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

Document Transcript

 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith
United States Criminal Court, Washington DC, Oct. 1844
 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A
Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illinois, Municipal Court, 30 May 1844
 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B
Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illinois, Municipal Court, 30 May 1844
 
Historical Introduction
In May 1844, the municipal court of , Illinois—over which JS presided as chief justice—granted two writs of to , a miller from Wapello County, Iowa Territory, who had been indicted for defrauding the federal government. The resulting proceedings demonstrated JS’s commitment to making the municipal court’s habeas corpus provisions available to all who believed that they had been unlawfully detained, whether they were being held by federal, state, or city authorities.
 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith
Frustrated by the reluctance of government officials to pay him for building two gristmills for the Sauk and Meskwaki nations (designated by Euro-Americans as the Sac and Fox Indians), visited in March 1843 to lobby for his claim. While there, Smith learned that the government had appropriated $4,000 for another individual named Jeremiah Smith, a younger man also from . On 28 March, the elder Jeremiah Smith allegedly claimed the money from the United States Treasury for himself. Following this, the elder Jeremiah Smith returned to the West and visited for “several days” in summer 1843 before continuing on to Iowa.
Meanwhile, the younger Jeremiah Smith began inquiring regarding the status of the appropriation, 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 United States Criminal Court in indicted the elder 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 United States District Court for Des Moines County, First Judicial District of Iowa Territory, to secure Smith’s arrest and then convey him to Washington for trial. Mason cooperated by issuing a warrant for Smith, but after the fugitive was arrested and brought before the judge on 17 February 1844, Mason 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 , meaning the agents could persist in their efforts to detain Smith without triggering the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause. Amid subsequent efforts to recapture Smith, he fled the area.
On 16 April 1844, Penrose commissioned , a former marshal from , “to proceed against him [] whenever he is found.” Penrose indicated that if Smith 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 , headed south to .
 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A
had actually gone east to , arriving by mid-April 1844 and lodging at the . At some point, he confided to JS that he expected “to be arrestd by the U.S. Marshal for getting money which was his due,” presumably referring to the money that he believed the government owed him for building the gristmills. In order to challenge the impending arrest, Smith decided to seek a writ of habeas corpus from the Nauvoo Municipal Court.
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 and “honorably acquitted” him, although Judge Mason’s February 1844 discharge did not, in fact, constitute an acquittal. The petition requested the municipal court to investigate not only Smith’s detention but also the merits of the case. As mayor of the city and therefore chief justice of the municipal court, JS certified the petition, dating it 20 April. Five days later, JS instructed , clerk of the municipal court, “to make out a writ of Habeus Copus” for Smith. Richards complied, leaving blank spaces for the name of the arresting officer and the date.
However, no marshal appeared until mid-May, after learned that was in rather than . 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 . Smith completed his previously drafted habeas corpus petition by filling the blank with McCance’s name and revising the date. He then filed the petition with the municipal court. Likewise, , acting as clerk of the court, issued the writ of habeas corpus he had previously drafted, filling in the blanks. The writ instructed marshal 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 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 , Iowa Territory, lawyer. 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.
 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B
had not come to Illinois alone but was joined by , an physician who had been deputized with Johnson to pursue . On 30 May, Johnson acknowledged to the municipal court justices that, although he had claimed that he needed an adjournment in order to send for witnesses, in reality he sought the delay to give Hickok time to obtain another warrant for Smith. On 21 May, Hickok had appeared before federal judge in , Illinois, and presented to him a certified copy of the indictment. Pope issued a warrant for Smith to , the marshal for . On 25 May, Prentiss authorized Hickok to serve the warrant. Hickok arrived in four days later and attempted to arrest Smith on 29 May, although he was unable to because Smith was still in the custody of the municipal court. Smith’s attorneys prepared a petition for a new writ of habeas corpus but did not submit it to the court until 30 May, presumably after the court discharged him on the first writ.
This second petition for habeas corpus argued that ’s warrant was invalid, that was not authorized to serve it, and that the initial charge was motivated by “private pique malice & corruption.” In addition, the petition claimed that had “been twice acquitted & discharged” by authorized courts, referencing the February proceedings before the federal district court and the municipal court’s hearing held earlier on 30 May. , as clerk of the court, 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, which was required by Nauvoo law, but the court permitted him to report this information orally.
Around midday on 30 May 1844, 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 regarding ’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. The court adjourned for lunch at one o’clock and reconvened two hours later to hear arguments from and as to why the court should discharge the prisoner. The attorneys also submitted to the court a certificate from the federal district court in 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.
 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith (continued)
Despite JS’s defense of the municipal court’s habeas corpus powers, and remained unconvinced that the court’s discharge of disallowed ’s warrant or superseded their responsibility to deliver him to the judge. Johnson threatened to return to with federal dragoons in order to take Smith. Hickok evidently took a less confrontational approach and persuaded JS to permit him to serve Pope’s warrant and convey Smith to . 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, prompting to work into the night of 30–31 May preparing the docket entries for the two habeas corpus proceedings and certified copies of the records.
and arrived in by 6 June 1844. , the attorney who represented Smith in , also made the journey, writing to JS that Smith expected to appear before on 7 June. However, it appears that the hearing was delayed until around 12 June. Although federal law empowered Pope to issue an order authorizing the immediate transport of Smith to to await his trial—which is what Penrose, the U.S. Treasury solicitor, expected Pope to do—the judge instead ordered Smith to enter into a $5,000 binding him to appear in the nation’s capital for the U.S. Criminal Court’s October 1844 term. Smith apparently did not comply with the conditions of the recognizance, and he was ultimately arrested and conveyed to Washington, where he appeared in the criminal court. The outcome of his trial remains unknown.
 
