Story,  J.,  said  he  was  led  to  the  general  rule  of  law  which  has
always  prevailed  and  become  consecrated  as  ahnost  a  maxim
in  the  interpretation  of  statutes,  that  when  the  enacting  clause
is  general  in  its  language  and  objects,  and  a  proviso  is  after-
wards introduced,  that  proviso  is  strictly  construed,  and  takes
no  case  out  of  the  enacting  clause  which  does  not  fall  fully
within  its  terms."  It  should  be  within  its  letter  and  purpose.^
The  general  law  of  Illinois  making  exemption  of  certain  amounts
of  personal  property  from  execution  in  favor  of  debtors  was
qualified  by  a  provision  that  "  no  personal  property  shaU  be
exempted  •  •  •  when  the  debt  or  judgment  is  for  the
wages  of  any  laborer  or  servant."  The  court  said  "  it  would
seem  that  the  same  policy  which  dictates  a  liberal  construc-
tion of  the  statute  in  furtherance  of  its  general  beneficial
purpose  would  necessitate  a  restricted  construction  of  an  ex-
ception by  which  its  operation  is  limited  and  abridged ; "  but,
independent  of  that  consideration,  the  court  held  that  pro^'isos

rod,  83  lU.  171,  179 ;  Carroll  v.  State,  50  Cal.  420 ;  Butts  v.  RaUroad  Co.  C3

58  Ala,  396 ;  Commissioners  v.  Keith  Miss.  462 ;  McRae  v.  Holcomb,  46  Ark.
3  Pa  St.  218.  306 ;   Loolver  v.  Davis,  47  Mo.   140 ;

1  Re  Webb,  24  How.  Pr.  247.  Mayor,  etc.  v.  ]\lagTuder,  34  Md.  381 ;

2  Bragg  V.  Clax-k,  50  Ala,  363 ;  Epps  Soutligate  v.  Goldthwaite,  1  Bailey,
V.  Epps,  17  lU.  App.  196 ;  Roberts  v.  367.
Yarboro,  41  Tex.  449 ;  Willingham  v.  3  United  States  v.  Dickson,  15  Pet
Smith,  48  Ga.  580 ;  Blood  v.  Fairbanks,    141.
298  PARTS    OF   A    STATUTE    AND   THEIR   RELATIONS.
