"He lived great, and he died great"

[JulieM]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

State criminal laws would have been written by the state legislature.

They would have been in force in Nauvoo just as in the rest of the state.

I believe the city charter gave certain powers of government , such as creating the Nauvoo Legion, but it wouldn't change criminal law as far as I know.

He’s asked (CFR) which Nauvoo statutes were violated or broken.

Is there a reference for them (listed)?

Also, no one has answered the question of who wrote these statutes for Nauvoo?

I really have to go, but I will check back tomorrow.  I’ll try to look into this more too but would like an answer to that question.

Edited July 2, 2018 by JulieM

[USU78]

11 minutes ago, JulieM said:

He’s asked (CFR) which Nauvoo statutes were violated or broken.

Is there a reference for them (listed)?

Also, no one has answered the question of who wrote these statutes for Nauvoo?

I really have to go, but I will check back tomorrow.  I’ll try to look into this more too but would like an answer to that question.

There are no Nauvoo criminal statutes, but merely municipal ordinances. Statutes and ordinances are not the same thing.

There are ILLINOIS criminal statutes.

The Illinois criminal statutes are a matter of public record.

If you want to accuse someone of criminal conduct, you'd better have some idea what criminal statute you claim was violated. There is no crime without a statute making a behavior a crime.

[Nevo]

Coming to this thread late, but Joseph Smith et al. were charged on 12 June 1844 with the crime of riot for the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor. The relevant Illinois statute appears to be here: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433009071873;view=1up;seq=238

Edited July 2, 2018 by Nevo

[ALarson]

48 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Coming to this thread late, but Joseph Smith et al. were charged on 12 June 1844 with the crime of riot for the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor. The relevant Illinois statute appears to be here: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433009071873;view=1up;seq=238

Thanks for posting this Nevo.  Between this and the links Julie has posted (regarding other laws that may have been broken...state and federal), I think this at least can leave it up to the reader to form an opinion regarding whether or not what took place was criminal behavior (the destruction of the printing press).

I do plan on trying to research this more tomorrow!  But, thanks again.

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, Nevo said:

Coming to this thread late, but Joseph Smith et al. were charged on 12 June 1844 with the crime of riot for the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor. The relevant Illinois statute appears to be here: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433009071873;view=1up;seq=238

As we all know, Joseph never got his day in court, but some of the council members were tried after Joseph's murder on that charge and were acquitted.

From what I can understand, the action by the Nauvoo city council to declare the Expositor a nuisance and to have it abated was entirely within it's powers. The way the nuisance was abated was extra legal. The abatement should have been too legally keep the Expositor from further publication until a court could determine if the Expositor was a public nuisance or not. The actual destruction of the press was probably a calculated risk to ensure that no further publication would be forthcoming. As an official act of the city, redress should have been through the civil court system against Nauvoo to obtain damages, etc. That would have involved no arrests.

Glenn

[sunstoned]

On 6/30/2018 at 10:30 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

As already pointed out, Joseph offered to reimburse the owners for the property loss. 

And the destruction of the press was ordered under authority of existing municipal ordinances. It was not a mob action, as was inflicted on the Mormon people when their own press was destroyed earlier in Missouri. 

And as I also pointed out, the members of the city council were tried and acquitted. 

Incidentally, whether or not the Expositor printed inflammatory lies can be a subjective judgment, one that people looking casually at the case more than than a century and a half later might be too ill-informed to make. Every good communicator knows that facts that are ostensibly true can be arranged and presented in a way to convey falsehood. 

We are on the same page here Scott.  JS made a big mistake and he should have had his day in court.  I believe if he would have made good on his claim to pay for the printing press and other damages,  then charges would have probably been dropped.  What happened to him was a crime and he didn't deserve it.  

Edited July 2, 2018 by sunstoned

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

As we all know, Joseph never got his day in court, but some of the council members were tried after Joseph's murder on that charge and were acquitted.

From what I can understand, the action by the Nauvoo city council to declare the Expositor a nuisance and to have it abated was entirely within it's powers. The way the nuisance was abated was extra legal. The abatement should have been too legally keep the Expositor from further publication until a court could determine if the Expositor was a public nuisance or not. The actual destruction of the press was probably a calculated risk to ensure that no further publication would be forthcoming. As an official act of the city, redress should have been through the civil court system against Nauvoo to obtain damages, etc. That would have involved no arrests.

Glenn

And, as we know, Joseph Smith, before he was killed, had already pledged to recompense the owners for the property loss, so Court action might not even have been necessary. 

