The Papers
Browse the PapersDocumentsJournalsAdministrative RecordsRevelations and TranslationsHistoriesLegal RecordsFinancial RecordsOther Contemporary Papers
Reference
PeoplePlacesEventsGlossaryLegal GlossaryFinancial GlossaryCalendar of DocumentsWorks CitedFeatured TopicsLesson PlansRelated Publications
Media
VideosPhotographsIllustrationsChartsMapsPodcasts
News
Current NewsArchiveNewsletterSubscribeJSP Conferences
About
About the ProjectJoseph Smith and His PapersFAQAwardsEndorsementsReviewsEditorial MethodNote on TranscriptionsNote on Images of People and PlacesReferencing the ProjectCiting This WebsiteProject TeamContact Us
Published Volumes
  1. Home > 
  2. The Papers > 

Letter to Justin Butterfield, 16 January 1843

Source Note

, agent, on behalf of JS, Letter, , Hancock Co., IL, to , [, Sangamon Co., IL], 16 Jan. 1843. Featured version copied [ca. 16 Jan. 1843]; handwriting of ; three pages; Newel K. Whitney, Papers, BYU. Includes docket and archival marking.
Bifolium measuring 10 × 7⅞ inches (25 × 20 cm) when folded. It is ruled with twenty-six lines printed in brown ink that are slightly slanted on the page and now heavily faded. The upper left corner of the first recto is embossed with a circular stamp, now illegible. The letter was folded twice horizontally and docketed for filing. Water damage has resulted in faded text along fold lines.
The document was docketed by , who inscribed the letter and served as JS’s scribe from 1842 to 1844. The docket reads, “Copy of a letter to Esqr | dated Jany 16 1843.” In late 1844, following JS’s death, became one of the interim church trustees and was appointed “first bishop” among other bishops. It was presumably during this time that many of the church’s financial and other administrative records passed into his possession. This document, along with many other personal and institutional documents that Whitney kept, was inherited by Newel K. and ’s daughter Mary Jane Whitney, who was married to Isaac Groo. The documents were passed down within the Groo family. Between 1969 and 1974, the Groo family donated their collection of Newel K. Whitney’s papers to the J. Reuben Clark Library (renamed Harold B. Lee Library in 1973) at Brigham Young University.

Footnotes

  1. [1]

    JS, Journal, 29 June 1842; “Clayton, William,” in Jenson, Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia, 1:718.

    Jenson, Andrew. Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia: A Compilation of Biographical Sketches of Prominent Men and Women in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 4 vols. Salt Lake City: Andrew Jenson History Co., 1901–1936.

  2. [2]

    Richards, Journal, 9 Aug. 1844; “Conference Minutes,” Times and Seasons, 1 Nov. 1844, 5:693; see also Minutes, Times and Seasons, Dec. 1839, 1:30.

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

    Times and Seasons. Commerce/Nauvoo, IL. Nov. 1839–Feb. 1846.

  3. [3]

    Andrus and Fuller, Register of the Newel Kimball Whitney Papers, 24; Wilkinson et al., Brigham Young University, 4:255.

    Andrus, Hyrum L., and Chris Fuller, comp. Register of the Newel Kimball Whitney Papers. Provo, UT: Division of Archives and Manuscripts, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, 1978.

    Wilkinson, Ernest L., Leonard J. Arrington, and Bruce C. Hafen, eds. Brigham Young University: The First One Hundred Years. Vol. 4. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1976.

