566 THE CHANCELLOR'S CASE.—1 BLAND.

But, if those Acts leave any doubt upon the mind as to the
meaning and intention of the delegates, that doubt must be com-
pletely removed by an attentive perusal of their, before recited,
message of the 26th of February, returning the general continuing
Act. In that message there is no such thought expressed as, that
they could not constitutionally repeal a. permanent Act, fixing the
Chancellor's salary: it is not there even intimated, that they only
found themselves at liberty to reduce that salary, because if was
given by the Act of 1798, which Act they believed to be temporary;
nor is it to be inferred, from anything said or done by the dele-
gates, as recorded, that they understood, that if the Act of 1798
were suffered to expire, the Act of 1792 would be virtually re-
vived; and that it was their intention, in that way, to reduce the
Chancellor's salary. On the contrary, the Senate having com-
plained, in their message of the 26th of February, that "at the
very moment they were about closing the session, when many of
their members were absent who were known to have been opposed
to any reduction of the salary of that officer, they were presented
with another bill from the delegates, in which they had thought
proper to make no provision to pay the Chancellor any salary
whatever." The delegates, in opposition to the Senate, broadly
and boldly, without qualification, or restriction, in their message
of the same day, say, "we conceive that we cannot in conscience,
longer continue to the Chancellor the profuse and enormous salary
which he now enjoys; we conceive, that duty requires us to reduce
it, and that there is nothing in our Declaration of Rights or Con-
stitution to inhibit it."

Hence, it is most manifest, that the delegates asserted and
maintained the absolute right to cut down the Chancellor's salary
at their pleasure, without limitation or restriction. And, rather
than be disappointed in the exercise of that asserted right, they
determined to close the session without making any provision
whatever for the payment of the Chancellor's salary. On the
other hand, the Senate planted themselves upon the constitutional
ground, that the salary given to the Chancellor by the Act of 1798,
ch. 86, was, by the Declaration of Rights, secured to him during
the continuance of his commission; and, during that period could
not be touched.

How it happened that so great a question as this, relative to
* the constitutional right of the General Assembly to re-
605 duce, or to withhold, at pleasure, the salary of the Chan-
cellor, should have been so postponed, so crowded into the very
last day, and thrown in among the fragments and leavings of a
long and laborious session, does not very clearly appear. But
such was the fact. The special continuing Act; the Civil List
Bill; the general continuing Act; the separate Act and separate
resolution for reducing the Chancellor's salary; in short, every