THE CHANCELLOR'S CASE. 657

- having them distinct and specific, by the Intendant of the revenue,
who said to them, in his report of the 14th of May, 1783, to the
House of Delegates, that " as peace is now established, he begs
leave humbly to suggest the propriety of appropriating all moneys
in such manner, that the application and payment thereof cannot
be mistaken by the treasurer." And, profiting by this intimation,
the legislature, in one of their acts of that session, say, that U it is
of singular consequence, that all and every appropriation should
be executed agreeably to the order and intent of the General
Assembly; and that the Assembly should be enabled, at each ses-
sion, to judge of the state of said appropriations," &c. A multitude
of instances might be adduced, from our statute book, of specific
appropriations of particular funds, and of designated portions of the
public moneys being applied to the payment of particular debts.
The warm party controversies about specific appropriations, under
the federal government, which once pervaded the Union, is within
the recollection of every one.

But, as this distinction, between the contract, and the appro-
priation, has an important bearing upon the subject now under
consideration; it is of " singular consequence," that it should be
exemplified, illustrated, and fully understood, as regards judicial
salaries. The General Assembly of November 1785, secured the
chancellor's salary, according to the Declaration of Rights, during
the continuance of his commission. And, in the before recited
message of the Delegates to the Senate, of the 23d of January of
that session, they say, " If time will permit, we shall attempt
to provide particular funds to secure the payment of the sala-
ries established by our bill;" that is, by the act of 1785, ch. 27.
It appears, that after that bill became a law, which was on the 7th
of February 1786, " leave was given to bring in a bill to provide,
and appropriate a permanent fund for the payment of the sala-
ries to the chancellor and judges." But, it seems, as had been
expected, there was not time, during that sessior, to provide a
fund, as was proposed; and the subject was not called up again.
By the third section of the act of 1785, ch. 27, it was declared,
that the salaries of the chancellor and judges should be paid « out of
the surplus raised every year, until the General Assembly shall make
other provision for payment" Thus, the constitutional obligation
to pay the chancellor his salary, during the continuance of his
commission, is, most clearly and distinctly, recognised by the acts
of that session; and yet, the same enlightened legislators, no less

83