Skip to main content

Docket Entry, 18–31 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A]

  1. Home > 
  2. The Papers > 
Introduction to United States v. Jeremiah Smith, United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A, and United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B Docket Entry, Indictment, 27 October 1843 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, circa December 1843 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, March 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, circa June 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, Warrant, Forfeited Recognizance, and Deposition, circa October 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, circa December 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 20 February 1845 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 1 May 1845 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, July 1845 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, circa March 1846 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, circa June 1846 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, August 1846 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 21 January 1847 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 26 April 1847 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 8 September 1847 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, circa March 1848 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, May 1848 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, November 1848 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 29 January 1849 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, circa June 1849 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 10 September 1849 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 9 February 1850 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 10 May 1850 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, September 1850 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 17 February 1851 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 19 April 1851 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 28 October 1851 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 13 February 1852 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 4 May 1852 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 14 October 1852 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 18 February 1853 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 6 June 1853 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 2 November 1853 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 20 February 1854 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 16 May 1854 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 29 September 1854 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 3 February 1855 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 17 May 1855 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 29 October 1855 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 8 February 1856 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 14 May 1856 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 5 November 1856 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 9 February 1857 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 17 April 1857 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 20 October 1857 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 10 February 1858 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 5 June 1858 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, 28 October 1858 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Docket Entry, Nolle Prosequi, 4 February–6 May 1859 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Certificate, 21 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Warrant, 13 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Petition, 16 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A] Habeas Corpus, 16 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A] Habeas Corpus, 16 May 1844, Copy [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A] Summons, 16 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A] Minutes, 16 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A] Subpoena, 18 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A] Note, between 16 and 30 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A] Minutes, 30 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A] Execution, 30 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A] Bill of Costs, 30 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A] Docket Entry, 18–31 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A] Warrant, 21 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Petition, 30 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B] Habeas Corpus, 30 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B] Motion, 30 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B] Motion, 30 May 1844, Copy [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B] Docket Entry, 30–31 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B]

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], United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A (Nauvoo, IL, Municipal Court 1844); Nauvoo Municipal Court Docket Book, 97–99; handwriting of ; Historian’s Office, Historical Record Book, 1841–1874, CHL. Includes redactions and use marks.
Nauvoo Municipal Court Docket Book, , Hancock Co., IL, 10 Mar. 1842–13 Feb. 1845; handwriting of , , , , , , and one or more unidentified scribes; 114 pages; in Historian’s Office, Historical Record Book, 1841–1874, pp. 4–15, 17–19 (second numbering), 51–151, CHL.
The docket book for the municipal court is recorded in a large, commercially produced record book used by various organizations in Nauvoo and later by the Church Historian’s Office (now CHL) in Utah Territory. The book, which measures 14⅜ × 10 × 2 inches (37 × 25 × 5 cm), has 222 leaves measuring 14 × 9⅝ inches (36 × 24 cm). Each interior leaf is ruled with forty printed blue horizontal lines. The volume contains twenty-seven gatherings: the first twenty-five gatherings are composed of eight leaves each; the twenty-sixth gathering has four leaves, with physical evidence indicating that two additional leaves were removed; and the last gathering consists of ten leaves, nine of which were separated from the binding, likely after the pages were inscribed. The endpapers consist of a pastedown and three flyleaves at each end of the book; the pastedowns and facing flyleaves are marbled paper. The marbling is a Spanish over hair-vein Italian pattern with black and brown grounding and veins of red, yellow, and white. The volume has a hardbound ledger-style binding. It is bound in brown calfskin with blind-tooled decoration on the cover as well as red leather bands with decorative stitching on the top and bottom edges of the cover. The cover was inscribed with the title “Docket | of the | Municipal Court | of the | City of Nauvoo.” The spine of the volume bears four paper labels. The label placed at the top of the spine reads “RECORD | 1855” and the next reads “INCIDENTS | of | HISTORY.” The third label reads “Nauvoo | Municipal Court | Docket”. The last paper label was likely placed on the record by Church Historian’s Office staff in the 1950s or 1960s, and an archival sticker is on the book’s first pastedown. Marked staining and wear on the edges of nine leaves in the final gathering suggest that they were stored outside the volume. At some point, these leaves underwent conservation and were pasted into folded paper edges to create an artificial gathering, which was then tied into the existing binding with string.
The record book was initially used by and to record information for the University of and the Nauvoo mayor’s court. From March 1842 through July 1843, Sloan, as clerk of the Nauvoo Municipal Court, turned the book over and inscribed entries for the city court’s docket book on pages 4–15 and 17–19. In March 1843, he turned the book back over and resumed inscribing entries for the municipal court’s docket book, beginning on page 51. Following Sloan’s departure on a mission in July 1843, his replacement as municipal court clerk, , left approximately thirty-one pages blank with the intention of completing the inscription of the docket entry for Extradition of JS for Treason. Richards inscribed docket entries on pages 87–112 from October 1843 through June 1844. , who replaced Richards as municipal court clerk in February 1845, inscribed two docket entries on pages 113–114. In 1854, church clerk completed the docket entry for Extradition of JS for Treason on pages 56–87 [86] and 116–150.
The record book was included in Church Historian’s Office inventories, which indicates it was transported from to Utah along with church records. The volume was used by the Church Historian’s Office in the 1850s and 1870s to record ordinations, general conference minutes, correspondence, and blessings, as well as church information and journal entries from . It also contains copies of several texts related to the Latter-day Saints’ departure from Nauvoo, the writing of JS’s history, and a list of members of the first pioneer company to arrive in Utah Territory in 1847, which was compiled in 1867.