Calendar of Documents
This calendar lists all known documents created by or for the court, whether extant or not. It does not include versions of documents created for other purposes, though those versions may be listed in footnotes. In certain cases, especially in cases concerning unpaid debts, the originating document (promissory note, invoice, etc.) is listed here. Note that documents in the calendar are grouped with their originating court. Where a version of a document was subsequently filed with another court, that version is listed under both courts.

Footnotes

  1. 1

    In their efforts to apprehend Jeremiah Smith, federal agents coordinated with the U.S. District Court for Des Moines County, First Judicial District of Iowa Territory; Justice of the Peace William Bennum in Hancock County, Illinois; and the U.S. District Court for the District of Illinois. These three courts produced documents in this case, although each did so under a federal statute on behalf of the U.S. Criminal Court. (An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States [24 Sept. 1789], Public and General Statutes [1840], pp. 66–67, sec. 33.)  

    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.

  2. 2

    Habeas Corpus, 16 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A]; Habeas Corpus, 30 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B]; Warrant, 13 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith]. JS and Jeremiah Smith apparently were not related. (JS, Journal, 29 May 1844.)  

  3. 3

    See “The Nauvoo Municipal Court and the Writ of Habeas Corpus”.  

  4. 4

    James Eakin, Washington DC, to Jeremiah Smith Jr., Burlington, Iowa Territory, 11 May 1843, Second Auditor’s Letterbooks, 1817–1886, vol. 31, pp. 62–63, Territorial Papers of Iowa, 1838–1852, NARA, microfilm 1,601,702; Charles B. Penrose, Washington DC, to John Deshler, Bloomington, Iowa Territory, 18 July 1843, Letters Sent by the Solicitor of the Treasury, vol. 22, pp. 67–68, Territorial Papers of Iowa, 1838–1852, NARA, microfilm 1,601,658, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL. 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 here in some of the municipal court documents referring to Jeremiah Smith as Jeremiah Smith Sr. (Jordan, “Iowa’s Puzzling Jeremiah Smiths,” 352–353, 362–368.)  

