HIS DEFENCE OF AARON BURR. 25 In the autumn of 1806, the celebrated Aaron Burr was arrested in Kentucky, on a charge of being engaged in an illegal warlike enterprise. The sagacity and penetration of that extraordinary man were never more clearly evinced than in his application to Mr. Clay to defend him. Mr. Clay believed, and it was generally believed in Kentucky, that the prosecution was groundless, and was instituted by Col. Daviess, whom we have already mentioned, who was a great admirer of Col. Hamilton, and who dis liked Burr, because he had killed Hamilton in a duel, and was, moreover, his opponent in politics. Mr. Clay felt a lively sympathy for Col. Burr, on account of his being arrested in a state distant from his own, on account of his misfortunes, and the distinguished stations he had filled. Still he declined appearing for him, until Burr gave him written assurances that he was engaged in no enterprise forbidden by law, and none that was not known and approved by the cabinet at Washington. On receiving these assurances, Mr. Clay appeared for him; and, thinking that Burr ought not to be dealt with as an ordinary culprit, he declined re ceiving from him any fee, although a liberal one was tendered. Burr was acquitted. Mr. Clay shortly after proceeded to Washington, and received from Mr. Jefferson an account of the letter in cipher, which had been written by Burr to General Wilkinson, together with other information of the criminal designs of Burr. Mr. Clay handed the written assurances above mentioned, to Mr. Jefferson at the request of the latter. On his return from Ghent, Mr. Clay made a brief sojourn in the city of New York, and visited, among other places of interest, the federal court, then in session, escorted by his friend, the late Mr. Smith, then marshal, formerly a senator from New York. On entering the court-room, in the city-hall, the eyes of the bench, bar, officers, and attendants upon the court, were turned upon Mr. C., who was invited to take a seat upon the bench, which he politely declined, and took a position in the bar. Shortly after, a small gentleman, apparently advanced in years, and with bushy, gray hair, whom Mr. Clay for an instant did not recognise, approached him. He quickly perceived it was Col. Burr, who tendered his hand to salute Mr. Clay. The latter declined receiving it. The colonel, nevertheless, was not repulsed, but B told him where he stopped-but the colonel terminated all the intercourse which ever Henry Clay and Aaron Burr. And yet, ev like these, Detraction has tried to manufac assaults! On the twenty-ninth of December, 1806, his credentials, and took his seat in the ser States. He had been elected by the legislat Kentucky, to fill a vacancy occasioned by the Hon. John Adair; and, from the journals of to have entered at once actively upon the disc. of his new and exalted position. His first s of the erection of a bridge over the Potomac period, we perceive the dawning of those vi improvement," which he afterward carried out advocacy of which should alone be sufficient the lasting gratitude of the country. He amu this occasion, by quoting a passage from Peter cable to a senator by whom he had been assai remarkable for the expression of superior sa countenance was wont to assume when he reb members of the body. The picture was apt an "Thus have I seen a magpie in the stre ELECTED TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE. 27 This speech was soon followed by his presentation of a resolution, advocating the expediency of appropriating a quantity of land toward the opening of the canal proposed to be cut around the rapids of the Ohio, on the Kentucky shore. The subject of appropriations for internal improvements was at that time a novelty. So far as it related to the establishment of post-roads, it had, it is true, been discussed in February, 1795; but no formal opinion of Congress was expressed, so as to be a precedent for future action. A committee, consisting of Messrs. Clay, Giles, and Baldwin, was now appointed to consider the new resolution, and on the twenty-fourth of February, 1807, Mr. Clay made an able report to the senate, in which we find the following passage: "How far it is the policy of the government to aid in works of this kind when it has no distinct interest; whether, indeed, in such a case, it has the constitutional power of patronage and encouragement, it is not necessary to be decided in the present instance." A few days afterward, he reported a bill providing for the appointment of commissioners to ascertain the practicability of removing the obstructions in the navigation of the Ohio at the rapids. This bill passed the senate by a vote of eighteen to eight. The following resolution, presented the day of the passage of the bill, shows that Mr. Clay, thus early in his career, was deeply impressed with the importance of a system of internal improve ment. He may truly be called the father of that system which has so incalculably advanced the general prosperity of the Republic: "Resolved, That the secretary of the treasury be directed to prepare and report to the senate at their next session, a plan for the application of such means as are within the power of Congress, to the purposes of opening roads and making canals; together