78 
Indiana University 
Judge Clark’s recent decision and adopted a resolution which 
declared : 
Whereas, This house is informed that Judge James Clark has at 
the present session of the Bourbon Circuit court given a decision in 
contravention of the laws of this Commonwealth, called the endorsement 
and replevin laws, and therein has grossly transcended his judicial 
authority, and disregarded the constitutional powers of the legislature 
of the Commonwealth — therefore, 
Resolved that a committee be appointed to inquire into the decision 
of said Judge and report thereon to this house. 
A committee of leading members was at once appointed.”^ 
The Kentucky constitution of 1799, in force at this time, al- 
lowed judges of the supreme and inferior courts to hold office 
during good behavior; but for “any reasonable cause, which 
shall not be sufficient ground of impeachment”, the governor 
should remove any of them on the address of two-thirds of 
each house of the General Assembly. It provided that the 
causes for such removal should be stated at length in such 
address and spread on the Journal of each house.^^® The legis- 
lative committee reviewed Clark’s opinion and pronounced it 
as subversive of the best interests of the people and calcu- 
lated to disturb the tranquility of the country and shake pub- 
lic confidence in institutions and measures of government. It 
denied that the judiciary had the right to defeat a deliberative 
policy of the legislature and it recommended, two-thirds of 
each house concurring, that “James Clark, one of the circuit 
judges of this Commonwealth, ought to be removed from 
office” and an address was submitted to Governor Adair ask- 
ing for his removal. Instead of the house acting at once upon 
the committee’s report advising the removal of Judge Clark 
by address, an order was issued commanding him to come be- 
fore the legislature on Friday, May 24, to show cause why 
he should not be removed from office. 
On arrival at Frankfort on the day set by the legislature. 
Judge Clark asked for and received a few days’ time to put 
his defense in writing. The legislature had challenged him 
both on the judicial right to declare any of its acts void and 
on his views concerning the relief measures in question as a 
violation of the obligations of a contract as defined by the 
state constitution. He reviewed his decision ably, cited many 
Clark, op, cit., 9. 
J. D. Carroll, Kentucky Statutes, 1915, I. 47. 