I like what you say about a calculated risk. It was, in my view, a necessary one, one that, as I said earlier, preserved the safety and welfare of the Mormon people. Joseph, in effect, drew the fire of the mob, leaving the people a space of time to plan and embark on the westward exodus. 

Simply put, Joseph’s actions saved the Church. “Praise to the man” indeed!

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

We are on the same page here Scott.  JS made a big mistake and he should have had his day in court.  I believe if he would have made good on his claim to pay for the printing press and other damages,  then charges would have probably been dropped.  What happened to him was a crime and he didn't deserve it.  

If you believe he made a big mistake, we are not on the same page, not entirely. 

 

[sunstoned]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you believe he made a big mistake, we are not on the same page, not entirely. 

 

He broke the law.  He destroyed private property.  Of course this was a big mistake.  I thought this was a given.  

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And, as we know, Joseph Smith, before he was killed, had already pledged to recompense the owners for the property loss, so Court action might not even have been necessary. 

I like what you say about a calculated risk. It was, in my view, a necessary one, one that, as I said earlier, preserved the safety and welfare of the Mormon people. Joseph, in effect, drew the fire of the mob, leaving the people a space of time to plan and embark on the westward exodus. 

Simply put, Joseph’s actions saved the Church. “Praise to the man” indeed!

Joseph ordered the destruction and burning of the printing press and paper, he should have offered to make restitution when he realized what he’d caused to happen.  I think that was the right thing for him to do!

Do you have a link or source where I can read about him pledging to compensate William Law for his losses?  I’d really like to read more about that.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Joseph ordered the destruction and burning of the printing press and paper, he should have offered to make restitution when he realized what he’d caused to happen.  I think that was the right thing for him to do!

Do you have a link or source where I can read about him pledging to compensate William Law for his losses?  I’d really like to read more about that.

It’s in Comprehensive History of the Church by B. H. Roberts, the account of Joseph and the other leaders meeting with Illinois Gov. Tom Ford prior to the confinement of Joseph and Hyrum in Carthage. I don’t have a page number at hand, but I think you’re as capable as I at finding it.

Why do you keep making it sound like the print shop was burned when the only thing that was burned were the unsold copies of the paper?  I think that’s disingenuous and misleading on your part. 

[Nevo]

On 6/30/2018 at 8:03 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Are you aware that after Joseph and Hyrum were murdered, the other members of the Nauvoo City Council were tried <and acquitted> in the Expositor case? . . .

When appearing before Illinois Gov. Ford, Joseph offered to reimburse the owners for the destruction of the press.

Neither of these claims are accurate.  [Scott was actually right about the second claim. My apologies. See correction here.]

Two Nauvoo policemen went to trial for their involvement in destroying the Expositor and were acquitted. But it wasn't because destroying the Expositor wasn't considered a crime. The judge, in fact, instructed the jury that if they found that the men had participated in the suppression of the Expositor, then they must return a guilty verdict. As Oaks and Hill relate, "fortunately for Lytle and Harmon, each had a brother who was also a policeman in Nauvoo, and the witness for the prosecution said he could not determine which Harmon or Lytle he had observed." The part-Mormon jury "took this opportunity and brought in a verdict of not guilty" (Carthage Conspiracy, 201).

The History of the Church says that Joseph told Ford "he was willing to satisfy all legal claims in case it should be shown that the City Council had transcended their legal bounds." In other words, he was willing to pay any fine that the court might assess. He never promised to reimburse the owners for the destruction of their $2,000 printing press. In fact, after Francis Higbee swore out the complaint against Joseph and the members of the city council that led to Joseph's arrest on a charge of riot, Joseph went before the Nauvoo Municipal Court on a writ of habeas corpus and was promptly acquitted. The next day, Joseph himself, presiding over the Nauvoo Municipal Court, acquitted the other 16 defendants and assessed Francis Higbee all the court costs.

Edited July 2, 2018 by Nevo

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s in Comprehensive History of the Church by B. H. Roberts, the account of Joseph and the other leaders meeting with Illinois Gov. Tom Ford prior to the confinement of Joseph and Hyrum in Carthage. I don’t have a page number at hand, but I think you’re as capable as I at finding it.

Why do you keep making it sound like the print shop was burned when the only thing that was burned were the unsold copies of the paper?  I think that’s disingenuous and misleading on your part. 

I could have states it more clearly in the sentence above.  It was the papers that were burned.  The press was destroyed with a sledge hammer, iirc and thrown out into the street.

