13 Trial, Imprisonment, and Escape

Introduction

The trial of Joseph Smith and other leading Mormons for crimes allegedly committed against the State of Missouri during the Mormon War took place in November of 1838. The charges and evidence presented against these men resulted in a six-month imprisonment for them during the winter of 1838–1839. This chapter attempts to set forth the details connected with their trial, their imprisonment in Missouri jails, and their subsequent escape from the state.

The Stop-Over in Independence

As formerly noted, General Lucas transported the prisoners in his custody to his headquarters in Independence, Missouri.¹ Prior to this move, however, the prisoners requested permission to say good-bye to their families. Their requests were denied at first, and it was only after much pleading that they were permitted a brief interview with their loved ones. They were accompanied, under armed guard, to their homes. “I found my wife and children in tears,” writes the Mormon Prophet, “who feared that we had been shot . . . and that they would see me no more. When I entered my house, they clung to my garments.” Joseph requested a private audience with his loved ones, but this privilege was denied. While his partner wept and his children clung to his body, Joseph was separated from them “by the swords of the guards.”²

Similar heart-rending scenes were simultaneously enacted elsewhere. At the home of Parley P. Pratt, Mrs. Pratt lay sick in bed with a high fever. Her two children, for all intents and purposes, were motherless. Later, when Parley stopped with his guards at the home of Hyrum Smith, he heard the “sobs and groans” of Hyrum’s wife who was about to be delivered of a child. Pratt describes similar scenes of grief at the home of Sidney Rigdon.³

The departure of the prisoners from Far West was also most pathetic. The prisoners were placed in a covered wagon driven by Stephen Markham, a member of the Church who had been pressed into service by the mob.^{4 [352]} Just before the wagon pulled out, Joseph and Hyrum Smith’s mother and sister arrived to say good-bye. The following is Lucy Mack Smith’s description of what ensued:

When they were about starting from Far West, a messenger came and told us that if we ever saw our sons alive, we must go to them immediately, for they were in a wagon that would start in a few minutes for Independence, and in all probability, they would never return alive. Receiving this intimation, Lucy and myself set out directly for the place. On coming within about a hundred yards of the wagon, we were compelled to stop, for we could press no further through the crowd. I therefore appealed to those around me, exclaiming, “I am the mother of the Prophet—is there not a gentleman here who will assist me to that wagon, that I may take a last look at my children, and speak to them once more before I die?” Upon this, one individual volunteered to make a pathway through the army, and we passed on, threatened with death at every step, till at length we arrived at the wagon. The man who led us through the crowd spoke to Hyrum, who was sitting in front, and telling him that his mother had come to see him, requested that he should reach his hand to me. He did so, but I was not allowed to see him; the cover was of strong cloth, and nailed down so close that he could hardly get his hand through. We had merely shaken hands with him, when we were ordered away by the mob, who forbade any conversation between us, and, threatening to shoot us, they ordered the teamster to drive over us. Our friend then conducted us to the back part of the wagon, where Joseph sat, and said, “Mr. Smith, your mother and sister are here and wish to shake hands with you.” Joseph crowded his hand through between the cover and wagon, and we caught hold of it; but he spoke not to either of us, until I said, “Joseph, do speak to your poor mother once more—I cannot bear to go till I hear your voice.” “God bless you, mother!” he sobbed out. Then a cry was raised, and the wagon was off, tearing him from us just as Lucy pressed his hand to her lips, to bestow upon it a sister’s last kiss—for he was then sentenced to be shot.⁵

The prisoners camped for the night on Crooked River, being confined all the while under a strong guard. The next morning, November 3, the march continued at full speed.⁶ Prior to their departure, according to Parley P. Pratt, Joseph Smith said to his brethren:

“Be of good cheer, brethren; the word of the Lord came to me last night that our lives should be given ^[353] us, and that whatever we may suffer during this captivity, not one of our lives should be taken.” Of this prophecy [said Pratt], I testify in the name of the Lord, and, though spoken in secret, its public fulfillment and the miraculous escape of each one of us is too notorious to need my testimony.⁷

As formerly noted, not long after Lucas left Far West, General Clark arrived. Finding the prisoners gone, Clark issued immediate orders to Lucas to return the prisoners to Richmond. Lucas demurred, on the grounds that he was Clark’s equal in rank and could not be compelled to follow the orders of anyone but a superior officer.⁸ It was for this reason that the march to Independence was consummated at top speed. Wrote Joseph Smith:

The truth was, General Clark had sent an express from Richmond to General Lucas, to have the prisoners sent to him, and thus prevent our going to Jackson county, both armies being competitors for the honor of possessing “the royal prisoners.” Clark wanted the privilege of putting us to death himself, and Lucas and his troops were desirous of exhibiting us in the streets of Independence.⁹

On this same issue, Parley P. Pratt wrote that he and his comrades were told by General Moses Wilson:

We just intend to exhibit you in Independence, let the people look at you and see what a d—d set of fine fellows you are. And, more particularly, to keep you from that old bigot of a General Clark and his troops. . . . They would shoot you down in a moment.^{10 [354]}

The charges that the prisoners were publicly exhibited to curious bystanders is well attested to. Said Hyrum Smith:

While on our way to Jackson county, we excited great curiosity; at our stopping places, people would flock to see us from all quarters, a great number [of whom] would rail upon us and give us abusive language, while a few would pity us, knowing that we were an injured people.¹¹

One of the curious bystanders on the journey was a lady who inquired of the guards which of the prisoners was the man whom the Mormons worshipped as their Lord and Savior. When Joseph Smith was pointed out to her, she questioned him upon the point. Learning that he professed to be nothing more than a man and a minister sent by Jesus Christ, she inquired as to the doctrines espoused by the Latter-day Saints. The Prophet took advantage of her question to preach a lengthy discourse to the large multitude which had assembled.¹²

Upon arrival in the city of Independence, the captives were once again placed on public exhibition. According to Parley P. Pratt, he and his brethren “served the same purpose that a carnival of wild animals would for a show, as hundreds of people called to see us.”¹³ Lyman Wight gave similar testimony.¹⁴

During their stay in Jackson County, the prisoners were treated with much kindness. On the day of his arrival in Independence, Joseph Smith wrote to his wife in part as follows:

My dear and beloved companion . . . in tribulation and affliction: I would inform you that I am well and that we are in good spirits as regards our own fate. We have been protected by the Jackson County boys in a most genteel manner and arrived here in the midst of a splendid parade, a little after noon. Instead of going to gaol, we have a good house provided for us and the kindest treatment. . . . If we are permitted to stay here any time, we have obtained a promise that we may have our families brought to us. . . . Some of the people of this place have told me that some of the Mormons may settle in this county as other men do.¹⁵

Lyman Wight, who kept a day by day account of the events leading up to the imprisonment, wrote:

Nov. 3rd. We now found ourselves in Jackson County, from which we were driven in 1833, about thirteen miles from Independence. Several times in the course of the day, we were exhibited as a public show, having been carried in a covered wagon. But I have it ^[355] to say that with one exception, we were treated in the most genteel manner. We landed at Independence about three o’clock P.M. and were placed in a huge log house on the north side of the public square, with a small guard about us. We had many respectable visitors this evening, together with some few of the offscouring of the earth. We had food prepared for and brought to us. We rested very comfortably through the night.

Nov. 4th. This day we were at liberty to go where we pleased about through the town. We walked down to the temple lot, in company with a gentleman by the name of Collins. He said he presumed the place did not look as it would had we been permitted to have remained in the county. We spent the day in walking about, retired in the evening to the same place and tarried for the night.

5th. This day we were invited to dine with General Wilson by the request of his wife and family, where we were treated in the most genteel style. When the blessing was asked at the table, his wife shed tears freely. We retired after dinner to our place of residence for the night.

Nov. 6th. This morning General Wilson ordered us to be moved to Knowlton’s Hotel, where we were treated in a genteel manner. We spent the day walking about through town, and traded some and returned to Knowlton’s for the night.¹⁶

Parley P. Pratt speaks of the freedom enjoyed by the prisoners in the following words:

We were soon at liberty to walk the streets without a guard, and soon we were removed from our house of confinement to a hotel, where we were entertained in the best style of which the place was capable, which was lodging on the floor and a block of wood for a pillow. We had no longer any guard—we went out and came in as we pleased, a certain keeper being appointed merely to look to us; with him we walked out of town and visited the desloate lands which belonged to our society, and the place which seven years before we had dedicated and consecrated for the building of a temple. . . . While at Independence, we were once or twice invited to dine with General Wilson and others, which we did with much apparent politeness and attention on their part and much cheerfulness on our own.^{17 [356]}

The Journey to and Imprisonment at Richmond

The first two demands made by General Clark for the prisoners to be sent to Richmond proved unavailing. In his second letter, Clark was extremely caustic of Lucas’ insubordinate attitude. “I have heretofore directed you to report to me of your movements in your operations against the Mormons, but you have not done so,” Clark charged. “You are hereby ordered to have all prisoners and arms taken from the Mormons, to be brought forthwith to this place, and the prisoners put in the Richmond jail and guarded.” Clark also directed Lucas to discharge his troops and “repair in person” to the former’s camp and “communicate to me a complete report in detail of what you have done in this expedition.”¹⁸ Considering himself to be Clark’s equal, however, Lucas refused to comply with these orders. Instead, he made a written report to Governor Boggs, explaining his reasons for acting as he had.¹⁹

Clark was openly rankled by what he regarded as insubordination. He immediately appealed by special messenger to the Commander-in-Chief. After first noting that Lucas had not even been called into service in connection with the Order of Extermination, Governor Boggs told Clark:

I approve of the course you have taken in demanding the prisoners of General Lucas, as well as the arms, and shall send him instructions to deliver them over to your order in the way that you have directed him. You will see that they are securely confined within the limits of some prison and strongly guarded.”²⁰

The letter to Lucas produced the desired results, but not until after General Clark had dispatched his personal aid, Colonel Sterling Price, to Independence to escort the prisoners to Richmond in person. It was only after great difficulty that Price secured three persons to assist him in bringing the captives to their new place of confinement.²¹ Of this transaction as well as the journey incident thereto, Parley P. Pratt wrote:

Generals Lucas and Wilson had tried in vain to get a guard to accompany us; none would volunteer, and when drafted, they would not obey orders; for in truth, they wished us to go at liberty.

At last a Colonel and two or three officers started with us, with their swords and pistols, which was more ^[357] to protect us than to keep us from escaping. On this journey, some of us rode in carriages, and some on horseback. Sometimes we were sixty or eighty rods in front of rear of our guard, who, by the by, were “three sheets in the wind” in the whiskey line, having a bottle in their pockets; but knowing we were not guilty of any crime, we did not wish to escape by flight. At night, having crossed the ferry, we put up at a private house. Here our guards all went to bed and to sleep, leaving us their pistols to defend ourselves in case of any attack from without, as we were in a very hostile neighborhood.²²

The journey, begun on November 8th and completed on the 9th, was completed without incident, not until repeated threats, however, had been made on the lives of the prisoners.²³ In the course of their move, the guards and prisoners felt it necessary that an additional force of men be sent for so as to enable the journey to be consummated in safety. Colonel Price went on ahead to Richmond and then returned with about one hundred troops. He met the captives when they were within five miles of their destination and escorted them the rest of the way.²⁴

The next day, November 10th, the prisoners were granted a brief interview with General Clark in their prison chambers. When asked the nature of the charges under which they were held in custody, General Clark replied that the same had not yet been determined.²⁵ Parley P. Pratt reproduces the conversation between himself and the General as follows:

I said to him, “Sir, we have now been prisoners, under the most aggravating circumstances, for two or three weeks, during which time we have received no information as to why we are prisoners, or for what object, and no writ has been served upon us. We are not detained by the civil law; and as ministers of the Gospel in time of peace, who never bear arms, we cannot be considered prisoners of war, especially as there has been no war; and from present appearances, we can hardly be considered prisoners of hope. Why, then, these bonds?”