Footnotes

  1. Act to Incorporate the City of Nauvoo, 16 Dec. 1840; Minutes, 3 Feb. 1841; Nauvoo City Council Minute Book, 11 Feb. 1843, 159.

  2. JS, Journal, 30 July 1843; Nauvoo City Council Rough Minute Book, 12 Aug. 1843, 20.

  3. Nauvoo City Council Rough Minute Book, 8 Feb. 1845, [5]–[6].

  4. Historian’s Office, Journal, 26 July 1854.

    Historian’s Office. Journal, 1844–1997. CHL. CR 100 1.

  5. The record book, listed under “Municipal Court Docket,” was included in the earliest extant Church Historian’s Office inventory and successive inventories. (See “Schedule of Church Records. Nauvoo 1846,” [1]; “Historian’s Office Inventory G. S. L. City March 19. 1858,” [1]; “Index of Records and Journals in the Historian’s Office 1878,” [11], Historian’s Office, Catalogs and Inventories, 1846–1904, CHL.)

    Historian’s Office. Catalogs and Inventories, 1846–1904. CHL. CR 100 130.

Historical Introduction

In May 1844 , clerk of the municipal court in , Illinois, inscribed an entry in the court’s docket book for United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A, a case over which JS presided as chief justice. , no relation to JS, was a miller from Wapello County, Iowa Territory. Frustrated by the reluctance of officials to pay him for building two gristmills for the Sauk and Meskwaki nations (Sac and Fox) on the government’s behalf, Smith visited in 1843 to lobby for his claim. While there, he learned that the government had appropriated $4,000 for a younger man from who shared the name Jeremiah Smith, and on 28 March the elder allegedly claimed the money from the United States Treasury for himself. Following this, the elder Jeremiah Smith returned to the West and visited Nauvoo for “several days” in summer 1843—“to satisfy” himself regarding the city and its inhabitants, as he later explained—before continuing on to Iowa.
Meanwhile, the younger Jeremiah Smith began inquiring about his funds, leading Charles B. Penrose, the solicitor of the Treasury Department, to initiate efforts to prosecute the elder for fraud. A federal grand jury for the Criminal Court in indicted Jeremiah Smith during its October 1843 term “for obtaining money . . . under false pretence.” Penrose directed federal law enforcement agents to work with Judge Charles Mason of the First Judicial District of to secure Smith’s arrest and convey him to for trial. Mason cooperated by issuing a warrant, but after Smith was arrested and brought before the judge on 17 February 1844, Mason discharged him due to the federal prosecutor’s failure “to establish the identity of Mr. Smith as the Jeremiah Smith named in the indictment.” This discharge did not function as an acquittal, and amid subsequent efforts to recapture him, Smith fled the area.
On 16 April, Penrose commissioned , a former marshal from , “to proceed against him [Smith] whenever he is found.” Penrose indicated that if crossed state lines, Johnson should follow a federal statute that permitted him to obtain a warrant from a federal or state judge in the state or territory where Smith was found. Following the arrest, the judge would issue an order that authorized Smith’s conveyance to the nation’s capital for trial. Johnson, believing Smith had fled to St. Louis, apparently headed south to .
had actually gone east to , arriving by mid-April and lodging at the . At some point, Smith confided to JS that he expected “to be arrestd by the U.S. Marshal for getting money which was his due,” likely referring to the money that he believed the government owed him for building the gristmills. Preparing to challenge the impending arrest, Smith decided to seek a writ of from the Nauvoo Municipal Court.
Habeas corpus emerged in the sixteenth century as an English common law remedy that permitted an authorized judge or court to review the legality of a prisoner’s detention; it was later adopted in American courts. After reviewing the reasons for the detention, the court could remand the prisoner to jail or, if there were procedural irregularities, discharge or bail the detainee. Although seventeenth-century English jurist Edward Coke articulated an influential rule that courts convened for habeas corpus hearings should confine themselves to procedural defects and refrain from examining evidence for the crime itself, some English and American judges nevertheless reviewed the factual basis for the detention and discharged prisoners if the evidence was deemed insufficient to hold them. This discharge, however, did not function as an acquittal, meaning that the charge could be brought again under certain circumstances without triggering “double jeopardy.” The degree to which a court could “enquire into any facts behind the Writs” remained a controversial issue in in the 1840s, with the state’s 1827 habeas corpus statute specifying that courts could discharge prisoners only for a limited number of jurisdictional or procedural problems.
In addition, courts were required to have jurisdiction over the alleged crime in order to issue writs of habeas corpus to petitioners. Federal law authorized courts to issue writs of habeas corpus, but only for prisoners detained under “the authority of the United States.” law authorized the state supreme court and circuit courts to issue writs of habeas corpus to review the detentions of prisoners who were held for alleged violations of state laws. The same law prohibited state courts from discharging prisoners held “for any offence exclusively cognizable by the courts of the United States.”