I will try to find where Joseph offered restitution to William Law.  I hadn’t heard that before, so thanks.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

He broke the law.  He destroyed private property.  Of course this was a big mistake.  I thought this was a given.  

It is not definitive that he broke the law. And I’m convinced that the city leaders earnestly believed they were acting within the province of their municipal authority. And I’ll state for the umpteenth time that they were eventually acquitted! 

The villains in this scenario were the publishers of the Expositor, not the city leaders endeavoring to mitigate or prevent the malice the publishers were bent on committing. 

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I believe if he would have made good on his claim to pay for the printing press and other damages,  then charges would have probably been dropped.  What happened to him was a crime and he didn't deserve it.  

Given Gov Ford’s reaction to those making claims against Joseph, I am not so sure it would have been a slam dunk. 

On my phone now, but it is in the article I linked to last. 

The bails set, iirc, were even higher than the fines would have been. It is quite possible the intent was to keep Joseph in Carthage in order to make him an easier target. 

Or he could have been paranoid and pumped up by false claims about his enemies.  It was highly emotional and traumatic time with a lot of hostile claims flying around. 

[Nevo]

57 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

As an official act of the city, redress should have been through the civil court system against Nauvoo to obtain damages, etc. That would have involved no arrests.

The Nauvoo Municipal Court was never going to reimburse William Law and he knew it.

[JulieM]

14 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Neither of these claims are accurate.

Two Nauvoo policemen went to trial for their involvement in destroying the Expositor and were acquitted. But it wasn't because destroying the Expositor wasn't considered a crime. The judge, in fact, instructed the jury that if they found that the men had participated in the suppression of the Expositor, then they must return a guilty verdict. As Oaks and Hill relate, "fortunately for Lytle and Harmon, each had a brother who was also a policeman in Nauvoo, and the witness for the prosecution said he could not determine which Harmon or Lytle he had observed." The part-Mormon jury "took this opportunity and brought in a verdict of not guilty" (Carthage Conspiracy, 201).

The History of the Church says that Joseph told Ford "he was willing to satisfy all legal claims in case it should be shown that the City Council had transcended their legal bounds." In other words, he was willing to pay any fine that the court might assess. He never promised to reimburse the owners for the destruction of their $2,000 printing press. In fact, after Francis Higbee swore out the complaint against Joseph and the members of the city council that led to Joseph's arrest on a charge of riot, Joseph went before the Nauvoo Municipal Court on a writ of habeas corpus and was promptly acquitted. The next day, Joseph himself, presiding over the Nauvoo Municipal Court, acquitted the other 16 defendants and assessed Francis Higbee all the court costs.

Wow, thanks Nevo for posting this.  I thought what Scott claimed seemed odd (that Joseph offered to make restitution to William Law and others to repay them for the destruction).  All that you posted is very interesting!

Edited July 2, 2018 by JulieM

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is not definitive that he broke the law. And I’m convinced that the city leaders earnestly believed they were acting within the province of their municipal authority. And I’ll state for the umpteenth time that they were eventually acquitted! 

If you read what Nevo posted, that’s not accurate (if what he stated is the truth).  Maybe you should verify that.

Can you post a reference?

I’m interesting in knowing the truth about this now, so thanks for any links you can post supporting what you believe happened here.

Edited July 2, 2018 by JulieM

[sunstoned]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is not definitive that he broke the law. And I’m convinced that the city leaders earnestly believed they were acting within the province of their municipal authority. And I’ll state for the umpteenth time that they were eventually acquitted! 

The villains in this scenario were the publishers of the Expositor, not the city leaders endeavoring to mitigate or prevent the malice the publishers were bent on committing. 

You have that worng. The publishers of the Expositor were not villains.  They were exercising their right of freedom of speach.  JS used force to destroy priviate property to try and prevent a newspaper from being published.  Really Scott,  I would think as a reporter you would have some connection to the idea of a free press.  Could JS do no worng in your eyes?

Edited July 2, 2018 by sunstoned

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s in Comprehensive History of the Church by B. H. Roberts, the account of Joseph and the other leaders meeting with Illinois Gov. Tom Ford prior to the confinement of Joseph and Hyrum in Carthage. I don’t have a page number at hand, but I think you’re as capable as I at finding it.

Why do you keep making it sound like the print shop was burned when the only thing that was burned were the unsold copies of the paper?  I think that’s disingenuous and misleading on your part. 

From the article,iirc most of the papers were already sold or on their way to be. Only a fraction were actually burned so probably not a lot lost there. The worth of the press is apparently confused by various claims, but I believe the Laws said they had invested 2000 in it.  And they weren’t the only investors. 