Said he, “You were taken to be tried.” “Tried by what authority?” said I. “By court-martial,” replied he. “By court-martial?” said I. “Yes,” said he. “How,” said I, “can men who are not military men but ministers of the gospel, be tried by court-martial ^[358] in this country, where every man has a right to be tried by jury?” He replied, it was according to the treaty with General Lucas, on the part of the State of Missouri, and Colonel Hinkle, the commanding officer of the fortress of Far West, on the part of the “Mormons,” and in accordance with the governor’s order. “And,” said he, “I approve of all that Lucas has done and am determined to see it fulfilled.” Said I, “Colonel Hinkle was but a colonel of the Caldwell County Militia, and commissioned by the governor, and the ‘Mormons’ had no fortress, but were, in common with others, citizens of Missouri; and therefore we recognize no authority in Colonel Hinkle to sell our liberties or make treaties for us.”²⁶

As soon as Clark departed, Colonel Price entered the room. He informed the inmates that it was necessary to chain them together so as to prevent any attempt at escape. Price was assisted by sixteen armed men who stood in the doorway of the room with their guns pointed toward the captives. Shortly thereafter, a Mr. John Fulkerson, overseer of the local prison, entered and chained the prisoners together by means of three trace chains and seven padlocks. According to Lyman Wight, Fulkerson “commenced chaining us by our legs one by one, until we were all chained together about two feet apart.”²⁷ The prisoners spent the remainder of their confinement at Richmond in this condition. In writing to his wife, Joseph Smith said:

Brother [George W.] Robinson is chained next to me; he has a true heart and a firm hand. Brother Wight is next, Brother Rigdon next, Hyrum next, Parley next, Amasa [Lyman] next, and thus we are bound together in chains as well as cords of everlasting love.^{28 [359]}

Upon their arrival in Richmond, the Church leaders found that several of their brethren had already preceded them into the city as prisoners. All of these except a few were subsequently released but not until they had suffered like indignities with the leading men of the Church. In a personal letter to his wife, Parley P. Pratt described their condition as follows:

I must not forget to state that when we arrived in Richmond as prisoners, there were some fifty others, mostly heads of families, who had been marched on foot (distance of thirty miles) and were now penned up in a cold, unfinished courthouse, in which situation they remained for some weeks while their families were suffering severe privations.²⁹

One such prisoner was Ebenezer Robinson. He described the plight of himself and his brethren in the following way:

At Richmond we were taken into the courthouse, which was a new unfinished brick building with no inside work done except a floor laid across one end, some 16 or 20 feet wide. There were two large fire places built in the wall where the floor was laid. A railing was built across the room at the edge of the floor, and we were quartered inside the railing as our prison, with a strong guard inside and outside the building.

Two 3-pail iron kettles for boiling our meat and two or more iron bak kettles or dutch ovens for baking our corn bread in, were furnished us, together with sacks of corn meal and meat in the bulk. We did our own cooking. This arrangement suited us very well, and we enjoyed ourselves as well as men could under similar circumstances.³⁰

At times, the guards were friendly toward the prisoners; on other occasions, they were abusive. The captives, however, tended to religious services each night before retiring, and often elicited favorable comments from their captors as a result of these proceedings. “The soldiers inside the building usually gave good attention during these devotions,” wrote Robinson. “Some of them were heard to tell other soldiers to come and hear these Mormons sing, for, said they, ‘They have composed some of the d—dest prettiest songs about Diahman you ever heard in your life.’”³¹

Letters emanating from prison during this time were carefully screened by the guards. It appears that the prisoners felt compelled to write what they did not necessarily honestly feel. Richard B. Winsor, in commenting upon a letter received from his friend, Morris Phelps, ^[360] stated that the information he had received was “not sufficient to draw a correct idea from,” because Phelps’ guard was “waiting to inspect the letter” before it could be sent. “It appears by the manor [sic] he [i.e., Phelps] expresses himself, that he is compeld [sic] to write as unfavorably of the Mormons as will give his letter a passage.”³²

While awaiting trial, the prisoners were at times subjected to personal abuse. The winter of 1838–1839 was a severe one, and the rooms in which the prisoners were housed were “miserable and cold.” Sidney Rigdon, oldest of the captives, was taken very ill in consequence of continued exposure to the inclement weather. On one occasion, Rigdon lost his powers of reason.³³ As for the guards, Parley P. Pratt reports that they were “composed of the most noisy, foul-mouthed vulgar, and disgraceful, indecent rabble that ever defiled the earth.”³⁴ One evening, as the prisoners lay in the attitude of slumber, their guards commenced to boast of their deeds of murder and rape against the Saints. “The obscene jests, the horrid oaths, the dreadful blasphemies, and filthy language” of these men swelled Pratt’s indignation to the breaking point. “I had listened till I became so disgusted, shocked, horrified, and so filled with the spirit of indignant justice,” writes Pratt, “that I could scarcely refrain from rising on my feet and rebuking the guards.” Still, he had said nothing to Joseph Smith about the matter, although he lay next to him on the floor and knew he was awake. Pratt’s descriptive account of what happened next is given as follows:

On a sudden, he [Joseph Smith] arose to his feet and spoke in a voice of thunder, or as the roaring lion, uttering, as near as I can recollect, the following words; “Silence, ye fiends of the infernal pit. In the name of Jesus Christ I rebuke you, and command you to be still. I will not live another minute and hear such language. Cease such talk, or you or I die THIS INSTANT!”

He ceased to speak. He stood erect in terrible majesty, chained, and without a weapon; calm, unruffled, and dignified as an angel, he looked upon the quailing guards, whose weapons were lowered or dropped to the ground; whose knees smote together, and who, shrinking into a corner, or crouching at his feet, begged his pardon, and remained quiet until a change of guards.^{35 [361]}

General Clark and the Prisoners

The role played by General John B. Clark in the actions taken against the prisoners was an important one. It appears that he was anxious to figure as largely as possible in the work of seeing to it that the governor’s desires concerning the prisoners were fulfilled. Boggs had been explicit in his instructions that the captives were to be brought before an “examining court” prior to their commitment to prison.³⁶ “The ringleaders of this rebellion should be made an example of” wrote Boggs on November 1. Five days later, the Governor said once again: “The ringleaders of this rebellion ought by no means [to] be permitted to escape the punishment they merit.”³⁷

The Governor also instructed Clark to deliver the prisoners over to the civil authority for examination.³⁸ This Clark appears to have been reluctant to do. Instead, he was determined to try the prisoners by a general military court on the grounds that their alleged crimes, although committed by private citizens, were perpetrated in time of war. In one of his letters to the Chief Executive, Clark asked that the opinion of the attorney general on this point be forwarded to him at once.³⁹

The prisoners had reason to believe that General Clark wished to have them shot. Sidney Rigdon averred that he overheard his prison guards say that the General had promised his troops on their way east that they should have the privilege of shooting Joseph Smith and Rigdon too. Moreover, the guards were quoted as saying that Clark was “engaged in searching the military law to find authority” for shooting the prisoners.⁴⁰ In an affidavit made before the Municipal Court of Nauvoo, Hyrum Smith once claimed:

A young man of the name of Jedediah M. Grant . . . came to see us [while in prison] and put up at the tavern where General Clark made his quarters. He happened to come in time to see General Clark make choice of his men to shoot us on Monday morning, the 12th day of November. He saw them make choice of their rifles, and load them with two balls in each; and after they had prepared their guns, General Clark saluted them by saying, “Gentlemen, you shall have the honor of shooting the Mormon leaders on Monday morning at eight o’clock.”⁴¹

General Clark, however, appears to have been unsure as to the proper course to take with respect to the prisoners. Until such time as he ^[362] was sure, he steadfastly refused to furnish the prisoners with an official list of the crimes with which they were charged. “During this whole time,” writes Lyman Wight, “there had not been a process served on us, neither civil nor uncivil [sic].”⁴² Repeated attempts by the prisoners to learn the charges against them proved unavailing. According to Sidney Rigdon, Clark continued his search of the military code, even though the prisoners “were not military men and did not belong to the [Missouri] militia.”⁴³

Pending the arrival of legal clarification in the matter, General Clark wrote to Fort Leavenworth, the nearest United States military installation, for an opinion. According to Lyman Wight:

I was informed by one of the guards that, two nights previous to their [i.e., the prisoners’] arrival, General Clark held a court-martial, and the prisoners were again sentenced to be shot; but he being a little doubtful of his authority, sent immediately to Fort Leavenworth for the military law and a decision from the United States officers, where he was duly informed that any such proceedings (such as a shooting) would be a cold-blooded and heartless murder.⁴⁴

It appears that this, together with Governor Boggs’ reply to Clark’s appeal for an official opinion from the attorney general, satisfied the General that only the civil courts had jurisdiction in the case. The Chief Executive’s explicit answer arrived on November 19, at which time the examination before Judge King was already one week old. It said in part:

You will take immediate steps to discharge all the troops you have retained in service as a guard and deliver the prisoners over to the civil authorities. You will not attempt to try them by court martial; the civil law must govern. Should the Judge of the Circuit Court deem a guard necessary, he has authority to call on the militia of the county for that purpose. In the absence of the Attorney General, I am unable to furnish you with his opinion on the points requested. One thing, however, is certain, that as soon as an insurrection is quelled and peace restored, the military authority ceases.^{45 [363]}

It is evident from General Clark’s letters to his military superior that he considered the prisoners to be guilty even before their official hearing before Judge Austin A. King began. It is also evident that he considered the legal proceedings in King’s court to be a formal trial rather than a hearing for commitment. Two days prior to the commencement of the investigation, Clark wrote to Boggs:

The most of the prisoners here I consider guilty of treason; and I believe [they] will be convicted. . . . It will not do to allow these leaders to return to their treasonable work again on account of their not being indicted in Caldwell. They have committed treason, murder, arson, burglary, robbery, larceny, and perjury.⁴⁶

On the eve of the first day of the trial, November 12, Clark wrote to Boggs once again as follows:

We progress slowly, but thus far the disclosures indicate certain conviction of treason against Smith, Wight, Pratt, Rigdon, and some one or two more; and of murder against some five or six; burglary against several; arson against a number; and larceny against others. How it will all result, I cannot tell, but that the leaders will be convicted of treason or murder I think is reasonably certain and many others of felony. You shall be informed as we progress.⁴⁷

