636 THE CHANCELLOR'S CASE.—1 BLAND.

Under a proud confidence, that his whole character and conduct,
public and private, will bear the closest and severest investigation,

ment is confined strictly to the salary allowed by law to that single office.
It seems to have been deemed, by the first General Assembly of the Repub-
lic, " a matter of the highest importance to keep the Court of the last resort
totally distinct from all inferior jurisdictions." (Votes & Pro. Sen. 29th
March, 1777.) Bat by the amendment of the Constitution, of the year 1805,
the principle which had thus rigidly prohibited the holding of a plurality of
offices was departed from or modified. The Chief Judges of the six judicial
districts, it is directed, shall compose the Court of Appeals; and thus, as
under the Provincial Government, the same person holds two distinct judi-
cial offices; that is, he is Chief Judge of a district of County Courts, and
also a Judge of the Court of Appeals.

By adverting to the salaries which had been assigned to each of these
offices down to 1801 it will be seen, that the salary now allowed to them, as
thus combined in the same person, is nearly the same as the aggregate
amount which had been allowed to them when held separately, and by dis-
tinct persons. Thus demonstrating it to have been the intention of the
General Assembly, in giving a salary of only $3,200, to preserve a similar
proportion between the compensation of the Judges of the Courts of original
and appellate jurisdiction: that is, estimating about fourteen hundred dol-
lars as a proper allowance for the discharge of the duties of the former, and
only eight hundred dollars for the performance of the latter. It is then re-

[See image for table]