674 JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS [Mar. 8,

relating to officers, were intended to refer to some
officers other than judicial officers. Now, there are
very many officers besides Judges, for whose exist-
ence provision is made in this Constitution. When,
therefore, the 35th section, of Article 3, says "nor
shall the salary or compensation of any public officer
be increased or diminished during his term of office, "
ample scope is given lor the operation of this section
by construing ii as intended to apply to officers other
than Judges; and this being so, it will not be held
applicable to Judges, because so to apply it would
make this section inconsistent with, and contradictory
to, sections 24 and 31, of Article 4, which, we have
seen, declares as to the salaries of the Judges, only
that they shall not be diminished; and we have seen
that this language must impliedly declare that they
may be increased; therefore, if section 35, of Article
3, is held to have been intended to refer to the Judges,
we would have the Constitution in one place declaring
that the salaries of the Judges may be increased, and
in another place declaring that they may not be in-
creased. A construction which involves such conse-
quences will never be placed on any written instru-
ment, much less on the Constitution of the State.

(5. ) The same considerations apply, and indeed with
added force, to section 1, of Article 15, of the Consti-
tution. This section was intended to deal exclusively
with persons whose compensation is derived from fees
of office, and on this ground alone, it is altogether
clear, was never in tended to apply to the Judges, whose
salaries had been exhaustively dealt with in Article 4.

But the very language of the concluding clause of
this section shows that it can have no application to
the Judges, because it declares that no person holding
office shall receive more than $3, 000 a year, "except
in cases specially provided in this Constitution; " we
have seen that the Judges not only receive more than
$3, 000 a year, but also we have seen that their cases
are specially provided for in the Constitution.

(6. ) I may add that I had occasion to examine the
question now submitted to me some years ago, and
came to the same conclusion, which, upon a fresh in-
vestigation of it at this time, I have above stated.
Yours very truly,

BERNARD CARTER.