1892. ] OF THE SENATE. 567
people, through the Legislature, the right to give
them more, by way of fixed salary, if it should be
found necessary, as a matter of justice, it will be the
best arrangement we can adopt. I think it is assuming
too much, to suppose that we can decide for all time
to corn e, the proper remuneration of a Judge of the
Court of Appeals. "
The Convention refused to strike out the words in
question, by a vote of 5 to 63. (Second Vol. Debates,
pages 558, 559. )
When the present Constitution was adopted, the
provisions of the former Constitutions were carefully
considered; the change in the use of the language on
the subject showed that the members of the Conven-
tion of 1867 had considered the question, and by the
wording as adopted by them, simply intended to pre-
vent the Legislature from diminishing the salaries be-
low the figure named, and left the Legislature free to
increase the same at its pleasure.
You will notice in the provision in regard to the
amount which might be given by the Mayor and City
Council to the Judges of the Supreme Bench of Balti-
more city, that the old phraseology is preserved, to
wit:
"That the same being once granted shall not be
diminished nor increased during the continuance of
said Judges in office. "
The Constitution of the United States, Article 3,
section 1, in making provision for the Supreme Court
and other Tribunals, which Congress, from time to
time has power to establish, prescribes:
"The Judges, both of the Supreme and inferior
Courts, shall hold their offices through good behaviour,
and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a
compensation which shall not be diminished during
their continuance in office. "
Congress, from time to time has increased the sala-
ries of the Federal Judges, and its power to do so is
under the wording of the Constitution similar to ours,
and has never been questioned.
The only suggestion against the power of the Legis-
lature in this matter is found in the 35th section of
Article 3, which is as follows:
|