THE CHANCELLOR'S CASE.—1 BLAND. 627

for five years, before it would be in the power, even of the people,
to correct a procedure.

All the Judges under the Federal Government are precisely in
the same predicament, in relation to Congress, that the Chancellor
of Maryland is, in relation to the General Assembly of the State,
under the Act of 1798. None of the various Acts of Congress,
which ascertain and fix the salaries of the Judges of the United
States, in the Acts themselves, make any appropriation of money
for the payment of those salaries. The appropriation, for that
purpose, is always made by separate laws; and is uniformly in-
cluded, as one of the distinct items, in the annual appropriation
Acts passed by Congress.(v) Hence, * either the Senate or
the House of Representatives, might, at once, stop the 670
salary of all the Judges, or of any one of them, by refusing their
assent to the whole or any part of that annual appropriation.
And, consequently, all or any of those Judges, might thus, by the
negative of one branch, be deprived of his salary. The appropria-
tion, for the payment of the Chancellor's salary, under the Act of
1798, had been made or renewed from time to time for twenty-four
years previous to its being stopped by the sole negative of the
House of Delegates, on the 26th day of February last. Is there
anything to prevent that from being done by one branch of the
Legislature of the Union, which has, thus, actually been done by
one branch of the General Assembly of Maryland? It is im-
possible to draw a distinction between these two cases of the
Federal Judges, and the State Chancellor. They are exactly
parallel and strongly illustrative of each other. Both of them,
alike, conclusively show, that it is no less unconstitutional to with-
hold, or to diminish a judicial salary, by suffering a law to expire,
than by an absolute and direct repeal of a legislative Act. If the
Treasurer of Maryland conceives, as it appears he does, that the
appropriation for the payment of the Chancellor's salary, made by
the Act of 1798, has been discontinued, or suffered to expire; the
two branches, and every member of the General Assembly are
constitutionally bound to revive and renew the appropriation for
that purpose, in some form or other.

There is, as we have seen, nothing to be found recorded in the
votes and proceedings of the last session, which show, that it was

(v) Take for example the Act of Congress of the 23d September, 1789, ch.
18, which, without any reference to the Constitution or to the continuance
of the judicial salaries, merely declares, after specifying the amount to
each, that the allowance to the several Judges shall commence from their
respective appointments, and be paid at the treasury quarterly; and the Act
of the 14th of March, 1794, ch. 6, which declares, that there be appropriated
for the compensations granted by law to the Chief Justice, Associate Judges,
District Judges, and Attorney-General, forty-three thousand two hundred
dollars.