The Daily clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1888, 1876-03-31

A point eve ought to say, aquibble, }
has been raised, that the recent con-
stitutional amendment reducing the num-
Der of Chancellors, and the legislation
which has been adopted in pursuance of
it, will not operate to remove the twenty
Chancellors now in office, nor to stop
their pay before the expiration of the
term for which they were originally ap-
pointed. The position is completely
overturned by the conclusive reasoning
of the following extracts which we have
copied from the Holly Springs South:
The case is this: A constitutional provi-
sion required that there should be Chan
cellor for every four counties, and four
terms of the Chancery Court every year in
each county. Experience proved that eight
or ten Chancellors, and fewer terms of the
court, would answer every desirable pur
pose; and, as a matter of ecOnO.ay, the SOW
eregn peOple-nOt the Legislature--inter-
posed, by an amendment of the Constitution.
The limitation of four unties to a district,
I
of each court were thus abrogated, and the
! Legislature was empowered to reduce the
nun Der OF Chancelors, and also the mum
/ Der of terms of each court. The su bstantive
! authority to make these changes, upon well
| settled principles, carries with it the right
| to do everything necessary to the complete
| and unembarrassed accom- plishment of such
changes. The Legislature has already pass
| cd law reducing the Chancery Districts
| from twenty TO ten, and the annual terms
of the courts from four TO two, and.
in this way, have dispens d with ten
! Chancellors. Now, can it be that, although
this very legislation is just what the consti-
tutional amendment in question authorizes,
still all the present Chancellors, twenty in
| number and ten more than are needed, are
to continue in office for more than two
years, and, until the terms for which they
were originally appointed, expire by limi-
tation?
The present Chancellors are eligible to re-
appointment, but, unless re-appOinted, they
will not be the Chancellors of the new Dis
tricts, nor will they be entitled to any sala-
ry, after appointments shall have been
udue iOF the newly created DISTRICTS, ana
the provisions for paying their salaries shall
have been repealed. Such would clearly
be the case, even were ChancellOrs protect
ed in their salaries as our Supreme and Cir
cult Judges are. As to these latter, the
Constitution says: They shall receive for
their services compensation to be fixed by
law, which shall not he diminished during
their continuance in office" The compen-
sation of Chancellors on the contrary, is at
; all times under the control Of the Lpgisla
ture, the Constitution rs to them merely
saying ''they shall receive such compensa-
ton as may be provided by law"
When then the Legislature in pursuance OF
the recent constitutional amendment shall have
re-distrcted the State provided salaries Tor
the Chancellors of such new districts, and
repealed the old law giving salaries to the
Chancelors now in office, these, the old or
present ChancellOrs. will most assuredly
cease to be officers of the State, or to have
any claim whatever to salaries or upon the
State Treasury.