The Papers
Browse the PapersDocumentsJournalsAdministrative RecordsRevelations and TranslationsHistoriesLegal RecordsFinancial RecordsOther Contemporary Papers
Reference
PeoplePlacesEventsGlossaryLegal GlossaryFinancial GlossaryCalendar of DocumentsWorks CitedFeatured TopicsLesson PlansRelated Publications
Media
VideosPhotographsIllustrationsChartsMapsPodcasts
News
Current NewsArchiveNewsletterSubscribeJSP Conferences
About
About the ProjectJoseph Smith and His PapersFAQAwardsEndorsementsReviewsEditorial MethodNote on TranscriptionsNote on Images of People and PlacesReferencing the ProjectCiting This WebsiteProject TeamContact Us
Published Volumes
  1. Home > 
  2. The Papers > 

Discourse, 30 June 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards

Source Note

JS, Discourse, [, Hancock Co., IL, 30 June 1843]. Featured version copied [ca. 30 June 1843] in JS, Journal, 1842–1844, bk. 2, pp. [275]–[289]; handwriting of . For more complete source information, see the source note for JS, Journal, 1842–1844.

Historical Introduction

On 30 June 1843, JS delivered a discourse in , Illinois, defending the authority of the Nauvoo Municipal Court to issue writs of , a common law remedy that permitted a judge to review the legality of detentions. Earlier that month, officials initiated an attempt to have JS extradited to stand trial for allegedly committing treason during the 1838 conflict between the Latter-day Saints and their antagonists in Missouri. On 17 June 1843, governor issued a warrant for JS’s arrest, which Constable of , Illinois, served on JS near , Illinois, on 23 June. Wilson then transferred JS to the custody of the agent authorized to convey JS to Missouri, Sheriff of , Missouri, who accompanied him to make the arrest. With the aid of local attorneys in Dixon, JS delayed the extradition by obtaining a writ of habeas corpus. On 26 June, JS, his captors, his attorneys, and a few others departed Dixon. Their stated destination was , Illinois, in order to appear before an Illinois judge who would review the legality of the arrest. However, JS and his attorneys decided instead to appear before the Nauvoo Municipal Court.
On 27 June, members of the who had been apprised of the situation began intercepting the traveling party to ensure that would not succeed in taking JS to without due process. At JS’s direction, and with the support of his attorneys—but over Reynolds’s protests—the group changed course for . Just after eleven on the morning of 30 June, the party, consisting of approximately forty people in carriages and on horses, arrived in Nauvoo, where they were greeted by a large assembly of Latter-day Saints. JS pronounced a blessing on the crowd and announced that he would address them that afternoon. He subsequently petitioned the Nauvoo Municipal Court for a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted, and a hearing was scheduled for the next day. The writ was served on Reynolds, who protested that the municipal court lacked jurisdiction in the case. The Missouri sheriff nevertheless inscribed a “return” notation on the writ, explaining the legal basis for his detention of JS; the notation transferred custody of JS to the municipal court.
The discourse JS delivered on the evening of 30 June responded in part to ’s protestations but also to the ’s antagonists in who had previously criticized the Municipal Court’s habeas corpus powers. Illinois law authorized the state’s supreme court and circuit courts to issue the writ to any person “detained for any criminal or supposed criminal matter”—that is, for alleged violations of state laws. In the 1830s, the state legislature permitted only two Illinois cities, and , to operate municipal courts. Judges in both of these courts were authorized to issue writs of habeas corpus and to perform the same judicial duties as judges in the state’s circuit courts. The state legislature in 1840 similarly granted a city charter with authority to operate a municipal court, but the Nauvoo court was permitted only “to grant writs of habeas corpus in all cases arising under the ordinances of the City Council.” In other words, while Chicago’s and Alton’s municipal courts had explicit authorization to function as circuit courts, with habeas corpus powers to review detentions for alleged violations of state laws, Nauvoo’s habeas corpus authority was seemingly restricted so that the court could examine arrests only for alleged violations of local city ordinances.
