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it is of course repealed. If it is to be repealed, why not say so?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"shall be and is hereby repealed."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 The amendment is to strike out the words "which was superseded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 time in reference to the territories
of New Mexico and Utah--for I may assume that those are the legislative
measures referred to--if anything more is meant than that a certain
measure was adopted, and enacted in reference to those territories, I
take issue on that point. I do not know that it could be proved that,
even in reference to those territories, a principle was enacted at all.
A certain measure, or, if you please, a course of measures, was enacted
in reference to the Territories of New Mexico and Utah; but I do not
know that you can call this enacting a principle. It is certainly