Skip to main content

Petition to Nauvoo Municipal Court, 12 June 1844 [State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus]

  1. Home > 
  2. The Papers > 
Introduction to State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–A, State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus, State of Illinois v. H. Smith et al. on Habeas Corpus, and State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–B Warrant, 11 June 1844 [State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–A] Warrant, 11 June 1844, William Clayton Copy [State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–A] Warrant, 11 June 1844, John Taylor and Willard Richards Copy [State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–A] Recognizance, 25 June 1844–A [State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–A] Recognizance, 25 June 1844–B [State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–A] Recognizance, 25 June 1844–C [State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–A] Recognizance, 25 June 1844–D [State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–A] Petition to Nauvoo Municipal Court, 12 June 1844 [State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus] Habeas Corpus, 12 June 1844 [State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus] Summons, 12 June 1844 [State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus] Minutes, 12 June 1844 [State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus] Testimonies, 12 June 1844 [State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus] Docket Entry, circa 12 June 1844 [State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus] Execution, 13 June 1844 [State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus] Trial Report, between circa 12 and 20 June 1844, Draft [State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus] Trial Report, between circa 12 and 20 June 1844, Partial Draft [State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus] Petition, 13 June 1844 [State of Illinois v. H. Smith et al. on Habeas Corpus] Habeas Corpus, 13 June 1844 [State of Illinois v. H. Smith et al. on Habeas Corpus] Habeas Corpus, 13 June 1844, Copy [State of Illinois v. H. Smith et al. on Habeas Corpus] Execution, 13 June 1844 [State of Illinois v. H. Smith et al. on Habeas Corpus] Docket Entry, circa 13 June 1844 [State of Illinois v. H. Smith et al. on Habeas Corpus]

Petition to Nauvoo Municipal Court, 12 June 1844 [State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus]

Source Note

JS, Petition, to Nauvoo Municipal Court, , Hancock Co., IL, 12 June 1844, State of IL v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus (Nauvoo, IL, Municipal Court 1844); handwriting of ; signature of JS; certified by , 12 June 1844; two pages; JS Collection, CHL. Included enclosure; includes docket, notation, use marks, and archival marking.
Bifolium measuring 12½ × 7¾ inches (32 × 20 cm), with approximately thirty-eight printed lines (now faded) per page. There is residue of a red wafer near the top of the recto of the second leaf, where the 11 June 1844 warrant was attached. The document was folded in half twice horizontally for filing. The date of the document was later typed at the top of the recto of the first leaf.
This document was presumably kept among city records. In 1845 the city of Nauvoo was disincorporated. Many if not most of the city records were likely included in the various collections of city records listed in an inventory produced by the Church Historian’s Office (later Church Historical Department) in 1846, when they were packed up along with church records and taken to the Salt Lake Valley. The document was docketed by Jonathan Grimshaw, who served as a clerk in the Church Historian’s Office from 1853 to 1856. The city records are also listed in inventories of church records created in 1855, 1878, and circa 1904. The notation “A.J” was written in graphite by Andrew Jenson, who began working in the Church Historian’s Office in 1891 and served as assistant church historian from 1897 to 1941. By 1973 the document had been included in the JS Collection at the Church Historical Department (now CHL). The petition’s probable inclusion in the Nauvoo city records listed in early church inventories, its docket and notation, and its later inclusion in the JS Collection indicate continuous church custody since 1845.

Footnotes

  1. “An Act to Repeal the Nauvoo Charter,” 14th General Assembly, 1844–1845, Senate Bill no. 35 (House Bill no. 42), Illinois General Assembly, Enrolled Acts of the General Assembly, 1818–2018, Illinois State Archives, Springfield.

    Illinois General Assembly. Bills, Resolutions, and Related General Assembly Records, 1st–98th Bienniums, 1819–2015. Illinois State Archives, Springfield.

  2. “Schedule of Church Records. Nauvoo 1846,” [1], Historian’s Office, Catalogs and Inventories, 1846–1904, CHL.

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

  3. Historian’s Office, Journal, 7 June 1853; Wilford Woodruff, Great Salt Lake City, Utah Territory, to George A. Smith, 30 Aug. 1856, in Historian’s Office, Letterpress Copybooks, vol. 1, p. 364. Grimshaw mistakenly wrote the date as “June 12th 1856,” which suggests that he docketed the petition in 1856. Grimshaw also copied the petition into the manuscript history in 1856. (JS History, vol. F-1, 88–89; Jessee, “Writing of Joseph Smith’s History,” 441.)

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

    Historian’s Office. Letterpress Copybooks, 1854–1879, 1885–1886. CHL. CR 100 38.