However, the charter authorized the city council to pass any ordinance that was “not repugnant to the Constitution of the , or of this , as they may deem necessary for the peace, benefit, good order, regulation, convenience, and cleanliness” of the city. Under this provision, in July 1842 the city council passed an ordinance that expanded the municipal court’s powers so that the court could review arrests for alleged violations of state laws. When officers attempted to arrest JS on 8 August 1842 as an accessory to the shooting of former governor , the city council passed another ordinance that authorized the court “to examine into the Origin, validity, & legality” of any warrant on a writ of habeas corpus. Even if the warrant were properly issued, under this ordinance the court was authorized to “fully hear the merits of the case” and to give the prisoner “a fair & impartial trial,” upon which the court would render its decision on the petitioner’s guilt or innocence. In November 1842 the city council passed an ordinance that took as its base text the 1827 Illinois habeas corpus statute, which laid out the procedures that state courts should follow in habeas corpus proceedings. Nauvoo’s ordinance retained most of the language of the 1827 act. However, it eliminated provisions in that statute that conflicted with the city’s ordinances.
The charter’s habeas corpus provision and the 1842 ordinances drew criticism from JS’s opponents in . The Warsaw Signal, edited by , argued that the Nauvoo charter gave the municipal court habeas corpus power only in cases “of arrest under the Municipal Laws” and not in cases involving alleged violations of state laws. Discussing the 1842 extradition attempt, Sharp argued that “the guilt or innocence of the accused must be determined by the Courts of the State from whence the requisition issued; and any court of law, which institutes any inquiry of this nature, oversteps the boundaries of its jurisdiction, and openly puts at defiance the laws of the land.” During the winter 1842–1843 session of the state legislature, lawmakers who were antagonistic toward the church made unsuccessful efforts to repeal the Nauvoo charter or amend the charter’s habeas corpus provision.
In JS’s 30 June 1843 discourse, he addressed these criticisms and ’s objections. Church members began gathering at the adjacent to the partially completed at four o’clock in the afternoon. When JS arrived around five o’clock that evening, “about seven or eight thousand” people were waiting for him. In the discourse, JS discussed his arrest and, according to his scribe , “plainly prov[ed] that the municipal court had more power than the Circuit courts inasmuch as the latter’s power was limited while that of the former was unlimited.” Using the preaching technique of call and response, JS asked ’s citizens if they would be willing to fight to defend the city’s charter, to which the Saints gave a resounding response in the affirmative. JS enjoined church members to respect the rights of his captors, and Joseph H. Reynolds. Clayton also indicated that while JS “had restrained the saints from using violence in self defense” in the past, “from henceforth he restrained them no more.” , a Whig candidate for Congress and one of JS’s attorneys, was also introduced to the Saints, perhaps by JS, and spoke briefly, after which JS made some closing remarks.
JS’s scribe took notes of the discourse, possibly on loose paper, which he subsequently copied into JS’s journal. The rough nature of Richards’s account suggests that he was attempting to capture JS’s words as he heard them and that the version he copied into the journal was only minimally polished and refined. was also present and wrote an account of the discourse. His account is more polished in nature, suggesting that he took notes, which he then expanded from memory. Although Woodruff called his account a “synopsis,” his inscription is more than a summary of the discourse. Rather, it seems that Woodruff sought to reconstruct JS’s language verbatim, including his colloquialisms. Woodruff also apparently signaled gaps in his reporting with “&c” notations, standing for etcetera. Both the Richards and Woodruff accounts are featured here. Annotation that appears in Richards’s version of the minutes is not repeated in corresponding locations in Woodruff’s version.