In 1840 the state legislature passed the act incorporating , also known as the Nauvoo charter, which authorized the city to operate a municipal court with power to grant writs of habeas corpus “in all cases arising under the ordinances of the City Council,” a provision apparently intended to limit the municipal court’s jurisdiction to individuals being held for alleged violations of a city ordinance. However, in 1842 the Nauvoo City Council passed ordinances that expanded the municipal court’s habeas corpus powers in two significant ways, both of which were relevant to ’s subsequent appearance before the court. First, the ordinances authorized the court to review the legality of any arrest warrant, regardless of whether it was issued by city, state, or federal officials. Second, the ordinances permitted the court not only to evaluate the procedural basis of an arrest but also to “fully hear the merits of the case” and ensure that petitioners have “a fair & impartial trial” in Nauvoo, rather than before the court where the charge originated. In habeas corpus proceedings held between 1842 and early 1844, the Nauvoo Municipal Court consistently went beyond procedural defects in the arrest and examined the merits of the case against the petitioner. The judges of the court evidently used the terms “acquitted” and “discharged on the merits of the case” interchangeably to refer to a final determination of guilt or innocence. Despite considerable controversy in western Illinois during the early 1840s surrounding the Nauvoo Municipal Court’s expanded habeas corpus powers, no higher court had determined the legality of the city council’s ordinances granting those powers. It therefore remained an unsettled legal question. In addition, the willingness of prominent attorneys who were not members of the to practice law in the municipal court and publicly defend its habeas corpus provisions further reinforced JS’s views that the court’s use of habeas corpus was reasonable.
With the assistance of attorney , prepared a petition for habeas corpus to present to the municipal court, leaving a blank for the name of the arresting officer. The petition claimed that Smith’s detention was unlawful and that an authorized court had already investigated the charges; it also erroneously claimed that Smith had been “honorably acquitted” by that court. The petition requested the municipal court to investigate not only the legality of the warrant but also the merits of the case against him. then wrote out a certification for the petition, dating it 20 April, and signing JS’s name as mayor of the city and therefore chief justice of the municipal court. Five days later, JS instructed “to make out a writ of Habeus Co[r]pus” for Smith. Richards complied, leaving blank spaces for the name of the arresting officer and the date.
No marshal appeared in during late April or the first half of May. In mid-May, , having learned that was in Nauvoo rather than , arrived in . Following Penrose’s instructions, on 13 May, Johnson worked with , Illinois, justice of the peace William Bennum of Appanoose, Illinois, which was northeast of Nauvoo, to issue a warrant for Smith. Bennum gave it to Constable James McCance, also of Appanoose, to serve. After learning of the warrant, Smith went into hiding.
On 16 May, McCance located and arrested him. then completed the previously drafted habeas corpus petition by filling the blank with McCance’s name and revising the date and filed the petition with the municipal court. also completed the writ of habeas corpus and issued it to marshal , instructing him to command McCance to bring Smith before the court and provide the grounds upon which he held him in custody. McCance complied with Greene’s command, bringing Smith before the municipal court the same day and writing in his return notation on the writ that he detained Smith by virtue of Bennum’s warrant. , as the complainant for Bennum’s warrant, was present along with his attorney , who motioned for an adjournment, requesting time ostensibly to obtain material witnesses. The adjournment was granted.
JS and five associate justices reconvened midmorning on 30 May 1844. was represented by as well as , a lawyer from , Iowa Territory. The court called on to defend his complaint against Smith. Johnson declined to do so, arguing that the municipal court lacked habeas corpus jurisdiction over federal prisoners. In response, JS defended the municipal court’s habeas corpus powers and implied that Johnson’s language was an affront to ’s chartered rights. JS then discharged Jeremiah Smith on the grounds that Johnson “refused to prosecute his claim.” Johnson was also assessed the costs of the suit. After the discharge, , an physician who had been deputized alongside Johnson to pursue Smith, arrested Smith on a warrant issued by , a federal judge in Illinois. The municipal court issued a writ of habeas corpus directed to Hickok and met later that day to review the legality of Pope’s warrant. The court discharged Smith a second time.
inscribed the entry for the first case in the municipal court’s docket book in stages. On 18–19 May 1844, he evidently wrote the portion of the entry for the 16 May hearing, copying and expanding the contemporaneous minutes. He left space in the margin to copy the costs associated with the case. He noted in his journal that he worked into the night of 30–31 May until one o’clock in the morning preparing the remainder of the entry for the case, as well as the entry for the other case heard that day, in the municipal court’s docket book. In the left margin of the first page, he copied the costs associated with the case from the bill of costs that he had prepared earlier that day, with minor changes. Richards then copied and expanded rough minutes of the proceedings from 30 May, which he had taken contemporaneously. Finally, Richards added a few notations regarding the writ of execution—an order that authorized the city marshal to collect the costs—and the bill of costs. Richards noted on 31 May in his journal that he “finished [the] papers—— of proceedings.” As the official record of a case over which JS presided as chief justice, the docket entry is featured here. Some substantive differences between the featured docket entry and the original bill of costs and rough minutes on which it was based are noted in footnotes to the transcript.
requested to make him a copy of the official record. Richards reported in his journal that he finished making the copy for Hickok on 31 May. The municipal court’s two discharges of on 30 May proved to be highly controversial in the coming weeks. JS’s antagonists pointed to the proceedings as evidence of judicial overreach and claimed that they showed that was a haven for outlaws.