    Jessee, Dean C. “The Writing of Joseph Smith’s History.” BYU Studies 11 (Summer 1971): 439–473.

  4. “Inventory. Historian’s Office. 4th April 1855,” [1]–[2]; “Index of Records and Journals in the Historian’s Office 1878,” [11]; “Index to Papers in the Historians Office,” ca. 1904, 7, Historian’s Office, Catalogs and Inventories, 1846–1904, CHL.

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

  5. Jenson, Autobiography, 192, 389; Cannon, Journal, 9 Feb. 1891; Jenson, Journal, 9 Feb. 1891 and 19 Oct. 1897; Bitton and Arrington, Mormons and Their Historians, 47–52.

    Jenson, Andrew. Autobiography of Andrew Jenson: Assistant Historian of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. . . . Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1938.

    Cannon, George Q. Journals, 1855–1864, 1872–1901. CHL. CR 850 1.

    Jenson, Andrew. Journals, 1864–1941. Andrew Jenson, Autobiography and Journals, 1864–1941. CHL.

    Bitton, David, and Leonard J. Arrington. Mormons and Their Historians. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1988.

  6. See the full bibliographic entry for JS Collection, 1827–1844, in the CHL catalog.

Historical Introduction

On 12 June 1844, JS petitioned the municipal court of , Illinois, for a writ of after being arrested for his role in the 10 June of the Nauvoo Expositor’s press as a nuisance. On 11 June one of the proprietors of the Expositor, former member , had filed a complaint before , Illinois, justice of the peace , who lived in , Illinois. Higbee, who witnessed the demolition of the press, alleged in the complaint that JS and seventeen other men had “unlawfully & with force” destroyed the press of the Expositor. The order of names in the complaint suggests that Higbee was targeting two groups of men: The first group comprised JS and four other members of the city council—alderman , city councilors and , and city councilor pro tempore —which declared the press a nuisance and resolved to destroy it. Another acting member of the city council, , was listed with the second group, which comprised the city marshal, ; the acting major general of the , ; and other individuals who evidently assisted in the physical dismantling of the press.
Based on the complaint, issued a warrant the same day stating that the named men “with force & violence broke into the printing office of the Nauvoo Expositor and unlawfully & with force burned & destroyed the printing press, type & fixtures of the same.” The warrant classified their actions as a , which Illinois law defined as “an unlawful act” performed by two or more people “with force or violence against the person or property of another, with or without a common cause of quarrel.” The law also indicated that a riot could be “a lawful act” performed “in a violent and tumultuous manner.” Conviction resulted in a fine of up to $200 or imprisonment of up to six months. Although it was not explicitly reflected in the language of the warrant, Morrison may have viewed JS and the four other members of the city council, who did not physically participate in the destruction of the press, as accessories to the riot. If convicted, accessories under law received the same punishment as principals.
On 12 June, constable served the warrant by arresting JS in . He intended to take JS to for a preliminary examination before . JS, however, feared that his life would be in danger in Carthage—the county seat and a nexus for antagonism against the church. He therefore declined to accompany Bettisworth to Carthage. Instead, he sought a legal remedy for himself within the safety of Nauvoo. JS noted that the warrant allowed Bettisworth to take the individuals named therein before Morrison “or some other justice of the Peace” in the and asked to be taken before , a justice of the peace who lived in Nauvoo and was a member of the church. According to , Bettisworth insisted that JS was required to appear before Morrison and “seemed very wrathy.” In response, JS instead sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Nauvoo Municipal Court. Although Bettisworth reportedly later claimed that JS “had resisted the law” during the arrest, the constable nevertheless allowed JS to prepare a petition for the writ of habeas corpus with the assistance of Nauvoo city attorney , who acted as scribe.
JS’s petition followed the requirements outlined in a November 1842 city ordinance, which stated that when an individual was “detained for any criminal or supposed criminal matter,” it was lawful to submit a signed petition to the municipal court for a writ of habeas corpus. In accordance with the ordinance, the petition identified as the officer who held JS in custody, and it summarized ’s warrant and ’s complaint. The petition then gave three arguments justifying JS’s request for a writ of habeas corpus from the court: First, Morrison’s warrant was defective because it did not “disclose sufficently” the crime with which JS was charged. Second, Higbee was motivated to make his complaint by malice toward JS and was part of “a conspiracy against” JS’s life. Third, JS was not guilty of riot and was requesting the municipal court to investigate the merits of the charge against him. JS signed the petition, and , clerk of the municipal court, certified it. Because the November 1842 ordinance required the petitioner to attach a copy of the authority, usually an arrest warrant, upon which the detention was made, , one of JS’s scribes, prepared a copy of Morrison’s 11 June 1844 warrant, which was then attached to the petition’s second leaf with a wafer.
JS submitted the petition and the attached warrant to as the clerk of the court. After receiving the documents, Richards granted the petition by issuing a writ of habeas corpus, filling in blanks on a printed form. The writ was directed to and commanded to produce JS before the municipal court “together with the day and cause of his caption and detention.” After Greene served the writ on Bettisworth, the constable wrote a return notation on the copy of the warrant stating that he held JS in custody based on ’s original warrant. On 12 June, at about five o’clock in the afternoon, associate justices , , , , and , with acting as president pro tempore of the court in JS’s place, convened at the to review the legality of JS’s detention. The court first reviewed the legal basis of the city council’s resolution to declare the Expositor a nuisance. The justices then heard witnesses who described the orderly manner in which the press had been destroyed. In addition, several witnesses testified regarding threats allegedly made by against JS and others in . The court ruled that JS “had acted under proper authority” in ordering the destruction of the press, that his orders “were executed in an orderly. & judices manner. without noise or tumult,” and that JS should “be honorably discharged from the accusati[o]ns and of the writ.” The court further held that Higbee had instituted “a malices prosecution” against JS and should pay the $22.12½ costs of the habeas corpus proceedings. The municipal court’s discharge of JS further fueled the combustible situation in , as the church’s opponents contended that the Nauvoo Municipal Court had obstructed Bettisworth’s efforts to arrest JS.
As the November 1842 ordinance required a petition to include a copy of the warrant to be considered valid, both the petition and the copy of the warrant submitted to the court are featured here.
See also Introduction to State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–A, State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus, State of Illinois v. H. Smith et al. on Habeas Corpus, and State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–B.