Edited July 2, 2018 by Calm

[sunstoned]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Given Gov Ford’s reaction to those making claims against Joseph, I am not so sure it would have been a slam dunk. 

On my phone now, but it is in the article I linked to last. 

The bails set, iirc, were even higher than the fines would have been. It is quite possible the intent was to keep Joseph in Carthage in order to make him an easier target. 

Or he could have been paranoid and pumped up by false claims about his enemies.  It was highly emotional and traumatic time with a lot of hostile claims flying around. 

the whole situation is suspect IMO.  Having Governor Ford make the long trip to Nauvoo over a city issue seems over the top.  Having Ford show up just made things more volatile.  Then after things were stired up, he did not put into pace any protections for the accused.   The whole situation was a breach of justice and a terrible tragedy.

I visited Cartage as a young missionary.  The couple there showed us where JS and his brother died.  At the time there was still blood stains on the floor.  This was not something they normally pointed out, but they did for use becase were were missionaries.  It was sad.  It was profoundly sad. It is something that has stayed with with me to this day.  

[JulieM]

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is not definitive that he broke the law. 

Here’s the arrest warrant:

Warrant for the Arrest of Joseph Smith and Others for the Destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor (June 12, 1844)
History of the Church, Volume VI (p. 453)

Joseph Smith, Jr.
 

Wednesay, June 12, 1844.-At 10 a. m. in my office.

At half-past one I was arrested by David Bettisworth on the following writ:

 

STATE OF ILLINOIS, HANCOCK COUNTY,

 

The People of the State of Illinois to all Constables, Sheriffs and Coroners of State, Greeting: 

Whereas complaint hath been made before me, one of the justices of the peace within and for the countv of Hancock aforesaid, upon the oath of Francis M. Higbee of said county, that Joseph Smith, Samuel Bennett, John Taylor and William W. Phelps, Hyrum Smith, John P. Greene, Stephen Perry, Dimick B. Huntington, Jonathan Dunham, Stephen Markham, William Edwards, Jonathan Holmes, Jesse P. Harmon, John Lytle, Joseph W. Coolidge, Harvey D. Redfield, Porter Rockwell and Levi Richards, of said county did on the 10th day of June instant commit a riot at and within the county aforesaid, wherein they, with force and violence broke into the office of the Nauvoo Expositor, and unlawfully and with force burned and destroyed the printing press, type and fixtures of the same, being the property of William Law, Wil­son Law, Charles Ivins, Francis M. Higbee, Chauncey L. Higbee, Robert D. Foster, and Charles A. Foster. 

These are therefore to command you forthwith to apprehend the said Joseph Smith, Samuel Bennett, John Taylor, William W. Phelps, Hyrum Smith, John P. Greene, Stephen Perry, Dimick B Huntington, Jonathan Dunham, Stephen Markham, William Edwards, Jonathan Holmes, Jesse P. Harmon, John Lytle, Joseph W. Coolidge, Harvey D. Redfield, Porter Rockwell and Levi Richards, and bring them before me or some other justice of the peace, to answer the premises, and further to be dealt with according to Law.

Given under my hand and seal at Carthage, in the county aforesaid, this 11th day of June. A. D. 1844.

http://famous-trials.com/legacyftrials/carthage/nauvoowarrant.html

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Neither of these claims are accurate.

Two Nauvoo policemen went to trial for their involvement in destroying the Expositor and were acquitted. But it wasn't because destroying the Expositor wasn't considered a crime. The judge, in fact, instructed the jury that if they found that the men had participated in the suppression of the Expositor, then they must return a guilty verdict. As Oaks and Hill relate, "fortunately for Lytle and Harmon, each had a brother who was also a policeman in Nauvoo, and the witness for the prosecution said he could not determine which Harmon or Lytle he had observed." The part-Mormon jury "took this opportunity and brought in a verdict of not guilty" (Carthage Conspiracy, 201).

The History of the Church says that Joseph told Ford "he was willing to satisfy all legal claims in case it should be shown that the City Council had transcended their legal bounds." In other words, he was willing to pay any fine that the court might assess. He never promised to reimburse the owners for the destruction of their $2,000 printing press. In fact, after Francis Higbee swore out the complaint against Joseph and the members of the city council that led to Joseph's arrest on a charge of riot, Joseph went before the Nauvoo Municipal Court on a writ of habeas corpus and was promptly acquitted. The next day, Joseph himself, presiding over the Nauvoo Municipal Court, acquitted the other 16 defendants and assessed Francis Higbee all the court costs.

