Journal, December 1842–June 1844; Book 1, 21 December 1842–10 March 1843

  • Source Note
  • Historical Introduction
Page 50
image
wrote drafts of Affidavits
12 retired to

Editorial Note
’s scanty notes recorded here in JS’s journal are the only record known to have been made during this 4 January 1842 habeas corpus hearing. The hearing debate centered on attorney general ’s two objections to the proceedings: first, that extradition was a state matter and, therefore, that the federal court had no jurisdiction; and second, that evidence concerning guilt or innocence could not be heard on habeas corpus. challenged these objections by arguing first that the United States circuit court not only had jurisdiction in the case but under the circumstances had exclusive jurisdiction, since extradition is a matter between two states; and second, that presenting evidence concerning JS’s whereabouts on 6 May 1842 did not establish guilt or innocence but rather that JS was not a fugitive from justice. For JS’s case to fall within the purview of extradition law, he first had to be a fugitive.
then showed the illegality of the documents used to arrest JS. He pointed out that ’s affidavit said nothing about JS having fled from justice in and that Missouri governor had misrepresented the wording of the affidavit in demanding extradition. Boggs’s affidavit simply said that JS was “accessary before the fact” and that he was a “resident of .” Reynolds added that it had been represented to him that JS was “a fugitive from justice.” Butterfield pointed out that JS had not been in Missouri since sometime before the attempt on Boggs’s life and therefore that neither Boggs nor Reynolds had grounds to demand JS’s extradition.

4 January 1843 • Wednesday
Dec <​Jan​>— 4. Wednesday 9 A. Repared to court Room— in ’s officce a few moments
court opened—— while Docket was reading the Ladies came in & took their seats by the side of the [illegible] 6 <​Ladies​> By court “Gentlemn of the Bar any motions. this morning?[”] sworn . <​ —​> [p. 50]
wrote drafts of Affidavits
12 retired to

Editorial Note
’s scanty notes recorded here in JS’s journal are the only record known to have been made during this 4 January 1842 habeas corpus hearing. The hearing debate centered on attorney general ’s two objections to the proceedings: first, that extradition was a state matter and, therefore, that the federal court had no jurisdiction; and second, that evidence concerning guilt or innocence could not be heard on habeas corpus. challenged these objections by arguing first that the United States circuit court not only had jurisdiction in the case but under the circumstances had exclusive jurisdiction, since extradition is a matter between two states; and second, that presenting evidence concerning JS’s whereabouts on 6 May 1842 did not establish guilt or innocence but rather that JS was not a fugitive from justice. For JS’s case to fall within the purview of extradition law, he first had to be a fugitive.
then showed the illegality of the documents used to arrest JS. He pointed out that ’s affidavit said nothing about JS having fled from justice in and that Missouri governor had misrepresented the wording of the affidavit in demanding extradition. Boggs’s affidavit simply said that JS was “accessary before the fact” and that he was a “resident of .” Reynolds added that it had been represented to him that JS was “a fugitive from justice.” Butterfield pointed out that JS had not been in Missouri since sometime before the attempt on Boggs’s life and therefore that neither Boggs nor Reynolds had grounds to demand JS’s extradition.

4 January 1843 • Wednesday
Jan— 4. Wednesday 9 A. Repared to court Room— in ’s officce a few moments
court opened—— while Docket was reading the Ladies came in & took their seats by the side of the — 6 Ladies By court “Gentlemn of the Bar any motions. this morning?” sworn . — [p. 50]
Page 50