Clark appears to have been troubled by the feelings that the prisoners who had allegedly committed crimes in Caldwell County could not be indicted or tried there as the law provided. It was his opinion that the heavy Mormon population would never find the prisoners guilty, no matter how patent the case against them. Even the witnesses from the county were reluctant to testify. “There being no civil officers in Caldwell,” Clark informed the Governor, “I have to use the military to get witnesses from there, which I do without reserve.”⁴⁸

General Clark remained in Richmond until the hearing was concluded. His role in the examination itself, while not fully known, appears to have been an active one. In one of his earlier letters to the Governor, Clark declared that it was his intention “to continue my headquarters here [i.e., in Richmond] until the investigation of the cases of the prisoners ^[364] are closed.”⁴⁹ Nor did the General fail to keep the Governor informed as to the trial’s progress. The latter, cognizant of the fact that he would need to present the evidence on which he had called out such a large portion of the State’s troops to the forthcoming Legislature, requested that all important information be transmitted to his office immediately.⁵⁰ When the hearing itself was concluded, the entire testimony presented at the hearing was quickly forwarded to the Governor. O. H. Searcy, stenographer for the Court, officially informed General Clark as follows:

I think you have now all the testimony. Colonel Price informed me that you and himself transcribed the testimony of W. W. Phelps and Reed Peck. If any is wanting, it is John Clemenson’s, but I think I transcribed that in the book you took down with you. Below I give you a list of the witnesses, in the order they were examined; if the testimony of any is lacking, I will yet transcribe it for you.⁵¹

The Hearing at Richmond

Properly speaking, the event referred to in Latter-day Saint history as the “Trial at Richmond” was not a trial at all. Rather it was a legal hearing to determine which of the prisoners might legally be committed to jail on the basis of the evidence and which might be set free. No jury sat and no official verdict was rendered. According to the laws of the State of Missouri, if, after a preliminary examination of the charges and of the evidence, the Court believed that a legal case might be successfully maintained by the State, the prisoners were to be bound over to appear before a grand jury composed of residents of the county or counties where the crimes allegedly occurred.⁵² This, as will more fully appear, was precisely what was done.

The prisoners, however, did not regard the hearing in the foregoing light. As they saw it, their examination was a farce, merely another in the long train of abuses heaped against them by their enemies under sanction of law. Hyrum Smith referred to the body before whom the evidence was heard as a “pretended Court” and to Judge King as its “chief inquisitor.”⁵³ Joseph Smith termed the inquiry a “mock investigation,”⁵⁴ while Parley P. Pratt spoke of it as a “court of inquisition” and a “mock court ^[365] of inquiry.”⁵⁵ Only Sidney Rigdon and Lyman Wight dignified the investigation by the term “trial.”⁵⁶

On Sunday, November 11, General Clark informed the prisoners of his decision to turn them over to the civil authorities for examination. Although the General “did not know precisely what crimes would be charged” against the Mormon leaders, he averred that “they would be within the range of treason, murder, burglary, arson, larceny, theft, and stealing.”⁵⁷

Later that same day, the prisoners were arraigned before Judge King, Circuit Judge for the 5th Judicial District of the State of Missouri. Thomas C. Burch performed the duties as State’s Attorney.⁵⁸ A brief preliminary hearing was conducted at this time, and the prisoners were notified officially of the charges pending against them. They immediately retained the services of Alexander Doniphan and Amos Rees as their counsel. “We could get no others in time for the trial,” Joseph Smith wrote to his wife. “They are able men and will no doubt do well.”⁵⁹

The following day, the Court of Inquiry began. The principal charges against the Saints appear to have been those of treason and murder. According to Joseph Smith, “Our treason consisted of having whipped the mob out of Daviess County and taking their cannon from them; the murder, of killing the man in the Bogart Battle.”⁶⁰ The charges of arson, larceny, and theft related to the events which occurred in Daviess County in mid October. Sidney Rigdon summed up the charges as follows:

It appeared from the evidence that they attempted to prove us guilty of treason in consequence of the militia of Caldwell county being under arms at the time that General Lucas’ army came to Far West. This calling out of the militia was what they founded the charge of treason on. . . . The charge of murder was founded on the fact that a man of their number, they said, had been killed in the Bogart battle. ^[366]

The other charges [arson, larceny, etc.] were founded on things which took place in Daviess county.⁶¹

The Court saw the charges in a somewhat different light and was more specific in assigning guilt. The accusation of treason was primarily directed against the First Presidency of the Church who allegedly masterminded the military operations in Daviess and Caldwell counties. The charge of murder was principally leveled against Parley P. Pratt, a known participant in the Battle of Crooked River. The rest of the prisoners were variously charged with arson and theft, crimes which they were said to have committed against the residents of Daviess County.

It was evidently the purpose of the court to hear the evidence against all of the prisoners at the same time. “At the commencement [of the hearing],” wrote Sidney Rigdon, “we requested that we might be tried separately, but this was refused, and we were all put on our trial together. . . . No papers were read to us, no charges of any kind preferred, nor did we know against what we had to plead.”⁶² Rigdon was extremely ill during much of the investigation, and may have missed the formal reading of the charges. The official indictment charged that the Church leaders were being examined for “the several crimes of high treason against the State, murder, burglary, arson, robbery, and larceny.”⁶³ Whether or not these accusations were read at the beginning of the formal hearing is not known.

The inquiry lasted from November 12 to 28. The first and most important person to testify was Sampson Avard, a member of the Church and founder of the Danite Order. Avard was apprehended by General Lucas’ forces on November 2, while secreted in some hazel brush not far from Far West. He was among those transported to Richmond for subsequent trial. As formerly noted, his testimony against the prisoners was carefully planned and most damaging.⁶⁴

It appears that Avard was considered by the State to be its leading witness. This is evident from the length of Avard’s recorded testimony as well as from the fact that he was the first to testify. His statements occupy one-fifth of the trial evidence.⁶⁵ Under date of November 12, Lyman Wight recorded the following in his private journal: “Court opened this morning and Samson [sic] Avard was sworn. . . . He swore that all these treasonable purposes (which he had sworn in his heart to perform) originated with us.”⁶⁶ It was in this manner that the Mormon leaders learned for the first time precisely what Avard’s teachings to the Danites had been.^{67 [367]}

That Avard supplied the Court with the evidence necessary to sustain a formal case against the prisoners is readily apparent. In writing of Avard to Governor Boggs, General Clark said: “I will here remark that but for the capture of Sampson Avard, a leading Mormon, I do not believe I could have obtained any useful facts. No one disclosed any useful matter until he was captured and brought in.”⁶⁸ When the secret nature of the Danite organization is recalled, and when Avard’s intimate connection therewith is considered, it is comparatively easy to understand how he was able to supply the “useful facts” of which the General spoke. While awaiting trial, Avard allegedly told Oliver Olney that if the latter wished to clear himself, he must “swear hard against the heads of the Church, as they were the ones the court wanted to criminate [sic].” “I intend to do it,” Avard is quoted as saying, “for if I do not, they will take my life.”⁶⁹ Of this statement, Joseph Smith wrote:

This introduction is sufficient to show the character of his [Avard’s] testimony, and he swore just according to the statement he had made, doubtless thinking it a wise course to ingratiate himself into the good graces of the mob.⁷⁰

Avard’s statement that the Court was determined to incriminate the Church leaders is sustained from other sources. Lyman Wight states that Judge King informed the Saints’ lawyers ten days before the trial’s end whom he was going to commit to jail and whom he was not.⁷¹ According to another authority:

When a prisoner [i.e., one held as prisoner to serve as a witness] did not swear to please the attorney, Birch, he would order them to be taken into custody and they were immediately cast into prison; and the next morning they would be brought forward and tried again.⁷²

And again:

This was surely a new kind of court. It was not an inquisition nor yet a criminal court, but a compound in between. A looker-on would be convinced that both the judge and attorney were not satisfied that some or all of the prisoners had been guilty of some criminal act or acts, but on the contrary, that their ^[368] object was to try, by all means in their power, to get some person to swear something criminal against us, though we were innocent.⁷³

The Latter-day Saint concept of the Kingdom of God was also subjected to rigid examination. On the strength of Avard’s testimony, reinforced as it was by apostate witnesses, the Latter-day Saint Church organization was “converted . . . into a temporal kingdom, which was to fill the whole earth and subdue all other kingdoms” by physical force.⁷⁴ In actuality, this was the foundation for the charge of treason leveled against the Church’s leaders. A great deal of stress was also laid upon the Saints’ belief in the eventual fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel relative to God’s Kingdom in the latter days.⁷⁵ According to Parley P. Pratt:

This Court of Inquisition inquired diligently into our belief in the seventh chapter of Daniel concerning the Kingdom of God which should subdue all other kingdoms and stand forever. And when told that we believe that prophecy, the Court turned to the clerk and said: “Write that down; it is a strong point for treason.” Our lawyer observed as follows: “Judge, you had better make the Bible treason.” The Court made no reply.⁷⁶

Once again according to Pratt:

The Court also inquired diligently into our missionary operations. It was found, on investigation, that the Church had sent missionaries into England and other foreign countries. This, together with our belief in the Bible, was construed into treason against the State of Missouri, while every act of defense was set down as murder, etc.⁷⁷

The charges of treason and theft were strongly reinforced from non-Mormon as well as Mormon sources. Of forty-two witnesses who testified against the Church leaders, however, several were “renegade Mormons.” Their testimony, used throughout this study in various places, is not reproduced here. Their evidence was particularly damaging because they had formerly been members of the Church and had withdrawn, so they said, because of what they considered to be malpractices. Avard’s testimony was principally concerned with the formation and perpetuation of the Danite band, full responsibility for which he laid upon the First Presidency of the Church. ^[369]

John Corrill’s testimony was held to be of particular value because he allegedly overheard Joseph Smith say that he “would suffer vexatious lawsuits no longer” and would even “resist an officer [of the law] in the discharge of his duty.”⁷⁸ He also charged that it was his understanding that the Danites were employed “to carry out the designs of the presidency; and, if necessary to use physical force to upbuild the Kingdom of God, it was to be done by them.”⁷⁹

Reed Peck’s testimony was primarily concerned with the activities of those Church members who went to Daviess County in the course of the Mormon War and assisted in the defense of their brethren there. Peck claimed that he overheard Joseph Smith say that while he had “reverence for the Constitution of the United States and of this State [i.e., Missouri],” he did not intend to regard the laws of Missouri any longer for “they were made by lawyers and blacklegs.”⁸⁰ Peck was very explicit in naming persons he had seen participate in the Mormon War. He strongly implicated Sidney Rigdon with the Danite Order.

