648 THE CHANCELLOR'S CASE.

tained any such constitutional power. If then, any colourable pre-
text for the exercise of such a discretionary power to withhold or to
dimmish the chancellor's salary is any where to be discovered, it
must, it is presumed, be sought for among the implications, infer-
ences, and deductions to be gathered from some one, or all of the
acts passed since the act of 1785, which, in any way, give to the
chancellor a compensation for his services. Let us then carefully
consider these acts.

The House of Delegates, of the last session, seem to have
deemed it necessary, not only to except, from the operation of
their general continuing act, the law of 1798, ch. 86; but also,
that of 1797, ch. 71. The last mentioned act was expressly
limited, in its duration, to the 20th of October, 1800, and until the
end of the next session of Assembly that should happen thereafter;
when, even if it had not been virtually repealed by the act of
1798, ch. 86, it must have expired of itself, so far as such an act
could constitutionally expire; since there is no law to be found, by
which it has ever been continued, either generally or specially.
Therefore, this act might have been, very safely and prudently,
passed over by the Delegates, without at all enfeebling the force
of any argument they could possibly have urged in support of the
right they had assumed to reduce the chancellor's salary. But,
since the act of 1797, ch. 71, has been thus invoked into this con-
troversy, an explanation may be deemed necessary.

The Court of Chancery of this State is, in all respects, substan-
tially analogous to that of England; but, in Maryland, the chan-
cellor has long been invested with certain powers, and a jurisdic-
tion, which are exercised in a name and character, altogether
peculiar to this State; and that is, " as judge of the land office"
Before the revolution the lord proprietary was the owner, in his
individual and private capacity, of all the land and territory in
Maryland; which he sold or gave away at pleasure. Not long
after the settlement of the province was commenced, a land office
was established, through which any person might obtain a title for
any vacant land, on complying with the established conditions and
regulations. As the settlements extended, and the sales of land
were multiplied, numerous controversies arose as to the formality
and correctness of the incipient and original titles, thus obtained
from the proprietary. For the purpose of determining these con-
troversies, a judge of the land office was appointed, about the year
1680; and the chancellor of the province was charged with the