of the law of honor, to challenge Mr. Marshall to meet him and settle it in single combat. It was accepted, and the parties, pursuant to appointment, met and exchanged two or three shots, resulting in a slight wound to each. The duel was terminated by the interference of the seconds, who protested against its further procedure. 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