John Clemenson, clerk of the Caldwell County Court, testified that Joseph Smith told him on one occasion not to issue a certain legal writ as he [Smith] “did not intend to submit to it [for] it was a vexatious thing.”⁸¹ He also claimed that “it was generally understood [in Mormon circles] that every movement made in Daviess [during the Mormon War] was under the direction and supervision of the First Presidency.” He claimed that the burnings in Daviess County were perpetrated by Mormons and non-Mormons alike; he personally saw a great deal of Gentile property brought into the Mormon camps and deposited in the storehouse as “consecrated property.”⁸²

W. W. Phelps claimed at the trial that he personally sought to mollify both Mormons and non-Mormons in their intense feelings against each other. He alleged that those Mormon dissenters who refused to assist in the defense of Caldwell and Daviess, were according to Rigdon, to have their blood “spilled in the streets of Far West.” He claimed that Lyman Wight and Joseph Smith agreed upon one occasion that “the time had come to resist all law.” It was this decision, Phelps said, that spurred the Saints to take matters into their own hands in Daviess County. He also claimed that he was present at the meeting in Far West when Sidney Rigdon placed all present under covenant to kill any person who attempted to flee Far West as some had previously done.^{83 [370]}

No attempt appears to have been made by the Court to consider the prejudiced or embittered nature of the testimony of these men. Nor were the prisoners given an opportunity to defend their former actions. Nothing was said at the trial concerning the lives and property lost by the Saints at the hands of the non-Mormons nor the aggressive military movements which provoked the Mormons to retaliate. Neither did the Court regard the fact that the Saints in Caldwell and Daviess were official troops of the State, called into service by Generals Doniphan and Parks and by order of Judge Elias Higbee, highest public official in Caldwell County. Says Pratt:

In this mock Court of Inquiry, the Judge could not be prevailed upon to examine the conduct of murderers and robbers who had desolated our society, nor would he receive testimony except against us. By the dissenters and apostates who wished to save their own lives and secure their property at the expense of others, and by those who had murdered and plundered us from time to time, he obtained abundance of testimony, much of which was entirely false.⁸⁴

If the statements made by the prisoners themselves concerning the hearing have any validity whatever, the Court permitted, even encouraged, a number of unusual doings in the course of its examination. Among other things, some of those who testified against their leaders were forced to do so in fear of their lives. Says one source: “The first act of the court was to send out a body of armed men to obtain witnesses without any civil processes whatever; and after witnesses were brought before the court, they were sworn at bayonet point.”⁸⁵ According to Hyrum Smith, “Witnesses were called up and sworn at the point of the bayonet; and if they would not swear to the things they were told to do, they were threatened with instant death; and I do know positively that the evidence given in by those men whilst under duress was false.”⁸⁶ And again:

To aid him [i.e., Judge King] in this work [i.e., of securing prisoners and causing them to give testimony] there was a standing body of armed men; a part of this armed body stood in the presence of the Court to see that the witnesses swore right and another part was scouring the country to drive out of it every witness they could hear of whose testimony would be favorable to the defendants. This course was kept up during the whole time of the Court. If a witness did not swear to please the Court, he or she would be threatened to be cast into prison. They never pleased the Court when their testimony was favorable to the defendants.^{87 [371]}

When the prisoners were called upon to furnish witnesses in their own behalf, the names of forty or fifty persons were promptly supplied. Samuel Bogart and company were then dispatched by the Court with subpoenas for each person listed. Instead of presenting the desired persons before the Court, however, Bogart “arrested all he could find and thrust them into prison.” The defendants were not even allowed to see them.⁸⁸ In the midst of these proceedings, according to Hyrum Smith, Judge King said to the prisoners:

“Gentlemen, you must get your witnesses, or you shall be committed to jail immediately; for we are not going to hold the court open on expense much longer for you anyhow.”

We felt very much distressed and oppressed at that time. Colonel Wight said, “What shall we do? Our witnesses are all thrust into prison, and probably will be; and we have no power to do anything. Of course, we must submit to this tyranny and oppression; we cannot help ourselves. . . .”

However, it was considered best by General Doniphan and Lawyer Rees that we should try to get some witnesses before the pretended court.

Accordingly, I gave the names of about twenty other persons. The Judge inserted them in the subpoena, and caused it to be placed into the hands of Bogart, the Methodist priest; and he again started off with his fifty soldiers to take those men prisoners, as he had the forty others.

The Judge sat and laughed at the good opportunity of getting the names, that they might more easily capture them, and so bring them down to be thrust into prison, in order to prevent us from getting the truth before the pretended Court, of which he was the Chief Inquisitor or conspirator. Bogart returned from this second expedition with one witness only, whom he also thrust into prison.

The people at Far West had learned of the intrigue, and had left the State, having been made acquainted with the treatment of the former witnesses.⁸⁹

On November 24, Judge King informed the prisoners that that was the last day on which the Court would sit. He asked them to present their witnesses if they had any. Seeing a friend peering in the window on the opposite side of the courtroom, Hyrum Smith beckoned for him to enter. This man, whose last name was Allen, did so and presented himself before the ^[372] Court and asked to be sworn. According to Hyrum Smith, the Judge was unwilling to respond to the request. Mr. Birch, the State’s Attorney, objected also on that grounds that “this was not a court to try the case but only a court of investigation on the part of the State.” The following is Hyrum Smith’s account:

Upon this, General Doniphan arose and said, “He would be G—d d—d if the witness should not be sworn, and that it was a d—d shame that these defendants should be treated in this manner,—that they could not be permitted to get one witness before the court, whilst all their witnesses, even forty at a time, have been taken by force of arms and thrust into that d—d ‘bull pen,’ in order to prevent them from giving their testimony.”

After Doniphan sat down, the Judge permitted the witness to be sworn and enter upon his testimony, but as soon as he began to speak, a man by the name of Cook, who was a brother-in-law to priest Bogart, the Methodist, and who was a lieutenant [i.e., in the State Militia] and whose duty at that time was to superintend the guard, stepped in before the pretended court, and took him [Allen] by the nape of the neck and jammed his head down under the pole, or log of wood, that was around the place where the inquisition was sitting to keep bystanders from intruding upon the majesty of the inquisitors, and jammed him along to the door, and kicked him out of doors. He instantly turned to some soldiers who were standing by him and said to them, “Go and shoot him, d—n him; shoot him, d—n him.” He fled for his life and with great difficulty made his escape.⁹⁰

When it became evident that the defendants were not to be permitted to present rebutting testimony, their lawyers advised against any more attempts to procure witnesses. According to Joseph Smith, their reasons for so advising were that if they continued as they had done in the past, “there would not be one of them left for the final trial.” Wrote the Mormon Prophet,

As to making any impression on King, Doniphan said, ‘if a cohort of angels were to come down and declare we were innocent, it would all be the same;’ for he [King] had determined from the beginning to cast us into prison. We never got the privilege of introducing our witnesses at all; if we had, we could have disproved all the evidence of our enemies.”⁹¹

On this same point, Sidney Rigdon said: ^[373]

I do not recollect one single point about which testimony was given with which I was acquainted, but was misrepresented, nor one solitary witness whose testimony was there written, that did not swear falsely; and in many instances, I cannot see how it could avoid being intentional on the part of those who testified, for all of them did swear to things that I am satisfied they knew to be false at the time, and it would be hard to persuade me to the contrary.

There were things there said so utterly without foundation in truth—so much so, that the persons swearing must at the time of swearing have known it. The best construction I can ever put upon it is that they swore things to be true which they did not know to be so; and this, to me, is wilful perjury.⁹²

And at least one historical source records:

The entire proceedings in the case [against the prisoners] were disgraceful in the extreme. There never was a handful of evidence that the accused were guilty of the crimes with which they were charged. Those that were tried were defended by General Doniphan and James S. Rollins.⁹³

Shortly before the hearing concluded, several of the prisoners “against whom nothing had been proven” were released.⁹⁴ Four days later, the remaining prisoners were either dismissed or admitted to bail. The following were the exceptions:

Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Lyman Wight, Caleb Baldwin, and Alexander McRay [sic], all heads of families, were committed to jail in Clay County on the charge of treason; and Morris Phelps, Luman Gibbs, Darwin Chase, Norman Shearer, and myself [Parley P. Pratt] were committed to the jail of Richmond, Ray County, for the alleged crime of murder, said to be committed in the act of dispersing the bandit, Bogart, and his gang.⁹⁵

The evidence produced by the hearing became a matter of immediate interest throughout the State. The influential and outspoken Missouri Republican Daily asked for permission to publish all documents in relation ^[374] thereto.⁹⁶ At the same time, the State Legislature demanded of the Governor that all official correspondence and papers relating to the Mormon War be forwarded to them for their perusal.⁹⁷ The request was complied with on December 5, 1838. Two weeks later, the Senate Committee appointed to read and examine the documents declared the trial evidence to be “ex parte,” that is, one-sided, and “not of that character which should be desired for the basis of a fair and candid investigation.” This, together with the fact that the formal trial of the prisoners had not yet taken place, induced the Legislature to conclude that it would be “unwise and injudicious” to permit the trial evidence to be reproduced by the newspapers.⁹⁸ The details in connection with the State’s attempts to investigate the Mormon War will be considered more fully in a subsequent chapter.⁹⁹

The Alleged Partiality of Judge Austin A. King

It is difficult to account for the seeming partiality of Judge King, even when the admitted prejudices of the Mormon prisoners who speak against him are taken into consideration. According to Ebenezer Robinson, the hearing had progressed only a few days when the Judge averred that “nothing but hanging would answer the law” where the prisoners were concerned. Robinson added:

On another occasion, we understood him to say, speaking of the prisoners, that if they would deny the Book of Mormon, they might go clear. These things were talked over among the prisoners, but not one of our number would accept freedom upon such unholy terms, notwithstanding it might possibly save them from the gallows.¹⁰⁰

Others of the prisoners were equally outspoken regarding the Judge’s one-sidedness. Parley P. Pratt, for example, states that the Judge said in open court that if the residents of Caldwell attempted to put in any more crops, they would be “destroyed indiscriminately, and their bones be left to bleach on the plains without a burial.”¹⁰¹ Lyman Wight claimed to overhear the Judge say, while seated on his bench and in the presence of hundreds of witnesses, “that there was no law for the ‘Mormons,’ and they need not expect any. Said he, ‘If the Governor’s exterminating order had been directed to me, I would have seen it fulfilled to the very letter are this time.’”¹⁰² And Sidney Rigdon charged: ^[375]

It was so plainly manifested by the Judge that he wanted the witnesses to prove us guilty of treason, that no person could avoid seeing it. The same feelings were also visible in the State’s Attorney. Judge King made an observation something to this effect, as he was giving directions to the scribe who was employed to write down the testimony, that he wanted all the testimony directed to certain points.¹⁰³

Perhaps Joseph Smith supplied the clearest explanation of King’s biases when, in the course of applying for a change of venue to an eastern county in Missouri, he wrote:

We believe that the foundation of the feeling against us, which we have reason to think Judge King entertains, may be traced to the unfortunate troubles which occurred in Jackson county some few years ago; in a battle between the “Mormons” and a portion of the citizens of that county, Mr. Brazeale, the brother-in-law of Judge King, was killed. It is natural that the Judge should have some feelings against us, whether we were right or wrong in that controversy.¹⁰⁴

Unfortunately no rebutting evidence has been found to counteract the impression that he was prejudiced against the prisoners. The Missouri Argus, admittedly possessed of anti-Mormon sentiments, contended that when the inquiry was over, each of the prisoners approached Judge King personally and “publicly thanked [him] for his kind treatment, courtesy, and patience.”¹⁰⁵ This is highly unlikely, considering the evidence presented heretofore. About a month after the hearing was over, Judge King personally presided as chairman of an anti-Mormon meeting in his home town of Richmond. For this action, he was roundly censured by the Legislature and by newspapers throughout the State.¹⁰⁶ The most reliable evidence available indicates an excessive partiality on the Judge’s part.

