Docket Entry, 18–31 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A]
Source Note
Docket Entry, , Hancock Co., IL, [18–31 May 1844], U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A (Nauvoo, IL, Municipal Court 1844); Nauvoo Municipal Court Docket Book, 97–99; handwriting of ; CHL.
discharge the . let them do it: Letthemdoit. I do not ask any favors of the court. I ask justice. The Laws of have no powe[r] over the Laws. Let this court discharge him and I shall take another course, I do notsay againstyouas a court. I came here to arrest ,”
asked if he meant to intimidate the court by threats.
The Chief justice remarked that it was the duty of the and Federal Government to treat their subjects and constituents with all that complacny [complacency] and good feeling which they wished in return, and to avoid evry threatning aspect. every intimedating and harsh treatment. He respected the laws. but would not yield up any right ceded to them. The has no right to trample our laws under their feet. The court is bound by oath to support the constitution of the , and state of , and the writ of . The constitution of the and and Habeus corpus shall not be denied. If the Court deny the writ of Habeus corpus they perjure themselves. The have no right to usurp pouer [power] to intimedate and the court would see them all destroyed before he would perjure himself we have asked no power. asked us to investigate; we were bound to do so. Let the federal Government hurl on us their forces, “Dragoon” &c we are not to be intimedated. This court is clothed with the Habeus Corpus. and will execute it according to the Law. I understand some law and more justice, and know as much about the rights of American citizens as any men.
. said. if I did say any thing indecorous to the court I take it back.— Court responded “all is Right”
Court ordered that prisoner be discharged. the complainant having refused to prosecute his claim. and that judgmt be entered up vs. , as agent, for costs of suit.
Subpoena returnd for Jeremiah Smith Jun. and is on file.
<May 30th 1844> issued $77.75 vs .— a given to the Marshal
Excution returned same evening by not served.
Same evening to wit. May 30[th] 1844. come before the and as agent of the acknowledged a fee bill for the above. to wit. 77.75. by endorsement on the back of said Bill. The cost of two police. in guarding said . at <15> days. at $2.00 per day. at the special instance and request of Agent for the was omitted th[r]ough mistake in the foregoing bill and <endorsed> by said . [p. 99]