Footnotes

  1. Jordan, “Iowa’s Puzzling Jeremiah Smiths,” 353, 369, 374–375; “Arrest,” Iowa Territorial Gazette and Advertiser (Burlington), 17 Feb. 1844, [2]; “Coming the Giraffe,” Bloomington (Iowa Territory) Herald, 8 Mar. 1844, [2]; Charles B. Penrose, Washington DC, to John Deshler, Bloomington, Iowa Territory, 18 July 1843, Records of the Solicitor of the Treasury, Letters Sent, vol. 22, 4 May 1843–20 Sept. 1844, p. 68, in Territorial Papers of the United States, the Territory of Iowa, reel 30; JS, Journal, 29 May 1844.

    Jordan, Philip D. “Iowa’s Puzzling Jeremiah Smiths.” Annals of Iowa 45 (Summer 1980): 352–383.

    Iowa Territorial Gazette and Advertiser. Burlington, Iowa Territory. 1840–1846.

    Bloomington Herald. Bloomington, IA. 1840–1849.

    Territorial Papers of the United States, the Territory of Iowa, 1838–1846. National Archives Microfilm Publications, microcopy M325. 102 reels. Washington DC: National Ar- chives and Records Service, 1979.

  2. The precise relationship between the two Jeremiah Smiths is unknown, although the younger Smith indicated that there was “a distant connexion.” Efforts were sometimes made to differentiate the men by attaching the suffixes “Sr.” and “Jr.” to their names, which is reflected in the docket entry featured here by the court referring to Jeremiah Smith as “Jeremiah Smith Senior.” (Jordan, “Iowa’s Puzzling Jeremiah Smiths,” 353, 362–368; James Eakin, Washington DC, to Jeremiah Smith Jr., Burlington, Iowa Territory, 11 May 1843, Second Auditor of the Treasury, Second Auditor’s Letterbooks, vol. 31, 15 Apr. 1843–6 Jan. 1844, p. 62, in Territorial Papers of the United States, the Territory of Iowa, reel 74; Charles B. Penrose, Washington DC, to John Deshler, Bloomington, Iowa Territory, 18 July 1843, Records of the Solicitor of the Treasury, Letters Sent, vol. 22, 4 May 1843–20 Sept. 1844, pp. 67–68, in Territorial Papers of the United States, the Territory of Iowa, reel 30.)

    Jordan, Philip D. “Iowa’s Puzzling Jeremiah Smiths.” Annals of Iowa 45 (Summer 1980): 352–383.

    Territorial Papers of the United States, the Territory of Iowa, 1838–1846. National Archives Microfilm Publications, microcopy M325. 102 reels. Washington DC: National Ar- chives and Records Service, 1979.

  3. Jeremiah Smith Sr., “For the Neighbor,” Nauvoo Neighbor, 1 May 1844, [2].

    Nauvoo Neighbor. Nauvoo, IL. 1843–1845.

  4. Jordan, “Iowa’s Puzzling Jeremiah Smiths,” 368–370; Charles B. Penrose, Washington DC, to Albion K. Parris, 11 July 1843, Records of the Solicitor of the Treasury, Letters Sent, vol. 22, 4 May 1843–20 Sept. 1844, pp. 64–65, in Territorial Papers of the United States, the Territory of Iowa, reel 30.

    Jordan, Philip D. “Iowa’s Puzzling Jeremiah Smiths.” Annals of Iowa 45 (Summer 1980): 352–383.

    Territorial Papers of the United States, the Territory of Iowa, 1838–1846. National Archives Microfilm Publications, microcopy M325. 102 reels. Washington DC: National Ar- chives and Records Service, 1979.

  5. Nathaniel Pope, Warrant for Jeremiah Smith, Springfield, IL, 21 May 1844, United States v. Jeremiah Smith (D. Ill. 1844), copy, Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL. Smith was evidently charged with violating an 1823 federal statute that made it a felony to “falsely make, alter, forge, or counterfeit” any “receipt, or other writing, for the purpose of obtaining or receiving . . . from the United States, or any of their officers or agents, any sum or sums of money.” Conviction resulted in imprisonment for between one and ten years or a combination of up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine up to $1,000. (An Act for the Punishment of Frauds Committed on the Government of the United States [3 Mar. 1823], Public and General Statutes [1839], vol. 3, pp. 1917–1918, sec. 1.)