The Imprisonment at Liberty

The hearing concluded on November 28. The next day, the prisoners who were scheduled for commitment to the jail in Liberty were removed to Clay County. Describing this operation, Hyrum Smith said:

A large wagon drove up the door [of the jail in Richmond], and a blacksmith came into the house with ^[376] some chains and handcuffs. He said his orders were from the Judge to handcuff us and chain us together. He informed us that the Judge had made out a mittimus and sentenced us to jail for treason. He said also that the Judge had done this that we might not get bail. He also said the Judge declared his intention to keep us in jail until all the “Mormons” were driven out of the state. He also said that the Judge had further declared that if he let us out before the “Mormons” had left the state, we would not let them leave, and there would be another damned fuss kicked up.¹⁰⁷

The fear that the prisoners, if released, would induce their friends to remain in Missouri in spite of the Governor’s Order of Expulsion was groundless, for the Saints were even then leaving the State. It is possible, in view of future developments, that the imprisonment of the Church leaders was merely a farce acted up to insure the hasty removal of the Mormons from Missouri. The question is discussed at greater length in a subsequent portion of this chapter.¹⁰⁸

The order committing the prisoners to Liberty Jail was issued on the same day that the journey began. It is given as follows:

State of Missouri
Ray County.

To the Keeper of the Jail of Clay County; Greeting: Whereas Joseph Smith, Junior, Hyrum Smith, Lyman Wight, Alexander McRae, and Caleb Baldwin, as also Sidney Rigdon, have been brought before me, Austin A. King, Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in the State of Missouri, and charged with the offense of treason against the State of Missouri, and the said defendants, on their examination before me, being held to answer further to said charge, the said Joseph Smith, Junior, Hyrum Smith, Lyman Wight, Alexander McRae, and Caleb Baldwin to answer further in the county of Daviess and the said Sidney Rigdon to answer further in the county of Caldwell for said charge of treason, and there being no jail in said counties: these [instructions] are therefore to command you that you receive the said Joseph Smith, Junior, Hyrum Smith, Lyman Wight, Alexander McRae. Caleb Baldwin, and Sidney Rigdon into your custody in the jail of the said county of Clay, there to remain until they be delivered therefrom by due course of law.

Given under my hand and seal the 29th day of November, 1838.

AUSTIN A. KING.^{109 [377]}

The journey to Liberty from Richmond was made in one day. The route of travel was along the main road leading from Richmond, and the town of Liberty was entered from the east. Anxious viewers thronged the streets of the latter city as the wagon containing the prisoners lumbered along the road. Lyman O. Littlefield, who viewed the entrance of the captives into the city as well as into their prison home, wrote:

They were all in one large, heavy wagon, with a high box, which as they were seated, hid from view all their forms, except from a little below the shoulders. They passed through the center of town, across the public square, in the center of which stood the court house. After crossing this square, the wagon containing them was driven up the street northward about the distance of two blocks, where at the lefthand side of the street was a vacant piece of ground, upon which, close to the street, stood the Liberty jail. . . .

This large, clumsily built wagon, the box of which was highest at each end, finally halted close to the platform in front of the jail, which platform had to be reached by means of about a half dozen steps, constructed on the south and north sides of the same. The jail fronted the street at the east.

The prisoners left the wagon and immediately ascended the south steps to the platform, around which no bannisters were constructed. The door was open; one by one, the tall and well-proportioned forms of the prisoners entered. The Prophet Joseph was the last of the number who lingered behind. He turned partly around, with a slow and dignified movement, and looked at the multitude. Then turning away and lifting his hat, he said, in a distinct voice, “Good afternoon, gentlemen.” The next moment he had passed out of sight. The heavy door swung upon its strongest hinges, and the Prophet was hid from the gaze of the curious populace who had so eagerly watched.¹¹⁰

Those who remained behind in Richmond were kept in the same confines that they had occupied during the investigation. One December 1, 1838, Parley P. Pratt wrote to his wife from Richmond as follows:

Our situation is decided for the present: Joseph and Sidney and four others have gone to Liberty where they will be kept until further trial; myself and about 20 others are in jail here in Richmond, but they will probably all be bailed out except 4 or 5 who will ^[378] have to stay. It may be all winter before our final trials are over. The jail is somewhat open and cold, but the sheriff promised to furnish us with a good stove and plenty of wood, and we have plenty to eat and drink.¹¹¹

The jail in which the prisoners in Liberty were housed was a structure composed of rock and wood. The walls were of double construction, the outer portion being stone and the inner oak-hewn logs. The space between the inner and outer walls of the building were filled with loose rock, making the total thickness of the walls about four feet in all.

The overall size of the structure was twenty-two feet in width by twenty-two feet in length by fourteen feet in height. The building was divided into two compartments, one above and one below. The upper story was just over seven feet from floor to ceiling and housed the jailer and his family, while the lower apartment or dungeon was just under six feet in height and was reserved exclusively for prisoners.

The dungeon chamber was smaller than the rest of the building, being only fourteen and one-half feet from east to west, inside dimensions, and fourteen feet from north to south. The ceiling of the dungeon was also made of logs. It was overlaid with several loads of rocks to prevent escape through the upper compartment. The north side of the top story contained one small window, two feet by one foot in dimensions, which housed five iron bars. The dungeon had two small windows in it, one at the north and one at the south ends. These openings were long and narrow, being two feet in length and six inches in width, and had a single iron bar running through them lengthwise. The door to the dungeon was located on the east end of the building and opened to some stairs which led to the upper compartment. It was constructed of heavy wood and stood five and one-half feet high and measured two and one-half feet in width.¹¹²

The winter was a doleful one for the prisoners in both jails. The food, sleeping provisions, and prison guards left a great deal to be desired in the minds of the inmates. Writing of the incarceration at Richmond, Parley P. Pratt said:

Our food was of the most unwholesome kind, and scant at that; consisting of bones and remnants of meat, coarse corn bread, and sometimes a little coffee. We generally partook of our meals in a standing position, using our fingers instead of knives, forks, or plates. A tin cup served us for our coffee. We were guarded very strictly both night and day, by two or three men with loaded pistols.

These consisted of the most unprincipled, profligate villains that could be found anywhere. They ^[379] would swear, drink, gamble, and sing the most obscene and disgusting songs. They would boast of shooting the Mormons; robbing and plundering them; committing rapes, etc. They would also insult every female slave or black woman who might happen to come within hearing and then boast of their criminal connections with them.¹¹³

The prisoners in Liberty were similarly treated. The following from Hyrum Smith is instructive:

Our place of lodging [bed] was the square side of a hewed white oak log, and our food was anything but good or decent. Poison was administered to us three or four times. The effect it had upon our system was that it vomited us almost to death; and then we would lie some two or three days in a torpid, stupid state, not even caring or wishing for life. . . .

We were also subjected to the necessity of eating human flesh for the space of five days or go without food, except a little coffee or a little corn-bread. The latter I chose in preference to the former. We none of us partook of the flesh, except Lyman Wight. We also heard the guard which was placed over us making sport of us, saying they had fed us on ‘Mormon beef.’¹¹⁴

Lyman Wight also said:

The mercies of the jailer were intolerable, feeding us with a scanty allowance of the dreges of coffee and tea from his own table, and fetching the provisions in a basket, without being cleaned, on which the chickens had roosted the night before. Five days he fed the prisoners on human flesh and from extreme hunger, I was compelled to eat it.¹¹⁵

Regarding the administration of poison, Alexander McRae wrote:

Sometime during our stay in Liberty jail, an attempt was made to destroy us by poison. I suppose it was administered in either tea or coffee, but as I did not use either, I escaped unhurt; while all who did [use it] were sorely afflicted, some being blind ^[380] two or three days, and it was only by much prayer and faith that the effect was overcome.¹¹⁶

In a letter written from prison to Isaac Galland, a man who temporarily befriended the Saints at this time, Joseph Smith wrote:

We are kept under a strong guard night and day, in a prison of double walls and doors, proscribed in our liberty of conscience, our food is scant, uniform, and coarse; we have not the privilege of cooking for ourselves, we have been compelled to sleep on the floor with straw, and not blankets sufficient to keep us warm; and when we have a fire, we are obliged to have almost a constant smoke. . . .

We are informed that the prisoners in Richmond jail, Ray county, are much more inhumanly [sic] treated than we are; if this is the case, we will assure you that their constitutions cannot last long, for we find ours wearing away very fast; and if we knew of any source whereby aid and assistance could be rendered unto us, we should most cordially petition for it; but where is Liberty?¹¹⁷

The sufferings of the prisoners during the winter of 1838–1839 were lessened slightly by the infrequent visitations of friends. Alexander McRae lists several persons who visited the captives, each of whom performed various acts of kindness. “O[rin] P. Rockwell brought us refreshments many times; and Jane Bleven and her daughter brought cakes, pies, &c., and handed them in at the windows. These things helped us much, as our food was very coarse and so filthy that we could not eat it until we were driven to it by hunger.”¹¹⁸ As often as not the visitors left more depressed in their spirits than the prisoners.¹¹⁹ Of those who were kind enough to take the time to make a visit, Joseph Smith wrote that their kindness and attention would ever be remembered by him “with feelings of lively gratitude.” Frequently, as he observed however, those who came to visit the prisoners were denied their request.¹²⁰

Letters also helped to make prison life more bearable. Those received by the prison inmates generally apologized for the inability of the writer to visit in person or else requested advice as to a future course ^[381] of action for the Saints.¹²¹ Those which emanated from the prison usually contained appeals for justice or else counsel for the stricken Saints.¹²² Joseph Smith in particular wrote profusely during his imprisonment, and some of the most beautiful prose of his life was penned during this period.¹²³

That the Mormon Prophet and his brethren considered their incarceration to be rooted in religious bigotry appears evident from an examination of their written communications during this period. To the Saints scattered abroad, Joseph Smith wrote the following on December 16, 1838:

Know assuredly, dear brethren, that it is for the testimony of Jesus that we are in bonds and in prison. . . . After we were bartered away by Hinkle and were taken into the militia camp. we had all the evidence we could ask for that the world hated us . . . . And now what did they hate us for? Purely because of the testimony of Jesus Christ. . . They [the Church’s enemies] represent us falsely; we stood in our own defense, and we believe that no man of us acted only in a just, a lawful, and a righteous retaliation against such marauders.

We say unto you, that we have not committed treason, nor any other unlawful act in Daviess county.¹²⁴

The prisoners were much rankled by the fact that a major portion of their persecutions was brought about by former friends turned dissenters. Of these persons few pleasant thoughts were entertained. Wrote Joseph Smith:

Renegade “Mormon” dissenters are running through the world and spreading various foul and libelous reports against us, thinking thereby to gain the friendship of the world, because they know that we are not of the world and that the world hates us. . . .

