670 THE CHANCELLOR'S CASE.

either the Senate or the House of Representatives, might, at once,
stop the 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 any thing
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 impossible to draw a
distinction between these two cases of the federal judges, and the
State chancellor. They are exactly parallel and strongly illustra-
tive of each other. Both of them, alike, conclusively show, that
it is no less unconstitutional to withhold, or to dimmish 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 con-
ceives, as it appears he does, that the appropriation for the payment
of the chancellor's salary, made by the act of 1798, has been discon-
tinued, 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
the understanding and belief of either branch of the Assembly,
that the act of 1792 was a permanent act, one which could not be
constitutionally repealed, during the continuance of the chan-
cellor's commission; and, that the act of 1798 was altogether
temporary in its character, and might therefore be suffered to
expire. But, let it be conceded, that such was the understanding
of the Delegates. If this position is correctly understood, it
amounts to no more than this: Where a salary is given to the
chancellor by a law, which is not limited in duration, it cannot
be constitutionally repealed for the purpose of diminishing that
salary. If this be the position claimed by the Delegates, every

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.