Skip to main content

Docket Entry, 30–31 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B]

  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, 30–31 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B]

Source Note

Docket Entry, , Hancock Co., IL, [30–31 May 1844], United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B (Nauvoo, IL, Municipal Court 1844); Nauvoo Municipal Court Docket Book, 100–102; handwriting of ; Historian’s Office, Historical Record Book, 1841–1874, CHL. Includes redaction and use mark. For more complete source information, see the source note for Docket Entry, 18–31 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A].

Historical Introduction

On 30–31 May 1844, , clerk of the , Illinois, municipal court, inscribed an entry in the court’s docket book for a hearing over which JS presided as chief justice. The entry summarized the second habeas corpus proceedings held on 30 May for , who was accused of obtaining money under false pretenses from the government. Earlier in the day, the municipal court had discharged Smith after , a former United States marshal who had been deputized for the pursuit of Smith, refused to recognize the municipal court’s jurisdiction in the case. Following the discharge, —an physician who had been deputized along with Johnson—arrested Smith on a warrant from Judge of the United States District Court for . Although Pope had given the warrant to , the United States marshal for Illinois, Prentiss had in turn authorized Hickok to serve it.
In response to ’s arrest, ’s attorneys submitted a petition for a new writ of habeas corpus. This petition argued that ’s warrant was invalid, that Hickok was not authorized to serve it, and that the initial charge was motivated by “private pique malice & corruption.” In addition, the petition claimed that Smith had “been twice acquitted & discharged” by authorized courts, referencing February 1844 proceedings before an federal district court and the municipal court’s hearing held earlier on 30 May. issued a printed writ of habeas corpus and filled in the information for Smith. city marshal then served a copy of the writ on Hickok in the courtroom. Hickok apparently declined to write a return notation explaining the grounds upon which he held Smith in custody, as required by Nauvoo law, but the court permitted him to report this information orally.
Around midday on 30 May, the court, with JS presiding, convened and called on to defend his claim on . was also present and participated in the subsequent discussion over whether the hearing should focus on procedural issues surrounding ’s warrant and Hickok’s authority to serve it or whether the court could hold a trial “on the merits of the [federal government’s] case” against Smith. At 1:00 p.m., the court adjourned for lunch. The court reconvened two hours later to hear arguments from , an lawyer, and , a attorney, for why the court should discharge the prisoner. They also submitted to the court a certificate from the federal district court in Iowa Territory attesting that it had discharged Smith in February 1844. Based on the previous proceedings and the court’s understanding of double jeopardy, the municipal court discharged Smith from arrest.
wrote in his journal that he worked into the night on 30 May preparing the entry for the case in the municipal court’s docket book. He presumably based the account on contemporaneous minutes and a bill of costs, as he did for the docket entry he entered for the proceedings held earlier, on 16 and 30 May. In the left margin, Richards listed the twenty-one dollars in costs accrued during the proceedings. 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.
Despite JS’s defense of the municipal court’s habeas corpus powers, and remained unconvinced that the court’s discharge of Smith nullified ’s warrant or their responsibility to deliver him to the judge. Johnson threatened to return to with federal dragoons to take . Hickok evidently took a less confrontational approach and persuaded JS to permit him to serve Pope’s warrant and convey Smith to , Illinois. Sometime after the second discharge on 30 May, JS had his clerk write a letter introducing Smith and to Pope. Hickok also requested a copy of the municipal court’s records for the case, presumably for the appearance before Pope. The court’s two discharges of Jeremiah Smith on 30 May were highly controversial in the ensuing weeks. JS’s antagonists pointed to the proceedings as evidence of judicial overreach and claimed that they showed that Nauvoo was a haven for outlaws.

