In 1809, a case of contested election came before the legislature, in the settlement of which, Mr. Clay acted a conspicuous part. The electors of Hardin county had given four hundred and thirty-six votes for Charles Helm, three hundred and fifty for Samuel Haycroft, and two hundred and seventy-one for John Thomas, two of whom were entitled to seats. It appeared that Mr. Haycroft, at the time of the election, held an office, which, according to the constitution of Kentucky, rendered him ineligible to a seat in the general assembly. Mr. Clay submitted his views of the case, in a report prepared by him, as chairman of a committee appointed in accordance with a motion made by him to inquire whether Mr. Haycroft was entitled to a seat, and if not, to decide on the claims of Mr. Thomas to one. This report was adopted unanimously, and has since constituted the rule in similar cases in Kentucky. Its doctrines are so sound, and at the same time so simple, that we cannot forbear inserting an extract. ‘The fact being ascertained that Mr. Haycroft held an office of profit under the commonwealth at the time of the election, the constitutional disqualification attaches and excludes him; he was ineligible and therefore cannot be entitled to his seat. It remains to inquire into the pretensions of Mr. Thomas. His claim can only be supported by a total rejection of the votes given to Mr. Haycroft, as void to all intents whatever. It is not pretended that they were given by persons not qualified according to the constitution, and consequently, if rejected it must be not for any inherent objection in themselves, but because they have been bestowed in a manner forbidden by the constitution or laws. By an act passed 18th of December, 1800, it is required that persons holding offices incompatible with a seat in the legislature, shall resign them before they are voted for; and it is provided that all votes given to any such person prior to such resignation shall be utterly void. This act, when applied to the case in question, perhaps admits of the construction that the votes given to Mr. Haycroft, though void and ineffectual in creating any right in him to a seat in the house, cannot affect in any manner the situation of his competitor. Any other exposition of it is, in the opinion of your committee, wholly inconsistent with the constitution, and would be extremely dangerous in practice. It would be subversive of the great principle of free government that the majority shall prevail. It would operate as a deception of the people, for it cannot be doubted that the votes given to Mr. Haycroft were bestowed upon a full persuasion that he had a right to receive them. And it would infringe the rights of this house, guarantied by the constitution, to judge of the qualifications of its members. It would, in fact, be a declaration that disqualification produces qualification――that the incapacity of one man capacitates another to hold a seat in this house. Your committee are therefore unanimously and decidedly of opinion that neither of the gentlemen is entitled to a seat.’ This act closed his career in the legislature of Kentucky, to which he tendered his resignation soon after. He was elected to the senate of the United States for two years――the unexpired portion of Mr. Buckner Thurston’s term, who had resigned his seat in that body. During Mr. Clay’s continuance in the legislature, he had produced the deepest impression of his ability and talents, and won the favor of his associates, to what extent may be determined from the fact of their selecting him for the office before named, by a vote of two thirds. He retired, accompanied with their expressions of sincere regret for his loss, and high estimate of his services. The annals of Kentucky present no brighter spot than that which in imperishable characters records his name. It is the oasis of her history, verdant and beautiful, begirt with the wreath of his noble deeds, brilliant with the gems of benevolence, philanthropy and patriotism.