570 JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS [Mar. 8,

tion pro tanto of the general language of section 35,
of Article 3, the reply is thai this last section is ex
plicit in its terms, and does not provide that salaries
shall neither be increased nor diminished, except as
otherwise provided in the Constitution, but prohibits
absolutely their increase or diminution; bo that if
this section is applicable to Judges at all, it makes
the prohibition against a diminution of salary abso-
lutely useless, and so far as the Judges of the Supreme
Bench are concerned, it is in direct conflict with that
clause of the Constitution providing for an increase
of their salaries.

It would, therefore, seem to follow that the con-
struction of this. section 35, of Article 3, would not in-
clude Judges, in reference to the diminution of whose
salaries special provision is made in those parts oi
the Constitution providing for their compensation.
This view is strengthened by the consideration that
the Constitutions of 1851 and of 1864 contained the
same provision as section 35, of Article 3, of the Con-
stitution of 1867; and yet Ave find in the Constitution
of 1851, that the salaries of the Judges of the Court
of Appeals and of the Circuit Courts should neither
be increased nor diminished during their continuance
in office. And the same provision is made in the
Constitution of 1864, as to the Judges of the Circuit
Courts. With this language of the previous Consti-
tutions before the Convention of 1867, it is impossible
to suppose that they left out the words "shall not be
increased, " and retained the words "shall not be
diminished" accidentally, or without some reason. Can
. any other reason be assigned than the obvious one
that they meant to do exactly what is done by the
language used, to wit: to prohibit a decrease but not
to prohibit an increase of the salaries of these par-
ticular officers, leaving that matter to the sound dis-
cretion of the General Assembly.

As to section 1, of Article 15, a perusal of the whole
section will clearly show that its provisions are appli-
cable only to officers whose compensation is derived
from fees. But even supposing that its prohibition
against a compensation of more than $3, 000 was not
intended to be restricted to officers paid by fees, by
its very terms it would have no application to the