    The Public and General Statutes Passed by the Congress of the United States of America. From 1789 to 1836 Inclusive. . . . 2nd ed. Philadelphia: T. and J. W. Johnson, 1840.

  6. Charles B. Penrose, Washington DC, to Isaac Leffler, Burlington, Iowa Territory, 27 Jan. 1844, Records of the Solicitor of the Treasury, Letters Sent, vol. 22, 4 May 1843–20 Sept. 1844, pp. 288–289, in Territorial Papers of the United States, the Territory of Iowa, reel 30; John S. Dunlap, Certificate, Burlington, Iowa Territory, 21 May 1844, United States v. Jeremiah Smith (1st D. Iowa Terr., Des Moines Co. 1844), copy, Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; “Arrest,” Iowa Territorial Gazette and Advertiser (Burlington), 17 Feb. 1844, [2]; “Release from Arrest,” Iowa Territorial Gazette and Advertiser, 24 Feb. 1844, [2], italics in original; “Maj. Smith Senr.,” Iowa Territorial Gazette and Advertiser, 2 Mar. 1844, [2]; Jordan, “Iowa’s Puzzling Jeremiah Smiths,” 374–375.

    Territorial Papers of the United States, the Territory of Iowa, 1838–1846. National Archives Microfilm Publications, microcopy M325. 102 reels. Washington DC: National Ar- chives and Records Service, 1979.

    Iowa Territorial Gazette and Advertiser. Burlington, Iowa Territory. 1840–1846.

    Jordan, Philip D. “Iowa’s Puzzling Jeremiah Smiths.” Annals of Iowa 45 (Summer 1980): 352–383.

  7. Charles B. Penrose, Washington DC, to Thomas B. Johnson, Iowa Territory, 16 Apr. 1844, Records of the Solicitor of the Treasury, Letters Sent, vol. 22, 4 May 1843–20 Sept. 1844, pp. 384–385; Charles B. Penrose, Washington DC, to William M. McPherson, St. Louis, MO, 16 Apr. 1844, Records of the Solicitor of the Treasury, Letters Sent, vol. 22, 4 May 1843–20 Sept. 1844, pp. 381–383, in Territorial Papers of the United States, the Territory of Iowa, reel 30. Penrose cited section 33 of the 1789 federal judiciary act, which outlined how an officer should work with a federal or state judge to secure a fugitive. (An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States [24 Sept. 1789], Public and General Statutes [1840], pp. 66–67, sec. 33.)

    Territorial Papers of the United States, the Territory of Iowa, 1838–1846. National Archives Microfilm Publications, microcopy M325. 102 reels. Washington DC: National Ar- chives and Records Service, 1979.

    The Public and General Statutes Passed by the Congress of the United States of America. From 1789 to 1836 Inclusive. . . . 2nd ed. Philadelphia: T. and J. W. Johnson, 1840.

  8. “Sister Emma Smith,” Warsaw (IL) Signal, 25 [24] Apr. 1844, [2]; Jeremiah Smith Sr., “For the Neighbor,” Nauvoo Neighbor, 1 May 1844, [2]; see also JS, Journal, 20 Apr. 1844.

    Warsaw Signal. Warsaw, IL. 1841–1853.

    Nauvoo Neighbor. Nauvoo, IL. 1843–1845.

  9. JS, Journal, 25 Apr. 1844; see also Jordan, “Iowa’s Puzzling Jeremiah Smiths,” 362–368.

    Jordan, Philip D. “Iowa’s Puzzling Jeremiah Smiths.” Annals of Iowa 45 (Summer 1980): 352–383.

  10. The Magna Carta of 1215 included a provision that forbade arbitrary imprisonment, but it was not until the sixteenth century that English common law courts developed the writ of habeas corpus as it became understood. (Baker, Introduction to English Legal History, 156–158, 506–510; Blackstone, Commentaries, vol. 2, bk. 3, pp. 103–110; “Habeas Corpus,” in Bouvier, Law Dictionary, 1:618–620; Gregory, Power of Habeas Corpus in America, chaps. 3–4.)

    Baker, John. An Introduction to English Legal History. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.

    Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England: In Four Books; with an Analysis of the Work. By Sir William Blackstone, Knt. One of the Justices of the Court of Common Pleas. In Two Volumes, from the Eighteenth London Edition. . . . 2 vols. New York: W. E. Dean, 1840.

    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.

    Gregory, Anthony. The Power of Habeas Corpus in America: From the King's Prerogative to the War on Terror. Oakland, CA: Independent Institute, 2013.

  11. Halliday, Habeas Corpus, 102–116; Farbey and Sharpe, Law of Habeas Corpus, chap. 3; Walker, “Habeas Corpus in Early Nineteenth-Century Mormonism,” 15–21, 44. An Illinois statute explained: “No person who has been discharged by order of a court or judge, on a habeas corpus, shall be again imprisoned, restrained, or kept in custody, for the same cause, unless he be afterwards indicted for the same offence, or unless by the legal order or process of the court wherein he is bound by recognizance to appear.” (An Act Regulating the Proceeding on Writs of Habeas Corpus [22 Jan. 1827], Public and General Statute Laws of the State of Illinois [1839], p. 325, sec. 7, italics in original; see also “Acquittal, Crim. Law, Practice,” and “Discharge,” in Bouvier, Law Dictionary, 1:70, 470–471.)