Historical Introduction

On 16 January 1843, , acting as JS’s , wrote a letter from , Illinois, to attorney in , Illinois, apprising him of new legal developments involving JS. During December 1842 and early January 1843, Butterfield represented JS in his hearing before the Circuit Court for the District of to prevent his extradition for his alleged role in the attempted assassination of former governor . As JS’s lawyer, Butterfield believed the circuit court might rule in JS’s favor and dismiss the extradition order if he could prove that JS’s case did not meet federal extradition requirements because he was not a fugitive from justice in Missouri. Stating that JS was not in Missouri at the time of the assassination attempt, Butterfield argued that JS’s arrest and extradition were illegal. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ruled in favor of JS, and Illinois governor ordered his discharge the following day. On 7 January, JS started the journey back to Nauvoo, arriving on 10 January.
This 16 January 1843 letter provided with a copy of a 10 January 1843 letter from to and informing them of Bennett’s efforts to instigate a new extradition attempt. Because Butterfield successfully assisted JS during the most recent extradition issues, likely believed that Bennett’s letter would assist Butterfield in defending JS against new charges. In the letter, Bennett informed Rigdon and Pratt that he planned to pursue charges dating back to crimes allegedly committed in during the 1838 conflict—charges on which JS and the other Latter-day Saint prisoners had never been formally tried, having escaped state custody prior to the appointed trial. Due to a legal technicality, an Illinois judge invalidated an earlier attempt to extradite JS on the 1838 charges. After circuit court judge ordered JS’s discharge on the second extradition attempt in January 1843, Bennett hoped that Missouri officials would convene another grand jury that would return new indictments based on the 1838 charges, which then could be used to initiate extradition proceedings. Because of JS’s strained relationships with Rigdon and Pratt in 1842, Bennett likely believed that both men would be sympathetic to his efforts to have JS imprisoned in Missouri.
received the letter from on 15 January and shared it with as requested. After receiving Bennett’s letter, Pratt delivered it to JS on the morning of 16 January, thereby apprising him of Bennett’s plans. Later that day, JS passed the letter on to , who copied the entire letter into the letter to . Butterfield apparently received the letter and responded to it on 3 February.
The original letter to is not extant. made a retained copy of his letter to Butterfield, featured here, prior to sending it.

Footnotes

  1. [1]

    Historical Introduction to Letter from Thomas Ford, 17 Dec. 1842; Letter from Justin Butterfield, 17 Dec. 1842; Petition to Chauncey Robison, 26 Dec. 1842; Petition to the United States Circuit Court for the District of Illinois, 31 Dec. 1842; Petition to Thomas Ford, 31 Dec. 1842; Affidavit, 2 Jan. 1843.

  2. [2]

    Court Ruling, 5 Jan. 1843.

  3. [3]

    JS, Journal, 5 Jan. 1843; Clayton, Journal, 5–6 Jan. 1843; Thomas Ford, Order Discharging JS, 6 Jan. 1843.

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

  4. [4]

    JS, Journal, 7 and 10 Jan. 1843; Clayton, Journal, 7 and 10 Jan. 1843.

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

  5. [5]

    John C. Bennett, Springfield, IL, to Sidney Rigdon and Orson Pratt, Nauvoo, IL, 10 Jan. [1843], Sidney Rigdon, Collection, CHL.

  6. [6]

    See Historical Introduction to Promissory Note to John Brassfield, 16 Apr. 1839; and the dismissals filed during the August 1840 term relating to the 1839 Daviess County grand jury indictments involving JS and others in the nolle prosequi docket entries for State of Missouri v. Gates et al. for Treason; State of Missouri v. Baldwin et al. for Arson; State of Missouri v. Gates et al. for Arson; State of Missouri v. Worthington et al. for Larceny; and State of Missouri v. JS for Receiving Stolen Goods, available in the Legal Records section of the Joseph Smith Papers website, josephsmithpapers.org.

  7. [7]

    On 1 September 1840, Boggs—apparently unaware that the Boone County Circuit Court dismissed the 1839 indictments the previous month—sent a requisition to Illinois governor Thomas Carlin for JS’s extradition. Although Carlin issued a warrant for JS’s arrest, the officer charged with arresting JS was unable to find him and returned the warrant to the governor unserved. Carlin reissued the same warrant in June 1841, resulting in a habeas corpus hearing before state supreme court justice Stephen A. Douglas during 8–10 June 1841. Douglas ruled that because Carlin’s initial warrant had been returned unserved, it was invalid and Missouri would need to initiate new extradition proceedings. (Requisition, 1 Sept. 1840, State of Missouri v. JS for Treason [Warren Co. Cir. Ct. 1841], Joseph Smith Extradition Records, Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library, Springfield, IL; Editorial, Times and Seasons, Sept. 1840, 1:169–170; “The Late Proceedings,” Times and Seasons, 15 June 1841, 2:447–449.)

