that nobody, either North or South, thinks them perfect.  They contain some provisions not satisfactory to the South, and other provisions contrary to the public sentiment of the North; but I believed at the time they were the wisest, the best, the most effective measures which, under the circumstances, could be adopted.  But you do not strengthen them, you do not show your respect for them, by giving them an application which they were never intended to bear.

* * * * *

A single word, sir, in respect to this supposed principle of non-intervention on the part of Congress in the subject of slavery in the territories.  I confess I am surprised to find this brought forward, and stated with so much confidence, as an established principle of the Government.  I know that distinguished gentlemen hold the opinion.  The very distinguished Senator from Michigan (Mr. Cass) holds it, and has propounded it; and I pay all due respect and deference to his authority, which I conceive to be very high.  But I was not aware that any such principle was considered a settled principle of the territorial policy of this country.  Why, sir, from the first enactment in 1789, down to the bill before us, there is no such principle in our legislation.  As far as I can see it would be perfectly competent even now for Congress to pass any law that they pleased on the subject in the Territories under this bill.  But however that may be, even by this bill, there is not a law which the Territories can pass admitting or excluding slavery, which it is of in the power of this Congress to disallow the next day.  This is not a mere brutum fulmen.  It is not an unexpected power.  Your statute-book shows case after case.  I believe, in reference to a single Territory, that there have been fifteen or twenty cases where territorial legislation has been disallowed by Congress.  How, then, can it be said that this principle of non-intervention in the government of the Territories is now to be recognized as an established principle in the public policy of the Congress of the United States?

Do gentlemen recollect the terms, almost of disdain, with which this supposed established principle of our constitutional policy is treated in that last valedictory speech of Mr. Calhoun, which, unable to pronounce it himself, he was obliged to give to the Senate through the medium of his friend, the Senator from Virginia.  He reminded the Senate that the occupants of a Territory were not even called the people—­but simply the inhabitants—­till they were allowed by Congress to call a convention and form a State constitution.

* * * * *