THE CHANCELLOR'S CASE.—1 BLAND. 559

of February, 1825, was unjust, and prayed, that some provision
should be made for allowing him the benefit of an appeal. It is
in these respects only, that the two cases have a connexion and
association with each other; and that the facts and circumstances
of each should be recollected and taken together for the purpose
of enabling the citizen to form a correct estimate of the value of
those provisions of our Constitution which declare, "that the leg-
islative, executive, and judicial powers of government, ought to
be for ever separate and distinct from each other,'' and "that the
independency and uprightness of Judges are essential to the impar-
tial administration of justice, and a great security to the rights
and libertievS of the people."

TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND.

The Memorial of THEODORICK BLAND, Chancellor of Maryland

respectfully represents.

That at the last Session of the General Assembly of Maryland,
the House of Delegates asserted the right to reduce the salary of
the Chancellor, either by a. direct enactment, repealing all laws
passed since the year 1785, which had made provision for its pay-
ment; or by refusing to continue the appropriation that had been
made, from time to time, for that purpose during the last sis and
twenty years. This assertion of right, on the part of the House of
Delegates, was opposed by the Senate, on the ground, that when
the present Chancellor came into office, his salary having been
ascertained by law, and secured to him, by the Declaration of
Rights, during the continuance of his commission, the Legisla-
ture *had not the constitutional power to reduce that salary 597
in any manner whatever, during that period. In conse-
quence of which controversy between the two branches of the
Legislature, the Chancellor has been totally deprived, since the
close of the last session, of the salary which had been thus ascer-
tained and secured to him during the continuance of his commis-
sion.

But, however ruinous this controversy may have been, and may
still be to the Chancellor individually; yet, when contemplated in
all its bearings, his fate becomes a matter of comparatively minor
consideration. There are matters involved in it, vitally affecting
the Constitution, and the safeguards of the people's rights, of in-
finitely greater moment then the mere personal wrongs of the
Chancellor. Its great importance seems to require, and will cer-
tainly excuse the giving of a condensed account of its origin, pro-
gress and termination.