THE CHANCELLOR'S CASE. 647

The appropriation for the payment of this sum was general without
specification. By the act of 1797, eh. 71, it was declared, that
the chancellor " as chancellor and judge of the land office shall be
entitled to receive four hundred and fifty-six dollars and fifty-seven
cents, in addition to the permanent salary fixed by law." The
appropriation and provision for the payment of this addition was
made by the second section of this act in these words; " the said
sum shall be paid at the same time, and in the same manner during
the continuance of this act, as his permanent salary is by law
directed to be paid." By the act of 1798, ch. 86, it is declared,
" that the chancellor shall be entitled to receive, far all duties and
services whatever, prescribed or to be prescribed by law, an annual
salary of twelve hundred and seventy-five pounds current money and
no more." The appropriation, and provision for the payment of
this salary is general; it is " to be paid quarterly by the treasurer
of the Western Shore." There is no designation of any fund as in
the act of 1785, or in that of 1792.

It appears then, that the salary of the chancellor has grown up
and increased with the wealth, business, and population of the
State from 1785 to 1798. It has never, during the last forty years,
been in any manner diminished, nor at any time, prior to the 21st
of February in the year 1825, been attempted to be diminished.
That the amount, thus, from time to time, given to the chancellor
was secured to him during the continuance of his commission,
nas never, from any thing that appears in the votes and proceed-
ings of the General Assembly, or in our statute book, been at any
time called in question previous to the last session of the legisla-
ture. If the General Assembly have any discretionary power to
withhold, or to diminish the chancellor's salary, it cannot, as we
have seen, arise from any thing contained in the Declaration of
Rights; nor can it be sustained by any precedents of cases in
which any previous legislature have distinctly asserted and main-
—______—————————————————————————
acts, or being submitted for the allowance or disallowance of the crown. (Point.
Adm. Col- 75.) This practice of the colonial legislatures, of passing temporary laws
and special orders was strongly condemned in England as a pernicious evasion of
the king's prerogative of approving or disapproving of all their legislative enact-
ments; and the governors were accordingly positively instructed to give their assent
to no such acts or orders. (2 Chal. Opin. Em, Law, 58; Pown. Adm. Colo. 75;
1 Chal. Opin. Em. Law, 350.) But, it seems, this inconvenient practice had become
so much a habit in Maryland, that it has been too long continued; since the revolu-
tion, by which the causes that had suggested and rendered it expedient, have been
completely removed.