622 The CHANCELLOR'S CASE.

our special attention. It is declared, " that salaries liberal but not
.profuse ought to be secured to the chancellor and the judges." The
authors of this article were perfectly well acquainted with the con-
dition of this country under the colonial monarchy. The Decla-
ration of Independence had proclaimed, that " he (the British
king,) has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither
swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their sub-
stance." And when the authors of this article meditated on the
subject of judicial salaries, the picture of the past oppressive pro-
digality, and a cheering hope for the future were before them; the
contrast pressed upon their minds, and their thoughts, thus influ-
enced, were happily expressed in the four words, " liberal but not
profuse." But this expression gives no positive direction. It merely
indicates an opinion, that the future judicial officers of the State
should be compensated according to the just and liberal principles
of the republic; not in the profuse manner in which they had been
maintained under the late monarchy, and nothing more. It lays
down no positive rule, and therefore gives no command.(k)

The salaries, it is said " ought to be secured." It will be suffi-
cient to observe here, that the word " ought" frequently occurs in

if a judge, because of his insolvency, be restrained from performing the labours
assigned to him, such a failure of duty may be deemed a misbehaviour in office
within the meaning of the Constitution. (Griesley's Case, 8 Co. 82; Crouch v. Mar-
tin, 2 Vem. 595; Mithwold v. Waldbank, 2 Ves. 23S; Flarty v. Odium, 3 T. R. 681;
Ledderdale v. Montrose, 4 T. R. 248; Barwick v. Reade, 1 H. Bloc. 627; Arbuckle v.
Cowtan, B Bos. & Pul. 322; Stone v. Ledderdale, 2 Antr. 533; Monys v. Leake, 8 T.
R. 411; Exparte Parnell, 1 Swan. 436; Pow. Mart. SO, note C.; 1814, ch. 113, s. 4;
Act Cong. 18th March, 1818, ch.18, s. 4; Lowe v. Moore, 1 McCord, 243.)

(k) " Judges (it is said by a sensible Reviewer,) should be placed above pecuniary
difficulties; their minds should not be diverted from their important duties, by the
pinching of want, or the necessity of devising ways and means to eke out a living
for their families. Such a situation both lessens respectability and invites temptation.
Bring the administrators of the law, through whose sanctions alone the sovereignty
of the people is heard, into contempt, and the law itself will soon become odious—
render the law and its tribunals odious, and you prepare the people to despise the
yoke and to embrace any change which would afford a prospect of relief. Let it be
borne in mind by those in whose hands are our destinies, our legislators, that the most
distinguishing and delightful characteristic of our people, is their cheerful submis-
sion to the law: to that they universally bow down with obedience, and upon that
foundation, mainly, stand our republican institutions. Every thing which tends to
shake it, a patriot should deprecate; and we know nothing more surely calculated to
produce that lamentable effect, than the redaction of the salaries of the judges to a
bare subsistence, by which these offices will ere long be thrown into the hands of
inferior men, or will render those of a superior character who imprudently accept
them, the victims for life of debasing want."—(3 Southern Review, 446.)