    Halliday, Paul D. Habeas Corpus: From England to Empire. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2010.

    Farbey, Judith, and R. J. Sharpe. The Law of Habeas Corpus. With Simon Atrill. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

    Walker, Jeffrey N. “Habeas Corpus in Early Nineteenth-Century Mormonism: Joseph Smith’s Legal Bulwark for Personal Freedom.” BYU Studies 52, no. 1 (2013): 4–97.

    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.

    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.

  12. The statute stated: “If it appear that the prisoner is in custody by virtue of process from any court, legally constituted, he can be discharged only for some of the following causes: first, where the court has exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction, either as to the matter, place, sum, or person; second, where, though the original imprisonment was lawful, yet by some act, omission, or event, which has subsequently taken place, the party has become entitled to his discharge; third, where the process is defective in some substantial form required by law; fourth, where the process, though in proper form, has been issued in a case, or under circumstances where the law does not allow process, or orders for imprisonment or arrest to issue; fifth, where, although in proper form, the process has been issued or executed by a person either unauthorized to issue or execute the same, or where the person having the custody of the prisoner under such process is not the person empowered by law to detain him; sixth, where the process appears to have been obtained by false pretense or bribery; seventh, where there is no general law, nor any judgment, order, or decree of a court, to authorize the process, if in a civil suit, nor any conviction, if in a criminal proceeding. No court or judge, on the return of a habeas corpus, shall, in any other matter, inquire into the legality or justice of a judgment or decree of a court legally constituted.” In June 1841 an Illinois state judge declined to admit evidence regarding the 1839 treason indictment in JS’s habeas corpus proceedings resulting from the first attempt by Missouri officials to have him extradited. Similarly, in January 1843 a federal judge declined to consider evidence of JS’s guilt or innocence in the habeas corpus proceedings that resulted from Missouri officials’ second extradition attempt. (An Act Regulating the Proceeding on Writs of Habeas Corpus [22 Jan. 1827], Public and General Statute Laws of the State of Illinois [1839], pp. 323–324, sec. 3, italics in original; Historical Introduction to Extradition of JS et al. for Treason and Other Crimes; Historical Introduction to Extradition of JS for Accessory to Assault.)

    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.

  13. An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States [24 Sept. 1789], Public and General Statutes (1840), p. 59, sec. 14; see also An Act Further to Provide for the Collection of Duties on Imports [2 Mar. 1833], Public Statutes at Large, 22nd Cong., 2nd Sess., chap. 57, pp. 634–635, sec. 7.

    The Public and General Statutes Passed by the Congress of the United States of America. From 1789 to 1836 Inclusive. . . . 2nd ed. Philadelphia: T. and J. W. Johnson, 1840.

    The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from the Organization of the Government in 1789, to March 3, 1845. . . . Edited by Richard Peters. 8 vols. Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1846–1867.

  14. An Act Regulating the Proceeding on Writs of Habeas Corpus [22 Jan. 1827], Public and General Statute Laws of the State of Illinois (1839), pp. 322, 325, secs. 1, 8.

    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.

  15. In the 1830s the Illinois legislature permitted only two cities, Chicago and Alton, to operate municipal courts. Judges in both courts were authorized to issue writs of habeas corpus and to perform the same judicial duties as judges in the state’s circuit courts in habeas corpus proceedings. Furthermore, the legislature explicitly granted the Chicago Municipal Court concurrent jurisdiction over criminal and civil matters with the state circuit courts. In contrast, the Nauvoo Municipal Court was not designated by the state legislature as a circuit court but instead had jurisdiction over only city ordinances. (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; An Act to Incorporate the City of Chicago [4 Mar. 1837], Laws of the State of Illinois [1836–1837], p. 75, sec. 69; Act to Incorporate the City of Nauvoo, 16 Dec. 1840.)

    General Laws of the State of Illinois, Passed by the Eighteenth General Assembly, Convened January 3, 1853. Springfield: Lanphier and Walker, 1853.

    Incorporation Laws of the State of Illinois; Passed at a Session of the General Assembly, Begun and Held at Vandalia the 6th Day of December, 1836. Vandalia, IL; William Walters, 1837.

  16. Nauvoo city leaders defended these expansions by referencing section 11 of the charter, which authorized the city council to pass any ordinance for the benefit and well-being of the city as long as the ordinance was “not repugnant to” the constitutions of the United States and the state of Illinois. (Act to Incorporate the City of Nauvoo, 16 Dec. 1840; “Persecution,” Times and Seasons, 15 Aug. 1842, 3:888–889; Emma Smith, Nauvoo, IL, to Thomas Carlin, [Quincy, IL], 27 Aug. 1842; “Vested Rights of Nauvoo,” Nauvoo Neighbor, 30 Aug. 1843, [2]–[3]; Historical Introduction to Discourse, 30 June 1843; see also Oaks, “Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor,” 880–881; and Kimball, “Nauvoo Charter,” 73–75.)