. . . We have waded through an ocean of tribulation and mean abuses practiced upon us by the ill-bred and the ignorant, such as Hinkle, Corrill, Phelps, Avard, Reed Peck, Clemenson, and various others, who are so very ignorant that they cannot appear respectable in any decent and civilized society and whose eyes are full of adultery and cannot cease from sin. ^[382] Such characters as McLellin, John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris are too mean to mention; and we had liked to forget them. Marsh and “another,” whose hearts are full of corruption, whose cloak of hypocrisy was not sufficient to shield them or to hold them up in the hour of trouble, who after having escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of their Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, became again entangled and overcome—their latter end is worse than the first.¹²⁵

The non-Mormon view of the imprisonment differs from that taken by the prisoners. A resident of Liberty, signing himself “a friend” of the Missouri Argus, a newspaper in St. Louis, wrote in March of 1839:

The Mormons are still in confinement—Joe Smith and the rest of the leaders, with the exception of Sidney Rigdon. He was liberated on giving bail, and, as might have been expected, immediately took flight to Illinois. Whether the bird will return to the cage or not is uncertain, though in all probability we shall not see Sidney Rigdon on the west side of the Mississippi again. His companions in durance are treated with humanity and every kindness suitable to their condition. You may often see Joe himself in the streets, with a guard, taking the air. Now and then the dull routine of the town has been disturbed by rumors of attempts to escape. But I doubt whether any serious effort has been made. A week or two since a physician residing here departed “post-haste,” as it was said he had been concerned in supplying the Mormons with tools, arms, etc. A strict guard is kept, and I understand that the prisoner’s apartments are narrowly [sic] examined at intervals in order to prevent any tools or arms from being secreted. None are now admitted into the jail unless known to the jailer—a very proper precaution. You may rest assured that the Mormons will receive justice from the people of upper Missouri.¹²⁶

Attempts to Secure a Formal Trial

Repeated attempts by the prisoners during the winter to secure an immediate hearing of their case failed. Even the plea of the Missouri Republican Daily for the calling of a special court to insure a “fair and speedy trial” for the captives was ignored.¹²⁷ Finally, on January 24, 1839, Joseph Smith and his brethren drew up a petition which they directed to the Missouri Legislature. “It is not our object to complain—to asperse any one,” they wrote. “All we ask is a fair ^[383] and impartial trial.” Included with the appeal was a request for a change of venue on the grounds that the prejudice existing in Upper Missouri against the Mormon leaders was so strong as to preclude any semblance of a fair trial. “We know that much of the prejudice against us is not so much to be attributed to a want of honest motives amongst the citizens,” the petition read, “as it is to misrepresentation.” As for Judge King, known by many to have strong biases against the prisoners, the petitioners stated that they did not intend to disparage the man by expressing their opinions but honestly believed that the Judge himself “would prefer that our trials should be in a different circuit and before a different court.”¹²⁸

The petition was duly received and considered by the Legislature, but it bore no immediate fruit. In the most technical sense of the word, the formal request of the prisoners was not allowed at all by the Legislature. Instead, a bill was introduced in behalf of the prisoners on January 25, 1839, by David R. Atchison. After some heated controversy, this bill was passed by a bare majority.¹²⁹

A day or so after this first petition was drawn up, a writ of habeas corpus was applied for before Judge Turnham of Clay County. The request for a hearing on the matter, according to Joseph Smith, was granted by the Judge with “considerable reluctance.”¹³⁰ On January 25, the prisoners were arraigned before Judge Turnham. Alexander Doniphan represented each of the prisoners except Sidney Rigdon who pled his own case. Rigdon was shortly admitted to bail, while the rest of the prisoners were remanded back to their cells.¹³¹

The specific reason why Sidney Rigdon was admitted to bail while the others were not is unknown. The Missouri Republican Daily attributes it to the fact that Rigdon “made a most able defense before the court,” one of the finest that residents of Clay County could ever remember.¹³² More likely is the possibility that since Rigdon was scheduled for trial in Caldwell County and since the Mormons were fast emigrating from the same, Judge Turnham considered the improbability of securing an impartial jury (either Mormon or non-Mormon) to be too great a stumbling block to keeping Rigdon locked up.^{133 [384]}

On March 15, Joseph Smith and his friends who were not in jail wrote to Judge Tompkins and his associates of the State Supreme Court. They protested against the unlawful manner in which the Mormon Prophet had been detained and raised specific objections against the manner in which Joseph Smith had been decoyed from his home by George M. Hinkle. They also inveighed against the “long and tedious ex parte examination” held in Richmond. Had the Mormon Prophet been permitted to present rebutting evidence to the Court, the petition said, “he could have disproved everything that was [said] against him.” The entire hearing in King’s Court was denounced as a “religious persecution” and those statements given out by some at the trial as “religious sentiments” of the Mormon Prophet were pronounced false and could be proved to be so. “Joseph Smith, Jun., did not promulgate such ridiculous and absurd sentiments for his religion as were testified of . . . [nor did he] levy war against the State of Missouri.” Said the document:

The prisoner has never commanded any military company, nor held any military authority, neither any other office, real or pretended, in the state of Missouri, except that of religious instructor; that he has never borne arms in the military rank; and in all such cases has acted as a private character and as an individual. . . .

The testimony of Dr. Avard . . . was false . . . Dr. Avard also swore falsely concerning a constitution, as he said was introduced among the Danites. . . . The prisoner had nothing to do with the burning in Daviess county. . . . The prisoner made public proclamation against such things . . . (and) did oppose Dr. Avard and George M. Hinkle against vile measures with the mob, but was threatened by them if he did not let them alone.

The petition concluded with assurances that Joseph Smith was “a warm friend to his country, . . . a peaceable and quiet citizen” and therefore “not worthy of death, of stripes, bonds, or imprisonments.”¹³⁴ Similar petitions were made the same day in behalf of each of the other prisoners. The reasoning behind separate petitions appears to have been that they would accomplish more than a collective one.

Heber C. Kimball and Theodore Turley took these documents to Jefferson City in person. On their way, they also collected such other documents as would aid in the accomplishment of their mission, namely, to bring to the attention of the State Supreme Court the unfair manner in which their ^[385] friends had been treated.¹³⁵ Upon arrival in the State capitol, the two men presented their documents to the Secretary of State. Governor Boggs was absent from the city. The secretary allegedly expressed amazement on learning that the documents presented to him constituted the entire set of legal charges against the prisoners. He is said to have vehemently pronounced the same to be “illegal.”¹³⁶

A visit to the supreme judges produced similar results. “We laid the whole matter before them individually,” wrote Heber C. Kimball, but “neither of them would take any action in the case, although they appeared friendly and acknowledged that they [i.e., the prisoners] were illegally imprisoned.”¹³⁷ The writ of habeas corpus which they requested was denied on the grounds that the “order of commitment” to prison was illegally made out. A request for a change of venue was also denied because the papers made out by the prisoners’ legal counsel, Alexander Doniphan, were incorrectly drawn up.¹³⁸ Wrote Heber C. Kimball:

We immediately returned to Liberty, where we arrived on the 3rd [of April] and made Joseph and the prisoners acquainted with the results of our mission—through the gate of the dungeon, as we were not permitted to enter the prison. . . .

In company with Brother Turley, I visited Judge Austin A. King, who was vexed at us for presenting his illegal papers to the supreme Judges. He treated us very roughly.¹³⁹

Hence, repeated attempts of the prisoners to secure a formal hearing of their case or else to be given an unconditional release failed. In speaking of this fact, Hyrum Smith wrote:

While we were incarcerated in prison, we petitioned the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri for [a writ of] habeas corpus twice, but were refused both times by Judge Reynolds. . . . We also petitioned one of the county Judges for a ^[386] writ of habeas corpus, which was granted in about three weeks afterwards, but were not permitted to have any trial. We were only taken out of jail and kept out a few hours and then remanded back again.¹⁴⁰

And Joseph Smith also wrote:

About this time [i.e., February, 1839], Elders Heber C. Kimball and Alanson Ripley were at Liberty, where they had been almost weekly importuning at the feet of the judges; and while performing this duty on a certain occasion, Judge Hughes . . . entreated his associates to admit of bail for all the prisoners; but the hardness of their hearts would not admit of so charitable a deed. But the brethren continued to importune at the feet of the judges and also to visit the prisoners. No one of the ruling part of the community disputed the innocence of the prisoners, but said, in consequence of the fury of the mob, that even-handed justice could not be administered; Elders Kimball and Repley were therefore compelled to abandon the idea of importuning at the feet of the judges, and leave the prisoners in the hands of God.¹⁴¹

Attempts at Escape

While imprisoned in Liberty, the Prophet and his brethren made at least two attempts to escape. The first attempt, made on February 8, 1839, was carefully planned. It was, however, foiled through the alertness of the jailer and his guard. Alexander McRae tells the story in the following words:

Accordingly, on the 7th day of February, 1839, after counseling together on the subject, we concluded to try to go that evening when the jailor came with our supper; but Brother Hyrum, before deciding fully, and to make it more sure, asked Brother Joseph to inquire of the Lord as to the propriety of the move. He did so, and received answer to this effect—that if we were all agreed, we could go clear that evening; and if we would ask, we should have a testimony for ourselves. I immediately asked, and had not more than asked, until I received as clear a testimony as ever I did of anything in my life, that it was true. Brother Hyrum Smith and Caleb Baldwin bore testimony to the same; but Lyman Wight said we might go if we chose, but he would ^[387] not. After talking with him for some time, he said, “If we would wait until the next day, he would go with us.” Without thinking we had no promise of success on any other day than the one stated above, we agreed to wait.

When night came, the jailor came alone with our supper, threw the door wide open, put our supper on the table, and went to the back part of the room, where a pile of books lay, took up a book, and went to reading, leaving us between him and the door, thereby giving us every chance to go if we had been ready. As the next day was agreed upon, we made no attempt to go that evening.

When the next evening came, the case was very different; the jailor brought a double guard with him, and with them six of our brethren, to-wit: Erastus Snow, William D. Huntington, Cyrus Daniels, David Holeman, Alanson Ripley, and Watson Barlow. I was afterwards informed that they were sent by the Church. The jailor seemed badly scared; he had the door locked and everything made secure. It looked like a bad chance to get away, but we were determined to try it; so when the jailor started out, we started too. Brother Hyrum took the door, and the rest followed; but before we were able to render him the assistance he needed, the jailer and guard succeeded in closing the door, shutting the [visiting] brethren in with us, except Cyrus Daniels, who was on the outside.^142 143

Those visiting the prisoners were regarded as accessories before the fact and were forced to stand trial. Erastus Snow, one of those who were tried, wrote:

We were kept there about a week and taken out and tried before the court. I plead [sic] my own cause and was discharged and the others were bound over. They proved nothing against them yet to please the rabble and keep down the mob, the judges bound them over. For we made no attempt to release the prisoners, though we had it in our hearts to seize the jailer and the guards when we got out.^{144 [388]}

The second attempt to escape was made sometime in early March. This time the prisoners tried to dig their way out with crude tools. Joseph Smith described the attempt in a letter to the Saints as follows:

Unfortunately for us, the timber of the wall being very hard, our auger handles gave out, and hindered us longer than we expected; we applied [for help] to a friend, and a very slight, incautious act gave rise to some suspicions, and before we could fully succeed, our plan was discovered; we had everything in readiness but the last stone, and we could have made our escape in one minute, and should have succeeded admirably, had it not been for a little imprudence and over-anxiety on the part of our friend.¹⁴⁵

This time the reaction from the populace was somewhat different. Newspapers throughout the State were castigating the Governor’s Order of Extermination heavily, and the one-sided hearing before Judge King was also a matter of common knowledge. “The sheriff and jailer did not blame us for the attempt,” wrote Joseph Smith to the Saints. “It was a fine breach and cost the county a round sum.”¹⁴⁶

The Trial in Daviess County Before the Grand Jury

As formerly noted, Heber C. Kimball and Theodore Turley were forced to return from Jefferson City without securing either writs of habeas corpus or changes of venue in behalf of the prisoners because the papers they carried were improperly made out. Shortly after their return, however, the papers demanded by the Judges of the Supreme Court of the State were secured and sent to the State Capital in the custody of Erastus Snow.

