674 THE CHANCELLOR'S CASE.

public" can elude, or will dare openly to defy and insult. The
people constitute that august American tribunal, in the last resort,
before which every case may be brought, and whose final determi-
nation is altogether irresistible.

This interference with the duration of judicial salaries has another
obvious and direct tendency, no less hostile to the principles of our
constitution. The appointing power is lodged, exclusively, with the
governor and council. But, if the General Assembly can, at plea-
sure, withhold or reduce a judicial salary, it is evident they may,
in that manner, come into direct collision with the appointing power
of the executive. If the person, appointed to a judicial office,
happens to be displeasing to the legislature, his salary may be, at
once, withdrawn or reduced so as to force him to resign. And
what is most odious, in this kind of collision, is, that this unjustly
excited and misguided feeling of the legislative body may be
aroused by persons who are not members of it; by persons who
are not of either house; but, who have influence and a knack at
intrigue. Such malcontents may work upon the honest indolence
of members, and urge them on, unthinkingly, to effect the ruin of
the best of men, and the most sacred of institutions, merely to gra-
tify some smuggled and vile malignancy, which they dare not have
the impudence to exhibit openly before the public.

The executive alone are responsible for the appointments they
make; and the legislature have no right, and ought not to inter-
fere in any way whatever. They have no right to look beyond
the official behaviour of those in office. It is their constitutional
right to inquire whether a public officer behaves himself well or
not; and, if he does not, to proceed against him. Let legislators
now put the question to their constituents, to any competent and
credible witnesses. Has the chancellor, have the judges discharged
their several duties as they ought, as was required of them by the
law and the constitution; have they behaved themselves well ? If
they have not, it is the solemn and sacred 'duty of legislators, from
which, according to the principles of the constitution, they ought
not to shrink, to call the alleged delinquent before them to answer
for his conduct; and, on finding the charges against him sustained,
to remove him from office. But, beyond this, the General Assem-
bly have no right to go. In all other respects, the chancellor and
judges are independent of legislators, and legislators of them.

From what has been said it appears, First, That the House of
Delegates, of the last session, assumed the power to reduce the