Footnotes

  1. See “Part 2: 7–11 June 1844”; see also Historical Introduction to State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–A, State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus, State of Illinois v. H. Smith et al. on Habeas Corpus, and State of Illinois v. JS et al. for Riot–B.

  2. “Meeting of the Bar,” Warsaw (IL) Signal, 5 May 1849, [1].

    Warsaw Signal. Warsaw, IL. 1841–1853.

  3. Although the complaint is apparently not extant, Morrison summarized it in the warrant he issued the same day for the arrest of JS and the men named therein, a copy of which is featured here with the petition.

  4. An Act Relative to Criminal Jurisprudence [26 Feb. 1833], Public and General Statute Laws of the State of Illinois (1839), p. 220, sec. 117.

    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.

  5. Illinois law defined an accessory as someone “who stands by and aids, abets, or assists; or who not being present aiding, abetting, or assisting, hath advised and encouraged the perpetration of the crime. He or she, who thus aids, abets, or assists, advises, or encourages, shall be deemed and considered as principal, and punished accordingly.” If convicted, an accessory would face the same punishment as a principal in the crime. The question of whether JS and the other city councilors could be tried as accessories for the destruction of the press was discussed at legal proceedings held on 17 June 1844. (An Act Relative to Criminal Jurisprudence [26 Feb. 1833], Public and General Statute Laws of the State of Illinois [1839], p. 201, sec. 13; Historical Introduction to Statement, 17 June 1844.)

    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.

  6. JS, Journal, 12 June 1844.

  7. See Warsaw (IL) Signal, Extra, 14 June 1844, [1].

    Warsaw Signal. Warsaw, IL. 1841–1853.

  8. Clayton, Journal, 12 June 1844. According to Clayton, JS also asserted that appearing before Johnson was the defendants’ “privilege allowed by the Statute.” However, it is uncertain whether JS was aware that the Illinois law governing arrests contained an additional clause not included in the warrant, stating that the arresting officer should bring the detained individual “before the officer issuing said warrant, or in case of his absence, before any other judge or justice of the peace” of the county. (An Act to Regulate the Apprehension of Offenders, and for Other Purposes [6 Jan. 1827], Public and General Statute Laws of the State of Illinois [1839], p. 238, sec. 3, italics added; see also Oaks, “Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor,” 864n11.)

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

    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.

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

  9. For more information on writs of habeas corpus and the Nauvoo Municipal Court, see Historical Introduction to Docket Entry, 18–31 May 1844.

  10. Events of June 1844; Nauvoo City Council Minute Book, 13 Apr. 1844, 207.

  11. Ordinance, 14 Nov. 1842.

  12. See Ordinance, 14 Nov. 1842.

  13. The November 1842 ordinance indicated that a petition should be submitted to the municipal court clerk when the court was not in session. (Ordinance, 14 Nov. 1842.)

