1892. ] OF THE SENATE

Some difference of opinion existed upon the subject,
but as far as I could ascertain this was rather a doubt
as to the constitutionality of the bill than a decided
conviction against it

I have more than once had occasion to examine the
question, and it seems to me to be quite clear that the
language of sections 24 and 31, of Article 4, by neces-
sary and irresistible implication permits the Legisla-
ture to increase the salaries of the Judges. The plain
rule of interpretation is that effect must be given to
all the words used. In two places it is expressly
provided that the salaries shall not be diminished.
And in section 31, of Article 4, in which this language
is used, it is expressly declared, in regard to the sum
which the the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
are authorized to vote to the Judges of the Supreme
Bench of Baltimore city, that when once voted it shall
not be increased or diminished.

The who1 e significance of this careful restriction is
lost if the plain prohibition against the diminishing
of the salaries of the Judges is interpreted to include
also a prohibition against increasing them.

The deliberate use in two places of the word deny-
ing to the Legislature the power to diminish their

salaries, and in the same section a prohibition against
both decrease and increase of the sum that might be
voted by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore,
can only be accounted for by the conclusion that the
framers of the Constitution intended that the Legisla-
ture should be left free to increase but should not have
the power to diminish their salaries.

Section 35, of Article 3, strengthens this view, for

[See page image for text]