208

Professional historians Glen Leonard and James B. Allen disagree with you on the matter of restitution. I’n The Story of the Latter-day Saints, they wrote on page 208:

“[Joseph] also satisfied the governor concerning the city council's action and offered to pay for the property damaged if that would appease those plotting his destruction.”

Maybe it’s a matter of semantics, as any fine imposed presumably would have included recompense for the property loss. 

Leonard and Allen also wrote that several members of the council were later acquitted in a jury trial. 

But if it happened as you say it did, I wonder why the surviving members of the council were never prosecuted. Is it because the case against them was not strong?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Here’s the arrest warrant:

Warrant for the Arrest of Joseph Smith and Others for the Destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor (June 12, 1844)
History of the Church, Volume VI (p. 453)

Joseph Smith, Jr.
 

Wednesay, June 12, 1844.-At 10 a. m. in my office.

At half-past one I was arrested by David Bettisworth on the following writ:

 

STATE OF ILLINOIS, HANCOCK COUNTY,

 

The People of the State of Illinois to all Constables, Sheriffs and Coroners of State, Greeting: 

Whereas complaint hath been made before me, one of the justices of the peace within and for the countv of Hancock aforesaid, upon the oath of Francis M. Higbee of said county, that Joseph Smith, Samuel Bennett, John Taylor and William W. Phelps, Hyrum Smith, John P. Greene, Stephen Perry, Dimick B. Huntington, Jonathan Dunham, Stephen Markham, William Edwards, Jonathan Holmes, Jesse P. Harmon, John Lytle, Joseph W. Coolidge, Harvey D. Redfield, Porter Rockwell and Levi Richards, of said county did on the 10th day of June instant commit a riot at and within the county aforesaid, wherein they, with force and violence broke into the office of the Nauvoo Expositor, and unlawfully and with force burned and destroyed the printing press, type and fixtures of the same, being the property of William Law, Wil­son Law, Charles Ivins, Francis M. Higbee, Chauncey L. Higbee, Robert D. Foster, and Charles A. Foster. 

These are therefore to command you forthwith to apprehend the said Joseph Smith, Samuel Bennett, John Taylor, William W. Phelps, Hyrum Smith, John P. Greene, Stephen Perry, Dimick B Huntington, Jonathan Dunham, Stephen Markham, William Edwards, Jonathan Holmes, Jesse P. Harmon, John Lytle, Joseph W. Coolidge, Harvey D. Redfield, Porter Rockwell and Levi Richards, and bring them before me or some other justice of the peace, to answer the premises, and further to be dealt with according to Law.

Given under my hand and seal at Carthage, in the county aforesaid, this 11th day of June. A. D. 1844.

http://famous-trials.com/legacyftrials/carthage/nauvoowarrant.html

An arrest warrant in and of itself is not probative. It must be adjudicated. 

In his lifetime Joseph was subjected to numerous trumped up charges that would not hold up in court. 

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

An arrest warrant in and of itself is not probative. It must be adjudicated. 

In his lifetime Joseph was subjected to numerous trumped up charges that would not hold up in court. 

This is also interesting to read through (with quotes from B.H. Roberts:

http://www.mormonismi.net/artikkelit/tanner_quinn08.shtml

One quote:

“The reader will remember that Dr. Clandestine mention a review of Dallin Oaks' article which was published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1966, pp. 123-24.In this very review Thomas G. Alexander, of Brigham Young University, frankly stated that there was "no legal justification for the destruction of the press, and the proprietors might have sued the council for recovery of the machine's value." 

It is interesting to note that James B. Allen, who serves as Assistant Church Historian under Leonard Arrington ackhnowledges that Joseph Smith "acted illegally" when he destroyed the press: 

"...when Joseph Smith ordered the actual destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor printing press he provided his enemies with a clearly legitimate means of arresting him for violation of the law. They seized upon this to inflame the public even more, and this led directly to the assassination. Some people maybe disturbed by the suggestion that Joseph Smith acted illegally in this instance, but it is important to understand that under the tense pressures of me times he, too, may have made a mistake." (Brigham Young University Today, March 1976, page 10)”

And another:

We quoted the Mormon historian B. H. Roberts as saying: "'The legality of the action of the Mayor and City Counsel was, of course, questionable, though some sought to defend it on legal grounds; but it must be conceded that neither proof nor argument for legality are convincing. On the grounds of expediency or necessity the action is more defensible!' (History of the Church, Introduction to Vol. 6, p. XXXVIII)"

 

Edited July 2, 2018 by JulieM