Looking at the text of the Reconstruction Acts, the conclusion of reason is confirmed by a positive requirement. By the ninth section of the Act of July 19, 1867,[196] it is provided,-- “That all members of said Boards of Registration, and all persons hereafter elected or appointed to office in said military districts, _under any so-called State or municipal authority_, … shall be required to take and to subscribe the oath of office prescribed by law for officers of the United States.” Senators find ambiguity in the terms “under any _so-called State_ or municipal authority”; but I submit, Sir, that this is because they do not sufficiently regard the whole series of Reconstruction Acts and construe these words in their light. If there be any ambiguity, it is removed by other words, which furnish a precise and unassailable definition of the term “so-called State authority.” By the Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867, it is provided, “that, until the people of said Rebel States shall be by law admitted to representation in the Congress of the United States, any civil governments which may exist therein shall be deemed _provisional only_, and in all respects subject to the paramount authority of the United States.”[197] This is clear and precise. Until the people are admitted to representation, the State government is “provisional only,”--or, in other words, it is a “so-called State authority.” Now the Legislature was elected under “so-called State authority,”--that is, under a State constitution which was “provisional only.” Therefore, according to the very text of the Reconstruction Acts, one interpreting another, must this test oath be required. If it be insisted that the Legislature was not elected under “so-called State authority,” pray under what authority was it elected? Perhaps it will be said, of the United States. Then surely it would fall under the general requirement of the Act of July 2, 1862,[198] prescribing the test oath to all officers of the United States. But I insist upon this application of the statute only in reply to those who would exclude the Legislature from the requirement of the Reconstruction Act. I cannot doubt that it comes precisely and specifically within this requirement. This conclusion is enforced by three additional arguments.