    U.S. and Canada Record Collection. FHL.

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

  5. 5

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

    Nauvoo Neighbor. Nauvoo, IL. 1843–1845.

  6. 6

    Charles B. Penrose, Washington DC, to Allison R. Parris, 11 July 1843, Letters Sent by the Solicitor of the Treasury, vol. 22, pp. 64–65, Territorial Papers of Iowa, 1838–1852, NARA, microfilm 1,601,658, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL.  

    U.S. and Canada Record Collection. FHL.

  7. 7

    Warrant, 21 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith]. 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 would result 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 [1840], 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.

  8. 8

    Charles B. Penrose, Washington DC, to Isaac Leffler, Burlington, Iowa Territory, 27 Jan. 1844, Letters Sent by Solicitor of the Treasury, vol. 22, pp. 288–289, Territorial Papers of Iowa, 1838–1852, NARA, microfilm 1,601,658, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL.  

    U.S. and Canada Record Collection. FHL.

  9. 9

    Certificate, 21 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith]; “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.  

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

  10. 10

    “Maj. Smith Senr.,” Iowa Territorial Gazette and Advertiser (Burlington), 2 Mar. 1844, [2]; Jordan, “Iowa’s Puzzling Jeremiah Smiths,” 374–375.  

    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.

  11. 11

    Charles B. Penrose, Washington DC, to Thomas B. Johnson, Iowa Territory, 16 Apr. 1844, Letters Sent by Solicitor of the Treasury, vol. 22, pp. 384–385; Charles B. Penrose, Washington DC, to William M. McPherson, St. Louis, MO, 16 Apr. 1844, Letters Sent by Solicitor of the Treasury, vol. 22, pp. 381–383, Territorial Papers of Iowa, 1838–1852, NARA, microfilm 1,601,658, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL. 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.)  

    U.S. and Canada Record Collection. FHL.

    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.

  12. 12

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

    Warsaw Signal. Warsaw, IL. 1841–1853.

    Nauvoo Neighbor. Nauvoo, IL. 1843–1845.

  13. 13

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

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

  14. 14

    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, in JS, Journal, Copied Correspondence, 30 June–17 August 1842.  

  15. 15

    Petition, 16 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A].  

  16. 16

    JS, Journal, 25 Apr. 1844; Habeas Corpus, 16 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A].  

  17. 17

    Warrant, 13 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith]; Habeas Corpus, 16 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A]; “Whig Convention,” Warsaw (IL) Signal, 29 June 1848, [2].  

    Warsaw Signal. Warsaw, IL. 1841–1853.

  18. 18

    Clayton, Journal, 14 May 1844.  

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

  19. 19

    McCance noted the date of the arrest in his return notation on the warrant. (Warrant, 13 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith].)  

  20. 20

    Petition, 16 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A]. Greene served the writ of habeas corpus by leaving a copy with McCance, who wrote his return on the copy. (Habeas Corpus, 16 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A]; Habeas Corpus, Copy, 16 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A].)  

  21. 21

    Minutes, 16 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A]; see also Docket Entry, 30–31 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B].  

  22. 22

    Minutes, 30 May 1844 [U.S v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A]. 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 were 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], pp. 323–324, sec. 3; “Habeas Corpus,” in Bouvier, Law Dictionary, 1:618–620; Nauvoo City Council Minute Book, 8 Aug. 1842, 98; see also Docket Entry, 4–ca. 26 Apr. 1843 [State of Illinois v. J. Hoopes and L. Hoopes on Habeas Corpus]; and Docket Entry, 2–ca. 3 Apr. 1844 [State of Illinois v. Greene et al. on Habeas Corpus].)  

    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. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Philadelphia: T. and J. W. Johnson, 1843.

