THE CHANCELLOR'S CASE. . 671

thing for which the chancellor and Senate contend, is admitted.
But it seems, there is a nice distinction between the repealing of
a law, and the suffering of a law to expire. What is it ? Does
it amount to any thing more than a distinction between an act of
commission, and an act of omission 7 The law, having declared
the amount of the chancellor's salary, the legislature cannot con-
stitutionally diminish it by repealing that law; but they may do
so by suffering it to expire :—that is, the legislature commit a
violation of the constitution, if they do pass an act to diminish
the salary; but if they diminish it by omitting to pass an act,
they do not violate the constitution. This opinion, then, can
have no other foundation, than the distinction between an act of
commission and omission. Let us examine it.

The great object of the constitution is judicial independency;
and, therefore, it is commanded by the Declaration of Rights,
that the chancellor's salary shall be secured to him during the
continuance of his commission. The mode of obeying this com-
mand is a matter of no importance; and therefore, the mode is
submitted entirely to the discretion of the legislature. But any
act, either of commission or of omission, which disobeys this com-
mand, and which prevents the attainment of the object contem-
plated, is alike a violation of the constitution. Suppose the legis-
lature should, by an act, without making any provision whatever
for payment, fix the amount of the salary of the chancellor; and
then, by another act, provide a fund for its payment; and, after-
wards, were to repeal the latter act, without making any other
provision for payment. It is presumed, that no one could hesitate
in pronouncing such conduct a gross violation of the constitution.
Then suppose, the act, making provision for payment, were limited
to two years; and the assembly were to neglect to continue it, or
to make any other provision for payment; such legislative omis-
sion, would have precisely the same effect as the act of commis-
sion; and, therefore, the violation of the constitution would be no
less palpable. The salary of the chancellor is to be secured to
him; that is, it shall not, at any time, on purpose, or by neglect,
be withheld or diminished, during the continuance of his commis-
sion. This, the constitution has declared, shall not be directly
and purposely done by the General Assembly; and surely, what is
prohibited, and, therefore, cannot be directly done, can never be
accomplished by any contrivance or indirect movement; and it
would be hopeless to attempt to maintain, that what cannot be