The request of the prisoners for a change of venue was for Marion County. Upon arrival in Jefferson City, Snow discovered that the Legislature had already granted the request, not for Marion County but for Boone County. When the Supreme Court judges refused to permit the prisoners to be brought before them for examination, Snow appealed to the Secretary of State for a copy of the legislative act granting the change of venue. Snow returned to Far West with the document immediately. He arrived home on April 7, 1839.¹⁴⁷

The reason why Boone County rather than Marion County was chosen as the place of trial is not known. The Missouri Republican Daily expressed a belief that it was because the counties where disturbances had taken ^[389] place did not possess a single resident who had not formed opinions in the case. Another source suggests that Boone County was chosen because it was known throughout the State for its excessive “Christian Toleration.”¹⁴⁸

Prior to receipt of the legislative change of venue, Judge King ordered the prisoners removed to Daviess County for trial. Joseph Smith avers that this move was made because King feared “a change of venue or some movement on our part to escape his unhallowed persecution. . . .”¹⁴⁹ The prisoners arrived in Gallatin, county seat of Daviess, having been denied their request to make the journey by way of Far West. Shortly after their arrival in Daviess County, the prisoners received word concerning their change of venue.¹⁵⁰

The Grand Jury of Daviess County refused to honor the change of venue at first. In the most technical sense of the word, all that should have taken place at Gallatin was the preferring of indictments against the prisoners.¹⁵¹ Instead, the Mormon leaders were once again subjected to interrogations as well as to mental and physical harrassment. What took place, from the point of view of the prisoners, was not a hearing but another trial. “Our trial commenced before a drunken grand jury, Austin A. King, presiding judge, as drunk as the rest,” wrote Joseph Smith, “for they were all drunk together.”¹⁵²

The hearing began on April 9. Prior to official action being taken on the charges currently pending against the prisoners, Lyman Wight and Joseph Smith were called upon to answer to the former charges made against them by Judge Adam Black. As noted in a former section of this study, the two men were bound over by Judge King to answer to these charges at a later date.¹⁵³ In addition, the names of several co-defendants, alleged to have been present at the Judge’s home on August 8, 1838, were added to the list.¹⁵⁴ Joseph Smith was also charged before the Grand Jury with receiving from Mormon Cornelius P. Lott a saddle belonging to George Worthington of Daviess County. The charge averred that Joseph Smith knew that the saddle was stolen when he accepted it.¹⁵⁵

The trial lasted one week. As far as is known, the foregoing charges constitute all of the evidence presented against the prisoners. Nothing appears to have been said concerning charges of treason or arson. At the ^[390] trial’s conclusion, however, “the grand jury brought in a bill for ‘murder, treason, arson, larceny, theft, and stealing,’” against the prisoners.¹⁵⁶ Hyrum Smith, who viewed the trial as merely another in a long train of persecutions, wrote as follows:

Sometime in April, we were taken to Daviess County, as they said, to have a trial. But when we arrived at that place, instead of finding a court or jury, we found another inquisition; and Birch, who was the district attorney, the same man who had been one of the court-martial when we were sentenced to death, was not the circuit judge of that pretended court; and the grand jury that were empannelled were all at the Haun’s Mills [sic] and [were] lively actors in that awful, solemn, disgraceful, cool-blooded murder; and all the pretense they made of excuse was, they had done it because the Governor ordered them to do it.

The same men sat as a jury in the day time, and were placed over us as a guard in the night time. They tantalized us and boasted of their great achievements at Haun’s Mills [sic] and at other places, telling us how many houses they had burned and how many sheep, cattle, and hogs they had driven off belonging to the “Mormons,” and how many rapes they had committed, and what squealing and kicking there was among the d——d b———s, saying that they lashed one woman upon one of the damned “Mormon” meeting benches, tying her hands and her feet fast, and sixteen of them abused her as much as they had a mind to, and then left her bound and exposed in that distressed condition. These fiends of the lower regions boasted of these acts of barbarity and tantalized our feelings with them for ten days. We had heard of these acts of cruelty previous to this time, but we were slow to believe that such acts had been perpetrated. The lady who was the subject of this brutality did not recover her health to be able to help herself for more than three months afterwards.

This grand jury constantly celebrated their achievements with grog and glass in hand, like the Indian warriors at their war dances, singing and telling each other of their exploits in murdering the “Mormons,” in plundering their houses and carrying off their property. At the end of every song, they would bring in the chorus, “G-d d—n, G-d d—n, G-d d—n. Jesus Christ, G-d d—n the Presbyterians, G-d d—n the Baptists, G-d d—n the Methodists,” reiterating one sect after another in the same manner, until they came to the “Mormons.” To them it was “G-d d—n the G-d d——d Mormons, we have sent them to hell” Then they would slap their hands and shout, Hosanna! Hosanna! Glory to God! and fall down on their backs and kick with their feet a few moments. ^[391] Then they would pretend to have swooned away into a glorious trance, in order to imitate some of the transactions at camp meetings. Then they would pretend to come out of the trance, and would shout and again slap their hands and jump up, while one would take a bottle of whiskey and a tumbler, and turn it out full of whisky, and pour down each other’s necks, crying, ‘Damn it, take it; you must take it!’ And if anyone refused to drink the whisky, others would clinch him and hold him, whilst another poured it down his neck; and what did not go down the inside, went down the outside. This is a part of the farce acted out by the grand jury of Daviess county, whilst they stood over us as guards for ten nights successively. And all this in the presence of the great Judge Birch, who had previously said, in our hearing, that there was no law for the “Mormons” in the state of Missouri. His brother was there acting as district attorney in that circuit and if anything, was a greater ruffian than the judge.¹⁵⁷

On the evening of the first day of the trial, Stephen Markham arrived in Gallatin and presented his brethren with a copy of the statute which had recently been passed by the State Legislature in relation to a change of venue. When he attempted to produce the same document before the Court the next day, however, Markham was restrained. After much insistence, however, the instrument was admitted by the Court. This had the effect of temporarily disrupting the entire proceedings. According to Joseph Smith, Markham was invited outside by a Mr. Blakely for a brief conversation. Once outside, Blakely called Markham vulgar names and struck him, first with his fist and then with a club. Markham easily disarmed the man, whereupon ten others joined the fray. One of these was William P. Penniston, captain of the guard for the prisoners. Markham allegedly told them that he could kill the whole group with one blow apiece. This had the effect of dispersing the crowd. “The court and grand jury stood and saw the affray,” wrote Joseph Smith, and “heard the mob threaten Markham’s life by all the oaths they could invent, but they took no cognizance of it.”¹⁵⁸

The Prisoners’ Escape from Missouri

It was not until April 15 that the journey to Boone County was begun. The legislative document authorizing the change in the place of trial has not been found. The following instrument, the details of which were added at a later date, was originally made out “without date, name, or place” attached to it. It accompanied ^[392] the prisoners on their journey to Boone County:

On the eighth day of April, eighteen hundred and thirty-nine, at the house of Elisha B. Creekmore, in said county, it being the temporary place of holding the Court for said County: Present, The Honorable Thomas C. Burch, Judge, the following proceedings were had, to wit—

     The State of Missouri
          vs.
     Joseph Smith, Jr.
     Lyman Wight and others
     Indictment
          for
     Larceny

The Judge of this Court having been Counsel in this Cause; and the Parties therein not consenting to a trial thereof in this Court, But the said defendants, Joseph Smith, Jr. and Lyman Wight objecting thereto, for the Reason that the Judge of this Court has been of Counsel in this Cause,

It is ordered by the Court here that said Cause as to the said Joseph Smith, Jr. and Lyman Wight be removed to the Circuit Court of the County of Boone in the Second Judicial Circuit in this State; It is further ordered by the Court that the Sheriff of the county of Daviess, do and he is hereby commanded to Remove the Bodies of the Said Joseph Smith Jr. and Lyman Wight to the Jail of the County of Boone, and there deliver them to the Keeper of said Jail, Together with the Warrant or Process by which they are imprisoned and held.¹⁵⁹

The journey to Boone County ordinarily took about three days. It was while making the journey that the prisoners managed to effect their escape. The means by which they did so was almost too simple. The following, written by Hyrum Smith, is the most complete account of the escape that has been found:

They [i.e., the court officials of Daviess county] fitted us out with a two-horse wagon, a horse and four men, besides the sheriff, to be our guard. There were five of us that started from Gallatin, the sun about two hours high, and went as far as Diahman that evening [Monday, April 15], and stayed till morning. There we bought two horses of the guard and paid for ^[393] one of them in clothing, which we had with us; and for the other we gave our note.

We went down that day as far as Judge Morin’s—a distance of some four or five miles. There we stayed until morning, when we started on our journey to Boone county, and traveled on the road about twenty miles distance. There we bought a jug of whisky, with which we treated the company; and while there, the sheriff showed us the mittimus referred to, without date or signature, and said that Judge Birch told him never to carry us to Boone county, and never to show us the mittimus; and, said he, I shall take a good drink of grog and go to bed, and you may do as you have a mind to.

Three others of the guard drank pretty freely of whisky, sweetened with honey. They also went to bed, and were soon asleep, and the other guard went along with us, and helped to saddle the horses.

Two of us mounted the horses, and the other three started on foot, and we took our change of venue for the State of Illinois, and in the course of nine or ten days arrived safe at Quincy, Adams County, where we found our families in a state of poverty, although in good health.¹⁶⁰

The non-Mormon version of the escape is somewhat different and not so detailed. The following is from the Columbia Patriot, a Boone County newspaper:

Whilst passing through Linn, they [the prisoners and their guards] stopped to spend the night at a cabin which is said to be elevated by means of blocks some distance from the ground. When morning came, Joe Smith and his followers were missing and upon examination it appeared they had escaped by raising a puncheon of the cabin floor and letting themselves through the opening thus made.¹⁶¹

The question naturally arises as to whether the escape was contrived or accidental. It appears safe to say that from the Mormon point of view it was contrived, from the non-Mormon point of view it was accidental. On ^[394] his return to Daviess County, Sheriff William Morgan executed the following certificate respecting the escape:

Return of William Morgan,
Sheriff, July 6, 1839

This is to certify that I executed the within order [i.e., the order of Judge Burch] by taking the bodies of the within-named Joseph Smith, Jr., and Lyman Wight into my custody and that I summoned a guard of four men, to wit, William Bowman, William McKinney, John Brassfield, and John Pogue to assist me in taking Smith, Wight, and others to the town of Columbia in the county of Boone, State of Missouri, as commanded by said order, and that on the way from E. B. Creekmore’s in the county of Daviess aforesaid, on the 16th day of April, 1839, the said Smith and others made their escape without the connivance, consent, or negligence of myself or said guard.

