590 JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS [Mar. 8,

argument contended for is worth anything, it would
have been as competent, under the Constitution of
1864, to have diminished as to have increased the
salaries of the Judges of the Court of Appeals and
Baltimore City Courts by Legislative act, and the
Judges of said Courts would have been at the mercy
of the Legislature.

Hence we conclude that the contention of the ad-
vocates and promoters of this bill is not warranted,
and that it is incompetent for this Legislature to alter
by increase or otherwise the salaries of the Judges.
We know that the opinions of able lawyers have been
furnished to the contrary, but they are not sitting in
judgment in this case.

A majority of the Judiciary Committee however

agree with them, and we can only dissent. There is
one thing to be remarked, however, and that is the

"Judges are not behind the bill as its promoters or
advocates, and that can be said to their credit and
honor "

This Legislature and the Governor are the final ar-
biters in this case, and therefore the necessity of

being sure we are right. It can be said furthermore
that the argument used that higher salaries are neces-
sary to secure prosper and qualified Judges is out of
place, as the present salaries have secured since the
adoption of the Constitution of 1867, as intelligent,
learned, able, upright and independent Judiciary as
is to be found in any State in the Union.

[See page image for text]