586 JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS [Mar. 8,

Why, it is said, the Judiciary is dealt with under
an entirely different and independent Article in the
Constitution entitled "Judiciary Department, " in
which, while providing that the salaries shall not be
diminished, not one word is said about the increase.
We answer that the prohibitory clause against an in-
crease is found under the Article entitled "Legislative
Department, " relating to legislative power and action,
limiting, defining and restricting the power and action
of the Legislature in the matter of an increase of sala-
ries of public officers; and the appeal here is to legis-
lative power and action. If the one relates more par-
ticularly to the Judiciary Department, the other
relates more particularly to the Legislative Depart-
ment.

We get our authority in the premises from the latter
Article and are absolutely prohibited from travelling
on the lines laid down by this Bill. We can however
find no irreconcilable inconsistency between the two;
they both relate to the same subject-matter. The
term "any public officer" is broad and wide enough
to embrace the Judge.

The omission of it, if it is an omission, in the Judi-
ciary Article, that the salary shall not be increased, is
supplied in the Legislative Article. If the Legislature
can increase the salary of a Judge, it can violate the
express inhibition placed on it by the 35th section of
Article 3 of the Constitution, and from the scope and
operation of which it is nowhere exempted by any ex-
press provision contained in the Constitution. To
warrant the Legislature in increasing the compensa-
tion or salaries of the Judges during their continuance
in office, in the face of the inhibition contained in
section 35, of Article 3 of the Constitution, there must
be some clearer proof of intention than the failure in
Article 4, entitled the "Judiciary Department, " to
specially provide against an increase of salary. If it
had been intended, that the power to increase should
be vested in the Legislature, why was it not done by
an express provision or reservation to this effect ? And
why should a matter of so grave and momentous
character have been left to conjecture, inference or im
plication ? Having failed to provide for an increase