2. Then comes a well-known rule of interpretation, requiring that words shall be construed _ut res magis valeat quam pereat_,--in other words, so that the object shall prevail rather than perish. But the very object of the Reconstruction Act on which this question arises was to keep Rebels from the State government. This object is apparent from beginning to end. But this object is defeated by any interpretation disallowing the test oath.
3. Then comes another rule of interpretation, which is of equal obligation. It is, that we are always to incline so as to protect Liberty and Right; and this rule, for double assurance, is embodied in the very text of the statute whose meaning is now under consideration, being the last section, as follows:--
“That all the provisions of this Act, and of the Acts to which this is supplementary, shall be construed liberally, to the end that all the intents thereof may be fully and perfectly carried out.”[200]
Following this rule, we find still another reason for so interpreting the statute as to require the test oath.
Thus by the reason of the case, by the natural signification of the text, by the light furnished from the supplementary statute, by the rule of interpretation that the object must prevail rather than perish, and by that other commanding rule which requires a liberal interpretation favorable to Liberty and Human Rights,--by all these considerations, any one of which alone is enough, while the whole make a combination of irresistible, infinite force, are we bound to require the test oath.
There is one remark of Andrew Johnson, just, wise, and patriotic, for which I can forget many derelictions of duty, when he said, “For the Rebels back seats.” I borrow this language. The time will come when Rebels will be welcome to the full copartnership of government; but this can be only when all are secure in their rights. Until then, “for the Rebels back seats.”
January 21st, the long debate terminated with an arraignment by Mr. Trumbull of Mr. Sumner’s course in reference not only to the pending bill, but to former measures of Reconstruction, and an answer of similar scope by Mr. Sumner, concluding with regard to Virginia[201] as follows:--