    Nauvoo Neighbor. Nauvoo, IL. 1843–1845.

    Oaks, Dallin H. “The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor.” Utah Law Review 9 (Winter 1965): 862–903.

    Kimball, James L., Jr. “A Wall to Defend Zion: The Nauvoo Charter.” BYU Studies 15, no. 4 (Summer 1975): 491–497.

  17. Ordinance, 5 July 1842; Nauvoo City Council Minute Book, 8 Aug. and 9 Sept. 1842, 98, 101; Ordinance, 14 Nov. 1842.

  18. See, for example, Nauvoo Municipal Court Docket Book, 8, 51–52, 55–56, 91–93; Ordinance, 8 Dec. 1843; and “Public Meeting,” Nauvoo Neighbor, 13 Dec. 1843, [2]; see also Letter to Thomas Ford, 22–23 June 1844. 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).” (“Persecution,” Times and Seasons, 15 Aug. 1842, 3:888–889.)

    Nauvoo Municipal Court Docket Book / Nauvoo, IL, Municipal Court. “Docket of the Municipal Court of the City of Nauvoo,” ca. 1843–1845. In Historian's Office, Historical Record Book, 1843–1874, pp. 51–150 and pp. 1–19 (second numbering). CHL. MS 3434.

    Nauvoo Neighbor. Nauvoo, IL. 1843–1845.

  19. See Historical Introduction to Petition to Nauvoo Municipal Court, 30 June 1843; Discourse, 30 June 1843; “An Enquiry,” Warsaw (IL) Message, 18 Oct. 1843, [1]; and Letter from Henry T. Hugins, 6 June 1844.

    Warsaw Message. Warsaw, IL. 1843–1844.

  20. Jeremiah Smith, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Nauvoo, IL, 16 May 1844, United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A (Nauvoo Mun. Ct. 1844), Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL. On 6 May, JS and Jeremiah Smith discussed Emma Smith’s 1842 correspondence with Illinois governor Thomas Carlin, in which she explained and defended the municipal court’s unique habeas corpus powers. (JS, Journal, 6 May 1844; Emma Smith, Nauvoo, IL, to Thomas Carlin, [Quincy, IL], 16 [17] Aug. 1842; Thomas Carlin, Quincy, IL, to Emma Smith, [Nauvoo, IL], 24 Aug. 1842; Emma Smith, Nauvoo, IL, to Thomas Carlin, [Quincy, IL], 27 Aug. 1842; Thomas Carlin, Quincy, IL, to Emma Smith, [Nauvoo, IL], 7 Sept. 1842.)

  21. JS, Journal, 25 Apr. 1844; Willard Richards, Writ of Habeas Corpus, Nauvoo, IL, 16 May 1844, United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A (Nauvoo Mun. Ct. 1844), Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL.

  22. William Bennum, Warrant for Jeremiah Smith, Appanoose, IL, 13 May 1844, United States v. Jeremiah Smith (J.P. Ct. 1844), copy; Willard Richards, Writ of Habeas Corpus, Nauvoo, IL, 16 May 1844, United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A (Nauvoo Mun. Ct. 1844), Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; “Whig Convention,” Warsaw (IL) Signal, Extra, 29 June 1848, [2].

    Warsaw Signal. Warsaw, IL. 1841–1853.

  23. Clayton, Journal, 14 May 1844.

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

  24. McCance noted the date of the arrest in his return notation on the warrant. (William Bennum, Warrant for Jeremiah Smith, Appanoose, IL, 13 May 1844, United States v. Jeremiah Smith [J.P. Ct. 1844], copy, Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL.)

  25. Jeremiah Smith, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Nauvoo, IL, 16 May 1844; Willard Richards, Writ of Habeas Corpus, Nauvoo, IL, 16 May 1844, United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A (Nauvoo Mun. Ct. 1844), Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL. Greene served the writ of habeas corpus by leaving a copy with McCance, who wrote his return on the copy. (Willard Richards, Writ of Habeas Corpus, Nauvoo, IL, 16 May 1844, United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A [Nauvoo Mun. Ct. 1844], copy, Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL.)

  26. Minutes, Nauvoo, IL, 16 May 1844, United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A (Nauvoo Mun. Ct. 1844), Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL.

  27. Under Illinois law, the judge or court reviewing a prisoner’s detention focused the inquiry on the detaining officer’s return notation, which summarized the grounds of the detention. The officer was normally present in court to make the return, and the court directed questions to the officer. Although the Nauvoo Municipal Court also followed this process, the court additionally sought to determine whether the initial charges were motivated “through private pique, malicious intent, religious or other persecution, falsehood, or misrepresentation.” This regularly involved questioning the original complainant, if he or she was willing to appear in court, and assessing him or her the court costs if the prisoner was discharged. (An Act Regulating the Proceeding on Writs of Habeas Corpus [22 Jan. 1827], Public and General Statute Laws of the State of Illinois [1839], p. 323, sec. 3; “Habeas Corpus,” in Bouvier, Law Dictionary, 1:618; Nauvoo City Council Minute Book, 8 Aug. 1842, 98; see also, for example, Nauvoo Municipal Court Docket Book, 52, 93.)

