Studies in American History 
79 
precedents, pleaded earnestly for the freedom of the courts 
against a fleeting majority in a legislature, and stood firmly 
by every position he had taken. After a day’s spirited debate 
on the resolution to Governor Adair for Clark’s removal by 
address, a vote was taken. It was not clear from the consti- 
tution just what would be a reasonable cause not sufflcient for 
impeachment, but which would suffice for removal by address. 
Clark’s friends made much of the indefiniteness of the consti- 
tution on this point, and argued that since the case already 
was in the court of appeals, which had final action, he should 
not be removed. When the vote was taken in the house it 
stood fifty-nine for removal, to thirty-five against.^^^ 
Judge Clark was safe, the relief leaders were nervous and 
alarmed, and a prolonged desperate court struggle had begun 
in earnest. Clark, who was very unpopular at that time but 
who nevertheless had won admiration as a bold, conscientious 
leader, was elected to Congress in 1826 from Clay’s old dis- 
trict and in 1836 he was chosen governor. 
The case of Blair vs. Williams, as it is styled when taken 
up to the higher court, and that of Lapsley vs. Brashear lay 
on appeal for several months in the state’s highest tribunal, 
but before the opinions in these cases are considered, it will 
be necessary to note briefly a few decisions of the federal 
courts. The United States circuit court had, soon after their 
passage, declared parts of the indorsement and replevin laws 
of Kentucky unconstitutional ; a short time afterward the 
United States district court of the state had decreed that 
every judgment it issued in execution of a debt should be paid 
in gold or silver instead of in Kentucky paper money and that 
no replevin for more than three months should obtain.^^s 
Supreme Court in the Bank of the United States vs. Halstead 
held that the relief law prohibiting the sale without the own- 
er’s consent of lands under execution for less than three- 
fourths of the appraised value was invalid.^^*^ These decisions 
of themselves threatened the whole relief system of Ken- 
tucky and, when in Wayman vs. Southard, in 1825, the Su- 
preme Court held that the replevin and indorsement law of 
Kentucky did not apply to writs of execution from a federal 
Clark, op. cit., 10-19. 
^-2 Collins, History of Kentucky, I, 319, 320 ; II, 132, 133. 
McMaster, A History of the People of the United States, V, 415. 
Henry Wheaton, Reports of Cases Aryued and Decided in the Supreme Court 
(Newark, N.Y., 1882), X, 51. 