    Times and Seasons. Commerce/Nauvoo, IL. Nov. 1839–Feb. 1846.

  8. [8]

    In summer 1842, Bennett accused JS of proposing marriage to both Sidney Rigdon’s daughter Nancy Rigdon and Orson Pratt’s wife, Sarah Marinda Bates Pratt. Because of these accusations, rumors spread that both Sidney Rigdon and Orson Pratt were aligned with Bennett. For months afterward, apprehension and mistrust marked JS’s relationships with both men. (Letter to Nancy Rigdon, ca. Mid-Apr. 1842; “Astounding Mormon Disclosures! Letter from Gen. Bennett,” Sangamo Journal [Springfield, IL], 8 July 1842, [2]; “Further Mormon Developments!! 2d Letter from Gen. Bennett,” Sangamo Journal, 15 July 1842, [2]; JS, Journal, 12–13 May 1842; 28 June 1842; 21 Aug. 1842; Letter from Sidney Rigdon, 1 July 1842; “Elder Rigdon,” Times and Seasons, 15 Sept. 1842, 3:922–923; Bennett, History of the Saints, 226–229, 241–245, 247–248; “John C. Bennett,” Times and Seasons, 1 Aug. 1842, 3:868–878; Account of Meeting, 15 July 1842; Minutes, 22 July 1842; Letter to Horace Hotchkiss, 26 Nov. 1842; Minutes, 20 Jan. 1843.)

    Sangamo Journal. Springfield, IL. 1831–1847.

    Bennett, John C. The History of the Saints; or, an Exposé of Joe Smith and Mormonism. Boston: Leland and Whiting, 1842.

  9. [9]

    After Pratt shared the letter with him, JS in turn shared it with a group of guests at a banquet at his home on 18 January. He subsequently delivered the letter to John Taylor, who made a copy of it and wrote an editorial denouncing Rigdon and his association with Bennett. Taylor probably intended to publish the letter and editorial in the Times and Seasons. (JS, Journal, 18 Jan. 1843; John C. Bennett, Springfield, IL, to Sidney Rigdon and Orson Pratt, 10 Jan. [1843], copy, JS Collection [Supplement], CHL; Historical Department, Journal History of the Church, 10 Jan. 1843.)

    Historical Department. Journal History of the Church, 1896–. CHL. CR 100 137.

  10. [10]

    For a discussion of Clayton’s role as JS’s agent during this period, see Historical Introduction to Land Transaction with Chauncey Robison, 22 Oct. 1842.

  11. [11]

    The letter of reply from Butterfield is apparently no longer extant but is referenced in a reply from JS. (JS, Nauvoo, IL, to Justin Butterfield, 18 Mar. 1843, JS Collection, CHL.)

Asterisk (*) denotes a "featured" version, which includes an introduction and annotation. Letter, John C. Bennett to Sidney Rigdon and Orson Pratt, 10 January 1843 Letter, John C. Bennett to Sidney Rigdon and Orson Pratt, 10 January 1843, George Q. Cannon Copy *Letter to Justin Butterfield, 16 January 1843 Letterbook 2 History, 1838–1856, volume D-1 [1 August 1842–1 July 1843] “History of Joseph Smith”

Page [2]

Ill. Jan. 10— 1842 [1843]
Mr and ;
Dear Friends;
It is a long time since I have written you, and I should now much desire to see you, but I leave to night for to meet the messenger charged with the arrest of Joseph Smith, , , and others; for murder, burglary, treason &c. &c. who will be demanded in a few days on new indictments, found by the grand jury of a called court, on the original evidence, and in relation to which a was entered by the District Attorney. New proceedings have been gotten up on the old charges— and no can then save them. We shall try Smith on the case when we get him into . The war goes bravely on, and altho’ Smith thinks he is now safe— the enemy is near, even at the door. He has awoke the wrong passenger. The will relinquish Joe up at once on the new requistion there is but one opinion in the case, and that is nothing can save Joe on a new requistion and demand predicated on the old charges, in the institution of new writs. He must go to , but he shall not be harmed if he is not guilty, but he is a murderer and must suffer the penalty of the law. Enough on this subject. [p. [2]]
View entire transcript

|

Cite this page

Source Note

Document Transcript

Page [2]