Footnotes

  1. JS, Journal, 25 Apr. 1844; Historical Introduction to Docket Entry, 18–31 May 1844.

  2. Historical Introduction to Docket Entry, 18–31 May 1844; Jordan, “Iowa’s Puzzling Jeremiah Smiths,” 375; History of Des Moines County, Iowa, 480; “Died,” Burlington (IA) Hawk-Eye, 2 May 1850, [3]; Isaac Leffler, Statement, Burlington, Iowa Territory, 19 Feb. 1846, Records of the Solicitor of the Treasury, Letters Received from U.S. Attorneys, Marshals, and Clerks of Court, Iowa, 4 July 1838–20 June 1849, in Territorial Papers of the United States, the Territory of Iowa, reel 30; Nathaniel Pope, Warrant for Jeremiah Smith, Springfield, IL, 21 May 1844, United States v. Jeremiah Smith (D. Ill. 1844), copy, Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL.

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

    The History of Des Moines County, Iowa, Containing a History of the County, Its Cities, Towns, &c., a Biographical Directory of Citizens . . . Chicago: Western Historical Co., 1879.

    Burlington Hawk-Eye. Burlington, IA. 1845–1851?.

    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. Hickok attempted to arrest Smith on 29 May but was evidently unable to do so, as Smith was still in the custody of the municipal court. The petition was initially dated 29 May, but it was updated to 30 May when it was submitted. (JS, Journal, 29 May 1844; Jeremiah Smith, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Nauvoo, IL, 30 May 1844, United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B [Nauvoo Mun. Ct. 1844], Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; see also Nauvoo City Council Minute Book, 8 Aug. 1842, 98.)

  4. Jeremiah Smith, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Nauvoo, IL, 30 May 1844, United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B (Nauvoo Mun. Ct. 1844); 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.

  5. The copy given to Hickok is apparently not extant, but Richards did not mention in the docket entry that Hickok wrote a return on it, as Richards usually did. (Willard Richards, Writ of Habeas Corpus, Nauvoo, IL, 30 May 1844, United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B [Nauvoo Mun. Ct. 1844], Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; Ordinance, 14 Nov. 1842; see also, for example, Nauvoo Municipal Court Docket Book, 87, 91.)

    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.

  6. See Historical Introduction to Docket Entry, 18–31 May 1844.

  7. Richards, Journal, 30 May 1844.

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

  8. See Historical Introduction to Docket Entry, 18–31 May 1844. The minutes and bill of costs for the second case are apparently not extant.

  9. Richards, Journal, 31 May 1844.

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

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

  11. JS, Journal, 30 May 1844; Affidavit from Henry T. Hugins, 31 May 1844. Johnson also attempted, unsuccessfully, to have the justices of the Nauvoo Municipal Court indicted by a federal grand jury in the United States District Court in Springfield, Illinois. (Letter from Luther Hickok, 6 June 1844; Letter from Henry T. Hugins, 6 June 1844; Letter from Henry T. Hugins, 17 June 1844.)

  12. Letter of Introduction to Nathaniel Pope for Jeremiah Smith and Henry T. Hugins, 30 May 1844.

  13. JS, Journal, 30 May 1844; see also Letter from Luther Hickok, 6 June 1844.

  14. 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, p. 139 herein; 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 102

Territory of Iowa is sufficient to authorize the discharge of the because the constitution says no person shall twice be put in Jeopardy of life for the same offence. The decision of the court is that the be discharged on all the points, for which has been made in his behalf. and that be entered again[s]t the prosecutor for costs, [p. 102]
View entire transcript

|

Cite this page

Source Note

Document Transcript

Go to previous page 2

Page 102

Document Information

Related Case Documents
Editorial Title
Docket Entry, 30–31 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B]
ID #
10651
Total Pages
3
Print Volume Location
Handwriting on This Page
  • Willard Richards

Footnotes

  1. The judges referenced the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which stated that no person would “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” However, Smith’s February 1844 discharge by Iowa Territory judge Charles Mason did not function as an acquittal, which would have served as a “bar to any future prosecution for the same offence as that contained in the first indictment.” Rather, Mason discharged Jeremiah Smith, or released him from custody, meaning he could be tried again without triggering the double jeopardy clause. (U.S. Constitution, amend. 5; “Acquittal, Crim. Law, Practice,” and “Discharge,” in Bouvier, Law Dictionary, 1:70, 470.)

    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.

Go to page