  14. Willard Richards, Writ of Habeas Corpus, Nauvoo, IL, 12 June 1844, State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus (Nauvoo Mun. Ct. 1844), Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL.

  15. Bettisworth arrested JS on 12 June 1844 and waited until the following day to detain the other men named in the warrant, as evidenced by three return notations that Bettisworth inscribed, with assistance from Richards, on the copied warrant; Bettisworth signed each return.

  16. Clayton, Journal, 12 June 1844; Docket Entry, Nauvoo, IL, ca. 12 June 1844, State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus (Nauvoo Mun. Ct. 1844), Nauvoo Municipal Court Docket Book, 108; Nauvoo City Council Minute Book, 8 Aug. 1842, 98–99. Although JS, as the petitioner, recused himself from his duties as chief justice, Samuel Bennett did not, even though he was one of JS’s codefendants, having been named in Morrison’s warrant.

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

  17. The court reviewed the addendum to the act incorporating Nauvoo, or Nauvoo charter, that gave the city council power “to declare what shall be a nuisance, and to prevent and remove the same.” The justices then examined the city council’s 10 June 1844 resolution declaring the Expositor a nuisance and JS’s orders to the city marshal and the Nauvoo Legion to abate the nuisance. (Docket Entry, Nauvoo, IL, ca. 12 June 1844, State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus [Nauvoo Mun. Ct. 1844], Nauvoo Municipal Court Docket Book, 108; Act to Incorporate the City of Nauvoo, 16 Dec. 1840; see also Resolution, 10 June 1844; Mayor’s Order to Nauvoo City Marshal, 10 June 1844; and Military Order to Jonathan Dunham, 10 June 1844.)

  18. Although eighteen witnesses were sworn, scribes recorded substantive testimonies for only eleven men: Cyrus Canfield, William Clayton, Joseph Dalton, John Hughes, James Jackson, John McEwan, Orrin Porter Rockwell, Henry G. Sherwood, Leonard Soby, Theodore Turley, and John R. Wakefield. The scribes also recorded the names of Robert Cleft, Augustus A. Farnhorn, John Gleason, James Goff, John Kay, Joseph A. Kelting, and Augustus Stafford without accompanying testimonies. (Docket Entry, Nauvoo, IL, ca. 12 June 1844, State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus [Nauvoo Mun. Ct. 1844], Nauvoo Municipal Court Docket Book, 108–110.)

  19. Docket Entry, Nauvoo, IL, ca. 12 June 1844, State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus (Nauvoo Mun. Ct. 1844), Nauvoo Municipal Court Docket Book, 110.

  20. See Historical Introduction to Statement, 17 June 1844.

Page [1]

Go to next page 2
State of Illinois)
City of )
To the Honorable Municipal Court in and for the said city of —
Your Petitioner Joseph Smith respectfully represents that he is now under arrest in the said city of —
That he is in the custody of one a constable in and <​for​> the said County of who holds your Petitioner as he says by virtue of a Warrant issued by one an acting Justice of the Peace in and for the said County of — State of Illinois, which warrant was issued upon the affidavit of one charging your Petitioner with being guilty of a or of Having committed a riot within the aforesaid—
Your Petitioner further represents that the warrant of arrest by virtue of which the said has made this arrest— does not disclose sufficently clear and explicit the charge they have prefered—
Your Petitioner further avers that this proceeding against him have <​has​> been instituted through malice Private pique & corruption
Your Petitioner further avers that the design and intention of the said in commencing this prosecution is to commit and carry <​out​> more easily a conspiracy against the Life of your Petitioner that the said has publicly declared that it was his determinnation to do every thing in his power to [p. [1]]
View entire transcript

|

Cite this page

Source Note

Document Transcript

Page [1]

Go to next page 2

Document Information

Related Case Documents
Editorial Title
Petition to Nauvoo Municipal Court, 12 June 1844 [State of Illinois v. JS for Riot on Habeas Corpus]
ID #
1394
Total Pages
4
Print Volume Location
Handwriting on This Page
  • George Stiles

Footnotes

  1. The arrest warrant alleged that JS and others “did . . . commit a riot.” However, JS may have been arguing that the charge was insufficiently explicit because it seemed to imply that JS had directly participated in the riotous destruction, when he had not, instead of explicitly stating that JS was being charged as an accessory to the riot. At a hearing held before Justice of the Peace Daniel H. Wells on 17 June 1844, the question of whether JS could be tried as an accessory to the alleged riot was central to his defense. (Historical Introduction to Statement, 17 June 1844.)

Go to page