressional non-intervention, and is therefore inoperative and void.  I do not quite understand how much is conveyed in this language.  The Missouri restriction of 1820, it is said, is inconsistent with the principle of the legislation of 1850.  If anything more is meant by “the principle” of the legislation of 1850, than the measures which were adopted at that