Although the measure passed the house, the senate, whose members had listened to the discussion, without any efforts, pro or con, refused most unanimously to sustain it; and thus the company, through the efforts of its vindicator, was suffered to retain its charter.
An event occurred during the session of 1805, highly illustrative of the versatility of Mr. Clay’s genius. An attempt was made to obtain the removal of the capitol from Frankfort. Mr. Clay, in a speech delivered at the time, reverted to the peculiar physical appearance of the place, as furnishing an argument in favor of the proposed removal. Frankfort is walled in on all sides by towering rocky precipices, and not unlike a vast pit. It presents, said Mr. Clay, the model of an inverted hat. Frankfort is the body of the hat, and the lands adjacent are the brim. To change the figure, it is nature’s great penitentiary; and if the members would know the bodily condition of the prisoners, let them look at those poor creatures in the gallery. As he said this he directed their attention to some half a dozen emaciated, spectre-like specimens of humanity, who happened to be moping about there, looking as though they had just stolen a march from the grave-yard. On observing the eyes of the house thus turned towards them, and aware of their ghostly aspect, they screened themselves with such ridiculous precipitancy behind the pillars and railing as to cause the most violent laughter. This well-directed effort at wit and humor was completefully successful, and the house gave their votes in favor of the measure. The resolution, however, was never carried into effect, as it was found impossible to agree upon a new location. It would be difficult, and perhaps not particularly desirable, to follow Mr. Clay through all the various and numerous services rendered by him in the legislature of Kentucky. We shall give an outline only of them, presenting such specimens as shall illustrate the leading characteristics of his mind, and dwell longer on that portion of his history which regards him as connected with the management of the affairs of the nation. While acting in the capacity of a state legislator, he was distinguished for zeal in prosecuting his professional labors, which soon conducted him to the summit of that lofty legal eminence, far above the murky regions of pettifoggery and low intrigue. Here, surrounded by an atmosphere redolent of judicial purity, and seated fast by the throne of Justice, he exerted himself to preserve inviolate the sanctity of her temple, and to see that her decisions were rigidly and impartially enforced. He particularly delighted, on the one hand, to procure her favors for the poor and obscure, in facilitating the approach to her courts of those who by poverty or oppression were debarred access; and on the other, to oppose the unjust prosecutor. No bribe could induce him to countenance, directly or indirectly, his designs. While acting under the influence of these most noble principles, he became engaged in an unpleasant affair of honor. It appears that Col. Joseph Hamilton Daviess, district attorney of the United States, had struck an inn-keeper in Frankfort, who had made some remark offensive to him; the inn-keeper endeavored to obtain legal reparation for the wound his honor had sustained, and for that purpose applied for a writ. This was readily obtained, but owing to the high standing and influence of the accused, no lawyer could be found who was willing to conduct the prosecution. In this state of things, after consulting with his friends he wrote a letter to Mr. Clay, detailing the facts in the case, and soliciting his aid. He promptly sent a reply, in which he consented to act as his attorney. The suit was brought at Lexington, and Mr. Clay, whose sympathetic feelings were warmly interested in behalf of his client, vindicated him from the rude and unreasonably harsh treatment which he received at the hands of Mr. Daviess, who was his own attorney. Mr. Clay’s strictures were keen and cutting to such an extent, that Col. Daviess, at a pause in the trial, sent Mr. Clay a note, couched in not very civil, and somewhat threatening terms, warning him to desist from such bitter remarks. Mr. Clay replied that he should conduct his client’s case as his judgment prompted, uninfluenced and unawed from any source――least of all from his client’s antagonist. At the close of the trial Col. Daviess sent him a challenge to single combat, which he accepted. Subsequently the affair was settled, through the mutual interference of the friends of both parties, and the most cordial friendship existed between them till the death of Col. Daviess, who was killed at the battle of Tippecanoe.