Footnotes

  1. [1]

    “Habeas Corpus,” in Bouvier, Law Dictionary, 1:454–456.

    Bouvier, John. A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America, and of the Several States of the American Union; With References to the Civil and Other Systems of Foreign Law. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Deacon and Peterson, 1854.

  2. [2]

    See “Part 2: 8 July–29 October 1838”; and “Part 3: 4 November 1838–16 April 1839.”

  3. [3]

    See the warrant featured in Petition to Nauvoo Municipal Court, 30 June 1843; Clayton, Journal, 23 June 1843; JS History, vol. D-1, 1583–1584; “Arrest of Joseph Smith,” Nauvoo Neighbor, 19 July 1843, [2]; “Part 4: June–July 1843”; and Historical Introduction to Affidavit, 24 June 1843.

    Clayton, William. Journals, 1842–1845. CHL.

    Nauvoo Neighbor. Nauvoo, IL. 1843–1845.

  4. [4]

    Clayton, Journal, 30 June 1843; Joseph H. Reynolds, St. Louis, MO, 10 July 1843, Letter to the Editor, Old School Democrat and Saint Louis Herald, 10 July 1843, [2]; Habeas Corpus, 30 June 1843, Extradition of JS for Treason (Nauvoo Mun. Ct. 1843), copy, JS Collection, CHL; see also “Part 4: June–July 1843”; and Historical Introduction to Petition to Nauvoo Municipal Court, 30 June 1843.

    Clayton, William. Journals, 1842–1845. CHL.

    Old School Democrat and Saint Louis Herald. St Louis, MO. 1843–1844.

  5. [5]

    Clayton, Journal, 30 June 1843.

    Clayton, William. Journals, 1842–1845. CHL.

  6. [6]

    An Act Regulating the Proceeding on Writs of Habeas Corpus [22 Jan. 1827], Public and General Statute Laws of the State of Illinois, p. 322, sec. 1.

    The Public and General Statute Laws of the State of Illinois: Containing All the Laws . . . Passed by the Ninth General Assembly, at Their First Session, Commencing December 1, 1834, and Ending February 13, 1835; and at Their Second Session, Commencing December 7, 1835, and Ending January 18, 1836; and Those Passed by the Tenth General Assembly, at Their Session Commencing December 5, 1836, and Ending March 6, 1837; and at Their Special Session, Commencing July 10, and Ending July 22, 1837. . . . Compiled by Jonathan Young Scammon. Chicago: Stephen F. Gale, 1839.

  7. [7]

    The judge of the Chicago Municipal Court was authorized to issue writs of habeas corpus and “to perform all the judicial duties appertaining to the office of judge of the circuit courts.” Likewise, the judge of the Alton Municipal Court was authorized to issue writs of habeas corpus, “and the same proceedings shall be had thereon before said judge and court as may be had in like cases before the circuit judges and circuit courts of this State, respectively.” (An Act in relation to the Municipal Court of Chicago, and for Other Purposes [21 July 1837], Laws of the State of Illinois [1837], pp. 15–16, sec. 1; An Act to Amend an Act, Entitled “An Act to Incorporate the City of Alton” [2 Mar. 1839], Incorporation Laws of the State of Illinois, p. 240, sec. 1.)

    Laws of the State of Illinois, Passed by the Ninth General Assembly, at Their First Session, Commencing December 1, 1834, and Ending February 13, 1835. Vandalia, IL: J. Y. Sawyer, 1835.

    Incorporation Laws of the State of Illinois, Passed by the Eleventh General Assembly, Their Session Began and Held at Vandalia, the Third Day of December, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty-Eight. Vandalia, IL: William Walters, 1839.

  8. [8]

    Act to Incorporate the City of Nauvoo, 16 Dec. 1840.

  9. [9]

    Act to Incorporate the City of Nauvoo, 16 Dec. 1840; Ordinance, 5 July 1842.

  10. [10]

    Nauvoo City Council Minute Book, 8 Aug. 1842, 98; see also “Part 1: March 1843”; and JS, Journal, 8 Aug. 1842. Rendering a decision on a prisoner’s guilt or innocence went beyond what the Illinois habeas corpus statute permitted judges of the state supreme and circuit courts to do in habeas corpus proceedings. The statute enabled such judges to “settle the said facts, by hearing the testimony and arguments” of witnesses and interested parties. If the judge found defects in the process that held the accused in custody, he could only discharge the prisoner under specific scenarios listed in the statute. This proceeding was not considered a trial, and the discharge did not function as an acquittal, as the accused could be charged with the same offence if there was “sufficient proof” that the crime had been committed. The limits of habeas corpus proceedings were understood by at least one unidentified individual in Nauvoo, who published an anonymous editorial in the 15 August 1842 issue of the Times and Seasons acknowledging that “habeas corpus can only test the validity, not the virtue of a process, (as testimony to prove the guilt or innocence of a person—under an investigation by habeas corpus, is inadmissible).” (An Act Regulating the Proceeding on Writs of Habeas Corpus [22. Jan. 1827], Public and General Statute Laws of the State of Illinois, pp. 322–325, secs. 1, 3, 7; “Persecution,” Times and Seasons, 15 Aug. 1842, 3:888–889, italics in original.)

    The Public and General Statute Laws of the State of Illinois: Containing All the Laws . . . Passed by the Ninth General Assembly, at Their First Session, Commencing December 1, 1834, and Ending February 13, 1835; and at Their Second Session, Commencing December 7, 1835, and Ending January 18, 1836; and Those Passed by the Tenth General Assembly, at Their Session Commencing December 5, 1836, and Ending March 6, 1837; and at Their Special Session, Commencing July 10, and Ending July 22, 1837. . . . Compiled by Jonathan Young Scammon. Chicago: Stephen F. Gale, 1839.

