This part of the bill had now assumed its final form. _Subject only to the Constitution of the United States_. The words were clear; but what was their implication? A few days later, Douglas wrote to his Springfield confidant, "The Democratic party is committed in the most solemn manner to the principle of congressional non-interference with slavery in the States and Territories. The administration is committed to the Nebraska bill and will stand by it at all hazards.... The principle of this bill will form the test of parties, and the only alternative is either to stand with the Democracy or rally under Seward, John Van Buren & Co.... We shall pass the Nebraska bill in both Houses by decisive majorities and the party will then be stronger than ever, for it will be united upon principle."[475] Yet there were dissentient opinions. What was in the background of Southern consciousness was expressed bluntly by Brown of Mississippi, who refused to admit that the right of the people of a Territory to regulate their domestic institutions, including slavery, was a right to destroy. "If I thought in voting for the bill as it now stands, I was conceding the right of the people in the territory, during their territorial existence, to exclude slavery, I would withhold my vote.... It leaves the question where I am quite willing it should be left--to the ultimate decision of the courts."[476] Chase also, though for widely different reasons, disputed the power of the people of a Territory to exclude slavery, under the terms of this bill.[477] And Senator Clayton pointed out that non-interference was a delusion, so long as it lay within the power of any member of Congress to move a repeal of any and every territorial law which came up for approval, for the bill expressly provided for congressional approval of territorial laws.[478] Douglas was irritated by these aspersions on his cherished principle. He declared again, in defiant tones, that the right of the people to permit or exclude was clearly included in the wording of the measure. He was not willing to be lectured about indirectness. He had heard cavil enough about his amendments.[479] In the course of a debate on March 2d, another unforeseen difficulty loomed up in the distance. If the Missouri Compromise were repealed, would not the original laws of Louisiana, which legalized slavery, be revived? How then could the people of the Territories be free to legislate against slavery? It was a knotty question, testing the best legal minds in the Senate; and it was dispatched only by an amendment which stated that the repeal of the Missouri Compromise should not revive any antecedent law respecting slavery.[480]