  23. 23

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

  24. 24

    Isaac Leffler, Statement, Burlington, Iowa Territory, 19 Feb. 1846, Letters Received from U.S. Attorneys, Marshals, and Clerks of Court, 1838–1849, Territorial Papers of Iowa, 1838–1852, NARA, microfilm 1,601,658, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL; History of Des Moines County, Iowa, 480; “Died,” Burlington (IA) Hawk-Eye, 2 May 1850, [3].  

    U.S. and Canada Record Collection. FHL.

    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?.

  25. 25

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

  26. 26

    Warrant, 21 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith].  

  27. 27

    JS, Journal, 29 May 1844; Docket Entry, 30–31 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B].  

  28. 28

    Docket Entry, 30–31 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B]; Petition, 30 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B].  

  29. 29

    Petition, 30 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B].  

  30. 30

    Petition, 30 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B]; Certificate, 21 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith].  

  31. 31

    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. (Habeas Corpus, 30 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B]; Ordinance, 14 Nov. 1842, in JSP, D11:220; see also Docket Entry, 10–ca. 17 Oct. 1843 [State of Illinois v. Drown on Habeas Corpus]; and Docket Entry, 2–ca. 3 Apr. 1844 [State of Illinois v. Greene et al. on Habeas Corpus].)  

    JSP, D11 / McBride, Spencer W., Jeffrey D. Mahas, Brett D. Dowdle, and Tyson Reeder, eds. Documents, Volume 11: September 1842–February 1843. Vol. 11 of the Documents series of The Joseph Smith Papers, edited by Matthew C. Godfrey, R. Eric Smith, Matthew J. Grow, and Ronald K. Esplin. Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2020.

  32. 32

    Docket Entry, 30–31 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B]; Certificate, 21 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith].  

  33. 33

    JS, Journal, 30 May 1844; Docket Entry, 30–31 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B]; 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 U.S. District Court in Springfield. (Letter from Luther W. Hickok, 6 June 1844; Letter from Henry T. Hugins, 6 June 1844; Letter from Henry T. Hugins, 17 June 1844.)  

  34. 34

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

  35. 35

    JS, Journal, 30 May 1844; Richards, Journal, 30–31 May 1844; Docket Entry, 30–31 May 1844 [U.S. v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B].  

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

  36. 36

    Letter from Luther W. Hickok, 6 June 1844; Letter from Henry T. Hugins, 6 June 1844.  

  37. 37

    Robert J. Walker, Washington DC, 12 Mar. 1846, Letters Sent by Solicitor of the Treasury, vol. 25, pp. 419–421, Territorial Papers of Iowa, 1838–1852, NARA, microfilm 1,601,658, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL. The date of the hearing before Pope is unknown, but Hickok wrote to Penrose on 12 June 1844 describing the outcome, suggesting that it occurred around that date. In addition, word of the hearing’s result did not reach Nauvoo until 17 June. (Charles B. Penrose, Washington DC, to Luther W. Hickok, Burlington, Iowa Territory, 29 June 1844, Letters Sent by Solicitor of the Treasury, vol. 22, p. 456; Charles B. Penrose, Washington DC, to Philip R. Fendall, Washington DC, 1 July 1844, Letters Sent by Solicitor of the Treasury, vol. 22, p. 456–457, Territorial Papers of Iowa, 1838–1852, NARA, microfilm 1,601,658, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL; Letter from Henry T. Hugins, 17 June 1844; JS, Journal, 17 June 1844.)  

    U.S. and Canada Record Collection. FHL.

  38. 38

    Charles B. Penrose, Washington DC, to Philip R. Fendall, Washington DC, 25 Oct. 1844, Letters Sent by Solicitor of the Treasury, vol. 22A, pp. 217–218; Seth Barton, Washington DC, to Robert J. Walker, Washington DC, 12 Mar. 1846, Letters Sent by Solicitor of the Treasury, vol. 25, pp. 419–421, Territorial Papers of Iowa, 1838–1852, NARA, microfilm 1,601,658, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL.  

    U.S. and Canada Record Collection. FHL.