THE CHANCELLOR'S CASE. 601

cellor was appointed, his salary, by the act of 1798, ch. 86, then,
at least, undeniably in force, was fixed at the sum of thirty-four
hundred dollars per annum; and that the act of 1792, ch. 76, had,
previously to the year 1798, fixed the Chancellor'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 pre-
sented 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 con-
tinue 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 Dele-
gates passed a resolution directing, that the Chancellor 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 reduc-
tion; it was less in amount than the existing salary, and shorter in
time than during the continuance of his commission. 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, which would
expire with that session, except the act of 1798, ch. 86, and also
except the act of 1797, ch. 71; which bill the Senate, after much
hesitation, consented to pass.

On the 26th of February, the Senate sent the following message
to the delegates. "Gentlemen of the House of Delegates:—The
Senate have again rejected the bill entitled, An act to pay He civil

76