THE CHANCELLOR'S CASE.—1 BLAND. 563

is usual in like cases, left blank, to be filled up on the second
reading; and consequently, there was nothing on the face of it, as
reported, which involved any constitutional question; or which in-
timated, that such a one was to be propounded. This bill was
ordered to be put on its passage, on the first day of February fol-
lowing; but, that day was suffered to pass by, and it was not called
up until the 21st of February; when, by a vote of 36 to 26 the
blank was filled up with " the sum of twenty-two hundred dollars,"
as the amount of the Chancellor's salary, and the bill was thus
passed, and sent to the Senate.

It will be proper here to recollect, that when the present
* Chancellor was appointed, his salary, by the Act of 1798,
ch. 86, then, at least, undeniably in force, was fixed at the 601
gum of thirty-four hundred dollars per annum; and that the Act of
1792, ch. 76, had, previously to the year 1798, fixed the Chancel-
lor's salary at the sum of twenty-five hundred and thirty-three
dollars and thirty-three cents; and, consequently, by the passage
of this bill, the House of Delegates, practically asserted the
power, at once, to reduce the Chancellor's salary below what had
been secured to the several Chancellors during the continuance of
their commissions for the last thirty-two years.

The Senate conceiving the reduction of the Chancellor's salary,
in any form, to be a direct violation of the thirtieth Article of the
Declaration of Rights, took up this bill, on the 23d of the same
month, and rejected it "unanimously." Thus, at this late day
of the session, this great constitutional question, relative to the
security of judicial salaries, was, for the first time, fully and
openly presented to the Assembly; and the two Houses were fairly
at issue.

On the 25th day of February, the delegates passed the civil list
bill, in which they reduced the Chancellor's salary to twenty-five
hundred and thirty-four dollars. This was rejected by the Senate
on the same ground of its being an unconstitutional reduction.
As has been stated, the long special continuing Act, omitting to
continue the appropriation for the payment of the Chancellor's
salary, having been passed by the delegates, and sent to the
Senate on the 26th of February, the very last day of the session,
was, by that body, read and rejected at once. On the same last
day, the delegates passed a resolution directing, that the Chan-
cellor should be paid the sum of twenty-five hundred and thirty-
three dollars and thirty-three cents and one-third of a cent, " as a
compensation for his services during the present year." This was
a twofold reduction; it was less in amount than the existing salary,
and shorter in time than during the continuance of his commis-
sion. It was doubly objectionable; and, was therefore rejected by
the Senate without hesitation.—The delegates then, immediately
introduced and passed a bill continuing all Acts, in general terms,