1892. ] OF THE SENATE. 587

except in one special jurisdiction and in that having
limited the amount and provided the source, is it not
fair to conclude that no other increase was intended,
especially when the framers of the Constitution were
so careful to name the amount and source, and to pro-
vide that such an increase when made should be ab-
solutely final ? If it was contemplated that the matter
of increase should be left open, why have particularly
limited this increase to be made by the Mayor and
City Council of Baltimore to $500?

Again, look at the 1st section of Article 15, title
"Miscellaneous. " In the latter portion thereof it
provides that "No person holding any office created
or existing under the Constitution or laws of this
State, or holding any appointment under any Court
of this State, shall receive more than three thousand
($3, 000) dollar s a year as compensation for the. dis-
charge of his official duties except in cases specially
provided in this Constitution"

How very broad and comprehensive is this language;
it applies to all persons holding office under the Con-
stitution or laws of this State—no limit in this
respect.

It excepts only persons for whom special provision
is otherwise made in the Constitution. The Judges
hold office under the Constitution and laws of this
State; special provision had already been made to
meet their cases—while some receive only $2, 800,
others receive $3, 500.

In the latter case, special provision had already
been made for a larger sum than $3, 000; with equal
distinctness, provision had been made in the other
case for a less sum; in the case of the Baltimore
City Judges, provision had been made for an ultimate
salary of $4, 000. In neither case had any special pro-
vision been made for an increase, except in the case
of the Baltimore City Judges, from $3, 500 to $4, 000.

As broad as this language is, by what mode of
reasoning is the Judge to be exempted from the scope
and operations of the provision of section 1 of
Article 15 ?

Is he not an officer holding under the Constitu-
tion? Has not "special provision" been made for