  11. [11]

    See Ordinance, 14 Nov. 1842.

  12. [12]

    “An Ordinance,” Warsaw (IL) Signal, 20 Aug. 1842, [2]; see also “Recent Attempt to Arrest the Prophet,” Warsaw Signal, 13 Aug. 1842, [3]; and “Another Farce and Mockery of Justice,” Alton (IL) Telegraph and Democratic Review, 3 Sept. 1842, [2].

    Warsaw Signal. Warsaw, IL. 1841–1853.

    Alton Telegraph and Democratic Review. Alton, IL. 1841–1850.

  13. [13]

    Journal of the Senate . . . of Illinois, 10 Dec. 1842, 55–56; 23 Feb. 1843, 412; 4 and 6 Mar. 1843, 515, 533.

    Journal of the Senate of the Twelfth General Assembly of the State of Illinois, Convened By Proclamation of the Governor, Being Their First Session, Begun and Held in the City of Springfield, November 23, 1840. Springfield, IL: Wm. Walters, 1840.

  14. [14]

    Woodruff, Journal, 30 June 1843; see also Clayton, Journal, 30 June 1843.

    Woodruff, Wilford. Journals, 1833–1898. Wilford Woodruff, Journals and Papers, 1828–1898. CHL. MS 1352.

    Clayton, William. Journals, 1842–1845. CHL.

  15. [15]

    Clayton, Journal, 30 June 1843.

  16. [16]

    For more on Richards’s note-taking methods, see Historical Introduction to Discourse, 4 July 1843.

  17. [17]

    Woodruff, Journal, 30 June 1843.

    Woodruff, Wilford. Journals, 1833–1898. Wilford Woodruff, Journals and Papers, 1828–1898. CHL. MS 1352.

Asterisk (*) denotes a "featured" version, which includes an introduction and annotation. *Discourse, 30 June 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards Journal, December 1842–June 1844; Book 2, 10 March 1843–14 July 1843 *Discourse, 30 June 1843, as Reported by Wilford Woodruff Discourse, 30 June 1843, as Reported by William Clayton History Draft [1 March–31 December 1843] History, 1838–1856, volume D-1 [1 August 1842–1 July 1843] “History of Joseph Smith”

Page [277]

hand. & will do it again but I will Swear I will never deal so mildly again.
Be cool be deliberate.— be wise, and when you pull do it with sweepstakes.— my lot has alwasy [always] be[e]n cast among the warm[e]st kind of people
The time has come when the viel [veil] is torn of[f] from this . & let us mingle with the people of I. should have been torn <​from​> with the expen[s]e of life & blood if I had asked
I brought them prisoners. and committed them as prisoners not of chai[n]s but of kindness to her from whom I was torn [p. [277]]
View entire transcript

|

Cite this page

Source Note

Document Transcript

Page [277]

Document Information

Related Case Documents
Editorial Title
Discourse, 30 June 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards
ID #
1100
Total Pages
15
Print Volume Location
JSP, D12:419–424
Handwriting on This Page
  • Willard Richards

Footnotes

  1. [3]

    Woodruff’s account of the discourse has “The time has come when the veil is torn of[f] from the State of Illinois & they have deliverd me from the State of Missouri: friends that were raised up unto me would have spilt their Blood for me.”

  2. [4]

    After JS initiated a civil suit against Joseph H. Reynolds and Harmon T. Wilson in June 1843, Lee County sheriff James Campbell arrested them and held them in custody during the journey from Dixon to Nauvoo. JS placed Wilson and Reynolds at the head of his table on 30 June and gave them, as Wilford Woodruff noted, “the best he had[,] served unto them by his own wife the vary woman they had refused to [allow to] see her husband as he was taken from her by the force of Arms unlawfully.” (Woodruff, Journal, 30 June 1843; see also Historical Introduction to Affidavit, 24 June 1843.)

    Woodruff, Wilford. Journals, 1833–1898. Wilford Woodruff, Journals and Papers, 1828–1898. CHL. MS 1352.

© 2024 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.Terms of UseUpdated 2021-04-13Privacy NoticeUpdated 2021-04-06