with a statement of undertakings of that nature, which, as objects of public improvement, may require and deserve the aid of government; and, also, a statement of works, of the nature mentioned, which have been commenced, the progress which has been made in them, and the means and prospect of their being completed; and all such informa tion as, in the opinion of the secretary, shall be material in relation to the objects of this resolution." The resolution was passed with but three dissenting voices. During this session, an attempt was made to suspend the habeas corpus act, for the purpose of enabling the president to arrest, without going through the forms and delays of the law Col. Burr, of whose evil intentions there was now sufficient proof. Mr. Clay did not speak on the motion, but his vote was recorded against it, not through any tenderness toward Burr, but because of the danger of instituting such a precedent against the liberty of the citizen. The motion was, however, carried in the senate, but defeated in the house of representatives. Mr. Clay's election to the senate of the United States, had been but for the fraction of a term, amounting to a single session. In the summer of 1807, he was again chosen by the citizens of Fayette to represent them in the Kentucky legislature, and at the next session he was elected speaker of the assembly. In this position, he did not content himself with faithfully discharging the ordinary duties of a speaker. He entered the arena of debate, and took an active part in most of the important discussions before the house. A motion having been made to prohibit the reading, in the courts of Kentucky, of any British decision, or elementary work on law, he opposed it with a vigor and eloquence that could not fail of effect. More than four fifths of the members of the house had evinced a determination to vote for the motion. It was argued that the Americans, as an independent people, ought not to suffer themselves to be governed, in the administration of justice, by the legal decisions of a foreign power. Mr. Clay had to contend against a most formidable array of popular prejudice. To obviate one of the most potent arguments of the friends of the motion, he ingeniously moved to amend it by limit ing the exclusion of British decisions from Kentucky, to those only which have taken place since the 4th of July, 1776, the date of American independence, and suffering all which preceded that period to remain in force. He maintained that before the declaration of our independence, the British and Americans were the same nation, and the laws of the one people were those of the other. He then entered upon one of the most eloquent harangues that ever fell from his lips. He exposed the barbarity of a measure which would annihilate, for all practical uses in the state, the great body of the common law; which would " wantonly make wreck of a system fraught with the intellectual SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATURE. 29 wealth of centuries, and whelm its last fragment beneath the wave." Those who had the good fortune to hear Mr. Clay on this occasion, describe his speech as one of transcendent power, beauty, and pathos. A gentleman, who was a partaker in the effect produced by his eloquence, says: "Every muscle of the orator's face was in motion; his whole body seemed agitated, as if every part were instinct with a separate life; and his small, white hand, with its blue veins apparently distended, almost to bursting, moved gracefully, but with all the energy of rapid and vehement gesture. The appearance of the speaker seemed that of a pure intellect, wrought up to its mightiest energies, and brightly glowing through the thin and transparent veil of flesh that enrobed it." It is almost needless to add that Mr. Clay prevailed on this occasion in turning the tide in his favor, and the original motion was rejected. A report drawn up by him in 1809 upon a question of disputed election is worthy of notice in this place. The citizens of Hardin county, who were entitled to two representatives in the general assembly, had given 436 votes for Charles Helm, 350 for Samuel Haycraft, and 271 for John Thomas. The fact being ascertained that Mr. Haycraft held an office of profit under the commonwealth, at the time of the election, a constitutional disqualification attached and excluded him. He was ineligible, and therefore could not be entitled to his seat. It remained to inquire into the pretensions of Mr. Thomas. His claim could only be supported by a total rejection of the votes given by Mr. Haycraft, as void to all intents whatever. Mr. Clay contended that those votes, though void and ineffectual in creating any right in Mr. Haycraft to a seat in the house, could not affect, in any manner, the situation of his competitor. Any other exposition would he subversive of the great principle of free government, that the majority shall prevail. It would operate as a fraud upon the people; for it could not be doubted that the votes given to Mr. Haycraft were bestowed under a full persuasion that he had a right to receive them. It would, in fact, be a declaration that disqualification produced qualification-that the incapacity of one man capacitated another to hold a seat in that house. The |