Document Information

Related Case Documents
Editorial Title
Letter to Justin Butterfield, 16 January 1843
ID #
968
Total Pages
4
Print Volume Location
JSP, D11:326–332
Handwriting on This Page
  • William Clayton

Footnotes

  1. [5]

    “The messenger” may refer to Edward Ford. Missouri governor Thomas Reynolds commissioned Ford to oversee JS’s extradition for the assault on Lilburn W. Boggs. (Thomas Reynolds, Requisition, 22 July 1842.)

  2. [6]

    In April 1839, a grand jury in Daviess County, Missouri, indicted JS, Hyrum Smith, Lyman Wight, and other Latter-day Saint men for treason and other crimes. The same month, a grand jury in Ray County, Missouri, indicted Parley P. Pratt and other Latter-day Saint men for murder. (Daviess Co., MO, Circuit Court Record, Apr. 1839, bk. A, 57–58, Daviess County Courthouse, Gallatin, MO; Indictment, Apr. 1839, State of Missouri v. Pratt et al. [Ray Co. Cir. Ct. 1839], Boone Co., MO, Circuit Court Records, 1839, State Historical Society of Missouri, Columbia.)

    Daviess County, Missouri. Circuit Court Record, vol. A, July 1837–Oct. 1843. Daviess County Courthouse, Gallatin, MO.

    Boone County, Missouri, Circuit Court Records, 1839. State Historical Society of Missouri, Columbia.

  3. [7]

    During the June 1843 term of the Daviess County Circuit Court, a grand jury returned a new treason indictment that named only JS as a defendant. (Indictment, June 1843, State of Missouri v. JS for Treason [Daviess Co. Cir. Ct. 1843], Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University, New Haven, CT.)

  4. [8]

    “Nolle prosequi” refers to an entry on a case record in which the prosecutor or plaintiff declares that they will proceed no further with the case. In 1840 the Boone County circuit attorney filed a dismissal without prejudice, leaving the state of Missouri free to revive charges later, if desired, while avoiding violation of Missouri’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy. (“Nolle Prosequi,” in Bouvier, Law Dictionary, 2:216; Missouri Constitution of 1820, art. 13, sec. 10; see also the dismissals filed during the August 1840 term relating to the 1839 Daviess County grand jury indictments involving JS and others in the nolle prosequi docket entries for State of Missouri v. Gates et al. for Treason; State of Missouri v. Baldwin et al. for Arson; State of Missouri v. Gates et al. for Arson; State of Missouri v. Worthington et al. for Larceny; and State of Missouri v. JS for Receiving Stolen Goods, available in the Legal Records section of the Joseph Smith Papers website, josephsmithpapers.org.)

    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.

  5. [9]

    Bennett apparently reasoned that because those charges stemmed from JS’s time in Missouri, the state could legally extradite him on such grounds, as opposed to the attempted extradition in relation to the attempted assassination of Lilburn W. Boggs, which occurred after JS moved from Missouri to Illinois. In a hearing on that incident, United States circuit court judge Nathaniel Pope determined that because JS had not fled from Missouri, he could not be extradited to Missouri, and he was released on a writ of habeas corpus. (Court Ruling, 5 Jan. 1843.)

  6. [10]

    At the time, death was the punishment for first-degree murder in Missouri. (An Act concerning Crimes and Their Punishments [20 Mar. 1835], Revised Statutes of the State of Missouri, p. 168, art. 2, sec. 3.)

    The Revised Statutes of the State of Missouri, Revised and Digested by the Eighth General Assembly during the Years One Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty-Four, and One Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty-Five. . . . St. Louis: Argus Office, 1835.

© 2024 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.Terms of UseUpdated 2021-04-13Privacy NoticeUpdated 2021-04-06