The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1847-02-18

national dignity Did any conditions accompany 'ns
acquisition of Louisisns or Florida
But the President to carry into effect this proviso,
would ho Obliged to purchase the territory subject to
conditions which he should beg Mexico to exact With
out this national humiliation he spowersss to carry
A. ;n,o effect 30 far he himself concerned He can
~, Control The action Of Congress. either here
aer II is Just if gentleman should say to his agent
,hs nnrposs place funds al your disposal with this
proviso however that my children. or my childrens
.r bsads make foolish bargains or be guilty Of
similar piece of extravaganza know II docs not lie
with you to carry this condition into effect is, am
aware (for I no fool however much the absurdity
Of my proviso would argue such conclusion imposs
Bile you to carry out my intention; but that is mat
ter Of no moment. You are to make the purchase on
The BILL with the proviso attached. cannot become
the Presidents sanction it Is question how far the lat
ter would be bound to regard proviso inconsistent
tendment of is the attainment OF great and meri
torious national object in the present instance by
in carving into effect regardless Of the provss il the
condition contains be, as is impossible OF perform
He would find his justification in the woTthnes:
10 be that Congress should mean It's own act to
be imperative IT. therefore, proviss attached to the
bill be found be entirely inconsistent with the
evident purpose such proviso should not be
10 defeat and nullfy the act Such the Oh
statute law Chancellor Kent (Ksnt's Conn., vol 462)
holds that saving clause in statute to be rejected
when is directly rspugnant to the purview or BODY OF
the act and would not stand wlthout ns ACT
inconsistent and destructive Of itself y for which he cites
Plowden SOS; 8 Taunton, 1918 There IL" he CONT
nues distinction In some Of the books, between q
saving clause and previso in the statute though the
reason ia very apparent II was held by all the
barons OF the Exchequer in the Of the Attorney
General rs the and Company of Chelsea Water
Works that when the provso of act of Parliament
was directly repusnant to the purview Of it, the provso
should stand and be held repeal of the purvew because
4 speaks the last intention Of the law givsr.
But it may be remarked upon this case, that provso
repugnant to the purview Of the statute renders equal
ly nugatory and void repugnant saving clause and
is difficult TO why the act should be destroyed by
the and not by the other why the provso and the
saving clause when inconsistent with the body Of the
act should not both of them be equally rejected"
should opportunity occur for making peace, there
doubt that the President would be justified in Civ
ing such construction to such act but the bill
not become law. Those who voted for the Wilmot
proviso did it with their eyes Nobody believes the
bill will the Senate and the vote for the anti slavery
proviso was conclusive of the fate of the me assure
But suppose the President to avail him self of the
power this bill coners without regard to the proviso,
and suppose that slavery should creep in, what remedy
would the anti-slavery have in the proviso What
bar is to slavery 1t is entirely amless. II imposes
the President alone dtion he il unable to ulfl
and which he is therefore bound to fulfil As have
before remarked, it not now the trial of strength It
will only be when the territorial jurisdiction Of the
United States being extended California and New
Mexico. GALVIENSIS.