    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.

    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.

    Nauvoo Municipal Court Docket Book / Nauvoo, IL, Municipal Court. “Docket of the Municipal Court of the City of Nauvoo,” ca. 1843–1845. In Historian's Office, Historical Record Book, 1843–1874, pp. 51–150 and pp. 1–19 (second numbering). CHL. MS 3434.

  28. See Docket Entry, 30–31 May 1844.

  29. Richards, Journal, 18–19 May 1844; see also Minutes, Nauvoo, IL, 16 May 1844, United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A (Nauvoo Mun. Ct. 1844), Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL.

    Richards, Willard. Journals, 1836–1853. Willard Richards, Papers, 1821–1854. CHL. MS 1490, boxes 1–2.

  30. Richards, Journal, 30 May 1844.

    Richards, Willard. Journals, 1836–1853. Willard Richards, Papers, 1821–1854. CHL. MS 1490, boxes 1–2.

  31. See Willard Richards, Bill of Costs, Nauvoo, IL, 30 May 1844, United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A (Nauvoo Mun. Ct. 1844), Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL.

  32. See Minutes, Nauvoo, IL, 30 May 1844, United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A (Nauvoo Mun. Ct. 1844), Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL, and Nauvoo, IL, Mayor’s Court, Papers, CHL.

  33. Richards, Journal, 31 May 1844.

    Richards, Willard. Journals, 1836–1853. Willard Richards, Papers, 1821–1854. CHL. MS 1490, boxes 1–2.

  34. See Historical Introduction to United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A and United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B.

  35. JS, Journal, 30 May 1844; Richards, Journal, 31 May 1844.

    Richards, Willard. Journals, 1836–1853. Willard Richards, Papers, 1821–1854. CHL. MS 1490, boxes 1–2.

  36. See Editorial, Nauvoo Expositor, 7 June 1844, [3]; “Jerry Smith Captured,” Warsaw (IL) Signal, 5 June 1844, [2]; Letter from Henry T. Hugins, 6 June 1844; Letter from Luther Hickok, 6 June 1844; and James W. Brattle, Carthage, IL, to Charles Brattle, Pittsfield, MA, 5 July 1844, [1]–[2], Brattle Family Correspondence, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University, New Haven, CT.

    Warsaw Signal. Warsaw, IL. 1841–1853.

    Brattle Family Correspondence, 1834–1866. Western Americana Collection. Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University, New Haven, CT.

Go to previous page 2

Page 99

discharge the . let them do it: Let them do it. 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 not say against you as 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​> Excution 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]
View entire transcript

|

Cite this page

Source Note

Document Transcript

Go to previous page 2

Page 99

Document Information

Related Case Documents
Editorial Title
Docket Entry, 18–31 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A]
ID #
10632
Total Pages
3
Print Volume Location
Handwriting on This Page
  • Willard Richards

Footnotes

  1. In his note to Johnson, Penrose noted that “a Law of the S[tate] can not infringe upon the Law of U. S.” (Charles B. Penrose, Note, Washington DC, between 16 and 30 May 1844, United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A [Nauvoo Mun. Ct. 1844], Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL.)

  2. See Helaman 4:22; Matthew 7:6; and 1 Nephi 19:7.

  3. The Nauvoo charter required the mayor and aldermen—the men who as justices composed the municipal court—to “take and subscribe an oath or affirmation that they will support the Constitution of the United States, and of this State, and that they will well and truly perform the duties of their offices to the best of their skill and abilities.” (Act to Incorporate the City of Nauvoo, 16 Dec. 1840.)

  4. The United States Constitution stated that “the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” (U.S. Constitution, art. 1, sec. 9.)

  5. JS as Mayor, Subpoena for Jeremiah Smith Jr., Nauvoo, IL, 18 May 1844, United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A (Nauvoo Mun. Ct. 1844), Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL. There is no evidence that the younger Jeremiah Smith appeared in Nauvoo.

  6. Willard Richards, Execution, Nauvoo, IL, 30 May 1844, United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A (Nauvoo Mun. Ct. 1844), Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL.

  7. On the verso of the bill of costs, Johnson noted, “I do certify that the within Servises ware [were] renderd” and then signed his name as “Agent of the United States for the within named case.” (Willard Richards, Bill of Costs, Nauvoo, IL, 30 May 1844, United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A [Nauvoo Mun. Ct. 1844], Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL, underlining in original.)

  8. The bill of costs lacks an entry for the added charge and therefore there is no accompanying acknowledgment by Johnson. However, when Richards copied the fees into the docket entry, he included the fee for the two policemen guarding Jeremiah Smith. Richards noted in JS’s journal for 26 May 1844 that JS posted policemen “to protect” Smith in response to rumors that vigilantes intended to seize him. It is unclear whether these policemen were the same as those included in the docket entry bill of costs or were assigned in addition to them. (JS, Journal, 26 May 1844.)

Go to page