July 6, 1839     William Morgan, Sheriff of Daviess County.¹⁶²

It will be noted that Sheriff Morgan’s explanation contradicts Hyrum Smith’s account. The people of Daviess County never did accept the Sheriff’s statement, and it was to appease their wrath that the foregoing certificate was drawn up. Following their return to their own County, in fact, the Sheriff and his guards were very roughly treated by the citizens in the area. According to one account:

Some of the prisoners having no horses, William Boman, the first sheriff of Daviess county, furnished the prisoners three horses and they left [Daviess] in charge of William, the sheriff of the county. The sheriff alone returned on horseback, the guard who accompanied him returning on foot or riding and tying by turns. The sheriff reported that the prisoners had all escaped in the night, taking the horses with them, and that a search made for them prove unavailing. The people of Gallatin were greatly exercised, and they disgraced themselves by very ruffianly conduct. They rode the sheriff on a rail and Bowman was dragged over the square by the hair of his head. The men guilty of these dastardly acts, accused sheriff Morgan and ex-sheriff Bowman of complicity in the escape of the Mormon leaders; that Bowman furnished the horses, and that Morgan allowed them to escape, and both got well paid for their treachery. The truth of history compels ^[395] us to state that the charges were never sustained by any evidence adduced by the persons who committed this flagrant act of mob law.¹⁶³

Reference has already been made to Judge King’s alleged statement that he would not dismiss the prisoners until all Mormons were safely out of the State. This precaution, it was said, was taken to prevent the Mormon leaders from inducing their lowers to remain contrary to Governor Boggs’ explicit instructions.¹⁶⁴ In addition, the prisoners in Liberty were supposedly informed by Mr. Turnham, the Judge of Clay County, that the entire operation against the Church officials was part of an enormous plan “concocted by the governor down to the lowest judge” in the State. Quoting Hyrum Smith:

The jailer, Samuel Tillery, Esq., told us that the whole plan was concocted by the governor down to the lowest judge in that upper country early in the previous spring, and that the plan was more fully carried out at the time that General Atchison went down to Jefferson City with Generals Wilson, Lucas, and Gilliam, the self-styled Delaware Chief. This was sometime in the month of September, when the mob were [sic] collected at DeWitt in Carroll County. He also told us that the governor was now ashamed enough of the whole transaction, and would be glad to set us at liberty, if he dared do it. “But,” said he, “You need not be concerned, for the governor has laid a plan for your release.” He also said that Squire Birch, the state’s attorney, was appointed to be circuit judge on the circuit passing through Daviess county and that he [Birch] was instructed to fix the papers, so that we should be sure to be clear from any encumbrance in a very short time.¹⁶⁵

This accords with other evidence also. General John B. Clark, who was charged by the Governor with seeing to it that every leading man among the Mormons who was guilty of bringing on the Mormon War should be punished for his crimes, stated in later years that he “had an understanding with [Judge] King that they [the prisoners] were to be put in prison, but were not to be guarded too closely, and if they got away and left the state, they would be allowed to go.”¹⁶⁶ On the occasion of their second unsuccessful attempt to escape from the Jail in Liberty, Joseph Smith wrote as follows: ^[396]

The sheriff and jailer did not blame us for the attempt; it was a fine breach, and cost the county a round sum; but public opinion says that we ought to have been permitted to have made our escape; that then the disgrace would have been on us, but now it must come on the state; that there cannot be any charge sustained against us; and that the conduct of the mob, the murders committed at Haun’s Mill, and the exterminating order of the Governor, and the one-sided, rascally proceedings of the legislature have damned the State of Missouri to all eternity.¹⁶⁷

It should be noted that neither Sheriff Morgan nor his guards were ever indicted for the crime of helping the prisoners to escape. They do appear, however, to have found the citizens of Daviess County to be less friendly than before.¹⁶⁸

The Prisoners at Richmond

Those who remained in jail at Richmond were Parley P. Pratt, King Follett, Morris Phelps, and Lyman Gibbs. The last person named apostatized from the Church during his imprisonment, ostensibly to obtain favor from his captors. Instead of being released as he had anticipated, however, he was kept as a spy upon the rest. “He was treated very well,” records Pratt, “and went out to dine with the Sheriff and others, or to spend a day with his wife, whenever it pleased him to do so.”¹⁶⁹

As formerly noted, the prisoners at Richmond suffered like ills to those at Liberty. According to Parley P. Pratt, he and his associates were daily threatened with assassination and were repeatedly told that they would never leave the State of Missouri alive. Says Pratt:

Our guards were doubly vigilant, while the Sheriff took every possible precaution. Lyman, the apostate, was also in constant watchfulness and busy in forming plans for escape; then accusing us and pretending to reveal wonderful things to our keepers in regard to our plans; which, in fact, only existed in his lying brain. This increased the severity of our confinement and seemed to preclude the possibility of escape.¹⁷⁰

Repeated attempts to secure a hearing on their case by the prisoners in Richmond failed. Finally, in desperation, Pratt wrote to Judge King and inveighed against the high-handed manner in which he and his fellow prisoners had been treated. He observed that the time had elapsed when he might legally seek a change of venue. He laid forth his grounds for doing so, the first of which was that neither he nor his family had ever ^[397] received the protection which the law promised since they first came to Missouri. He then recounted the indignities to which he had been exposed and accused Judge King of permitting these “inhuman outrages and crimes” to “go unpunished and unnoticed.” He refused to believe, he said, in the professed zeal of certain persons in the State for law and justice until he received either an unconditional release or a fair and impartial trial.¹⁷¹

This petition had the desired result. Judge King came to the prison chamber and took the necessary information from the captives in order that they could apply for a change of venue. Of this event, Pratt wrote:

I shall never forget this interview. There stood our Judge, face to face with those who, by his cruelty and injustice, had lived a cold half year in a dungeon. He refused to look us in the eye; hung his head and looked like a culprit before his betters about to receive his doom. The looks of guilt and misery portrayed in his countenance during that brief interview bespoke more of misery than we had suffered during our confinement. I actually pitied him in my heart. With an extra effort and a voice scarcely audible, he administered the oaths and withdrew.¹⁷²

By this means, the prisoners secured a change of venue to Boone County. There, however, they were confined for at least a month longer, waiting for their trial. When the day of their departure from Richmond arrived, Mr. Brown, the local Sheriff, entered the prison and placed iron locks upon their wrists and marched them out. “Accompanied with four other guards on horseback, with loaded pistols,” wrote Pratt, “we bid farewell to Richmond. After a journey of forty miles, the captives were taken into a house, stretched out upon their backs upon the floor, and once again secured with wrist and ankle irons so that they could not alter their position. “The doors and windows were then made fast, and the sentinels on duty guarded us by turns until morning.” It was plain to Pratt that the guards were determined to give their captives no opportunity for escape.¹⁷³

The situation in Columbia, Boone County, was not much better than that experienced in Richmond. Perhaps even worse. Writing of the arrival of the prisoners at the jail, Pratt said:

We were immediately thrust into a gloomy dungeon filled with darkness, filth, and cobwebs; the naked floor was our lodging. We had travelled hard, through rain and fatigue, for several days, and on the last day had rode [sic] till sundown without refreshment. We were extremely hungry and weary, but receiving no refreshment, not even a drink ^[398] of water, till late in the evening, when our new keeper, Mr. John Scott, visited us with some buttermilk and bread; but we were not too much exhausted and too low-spirited to eat.¹⁷⁴

As the time of trial approached, the prisoners were visited by some close relatives, Morris Phelps by his wife, Parley P. Pratt by his brother, Orson. With their help, active preparations were made for effecting an escape. Feigning attempts to prepare for the forthcoming trial, the prisoners threw their keepers off-guard. On the evening of the fourth of July, 1839, the attempt was made. As the keeper opened the inner and outer doors at the time of the evening meal, the inmates knocked him aside and ran up the steps into the darkened night. With the aid of some friends who waited nearby with horses and provisions, Parley P. Pratt and Morris Phelps escaped to Illinois.¹⁷⁵ King Follett and Luman Gibbs were recaptured, suffered an even longer imprisonment, and were subsequently released for want of evidence in their case.¹⁷⁶

Summary and Conclusions

Two principal conclusions emerge from the evidence presented in this chapter: (1) the roles played by General Clark and Judge King in the action taken against the Mormon leaders were very significant ones; (2) the Mormon prisoners interpreted the legal proceedings against them as acts of religious persecution designed to deny them their civil rights.

Both Clark and King appear to have been determined to see that the Governor’s orders with respect to the prisoners were carried out to the very letter. Clark seems to have entertained the notion, at least at first, that the prisoners could be legally tried by military law. It is evident, however, that the General was not well versed in either military or civil law. Every place he turned for sanction in the matter proved disappointing. At length he turned the captives over to Judge King for examination. His chosen course of action, in view of what followed, was fortunate indeed.

Following the commitment of the prisoners to civil jurisdiction, however, Clark continued to play an important role. There is evidence to indicate that he wished to see the prisoners executed as punishment for ^[399] their crimes. He apparently entertained no doubt as to the prisoners’ guilt and so notified the Governor, even before the official hearing began. Moreover, he, along with Judge King, seriously questioned the possibility of a fair trial for the prisoners in areas where their own followers were in the majority.

Judge King was excessively partial for the non-Mormon point of view during the hearing. He appears to have felt it necessary to construct as strong a case as possible against the Mormon leaders in order to justify their imprisonment at a time when their followers were leaving the State. It was feared that if the prisoners were freed, they might induce their friends to remain in the State and to fight for their rights. That this was a real fear in the minds of many is borne out by the fact that the prisoners were not remanded for trial to Daviess County until a majority of the Saints had left the State and with them the most reliable witnesses and evidence. This, together with the fact that the subsequent trial before the Daviess Grand Jury was little more than a circus, bears this out.

While it cannot be shown conclusively that Judge King engineered the prisoners’ escape from the State, it must be admitted that the evidence argues strongly for it. Neither Sheriff Morgan nor the guards who allegedly helped the Mormon leaders to get away were ever brought to trial in the matter. Moreover, in later years, General Clark admitted that he and King had a mutual understanding that the prisoners were not to be guarded too closely and that if they escaped, so much the better for all. The reasoning behind this transaction appears to have been that the flight of the prisoners would serve to reinforce their guilt and would reduce the criticism currently being leveled against the one-sided hearing conducted by Judge King.

To present the actions of the Mormon leaders in as unfavorable a light as possible, General Clark secured numerous Mormon “apostates” to testify in King’s court. These men, each of whom bore a personal grudge against their former leaders, permitted their prejudices to color their testimony. By their actions, the unique Mormon concept of the Kingdom of God was translated into an attempt to conquer and to subdue the State of Missouri and the United States by physical force.

No attempts appear to have been made by Judge King to discredit the testimony of these men on the grounds that it was biased. Nor were the Church leaders provided an opportunity to testify in their own defense or to present witnesses of their own choosing. Some of those compelled to testify against their leaders did so at the point of a bayonet. Others were clamped in jail so that they could not testify. Nothing was said at the hearing regarding the property lost by the Saints in the recent War. Nor was mention made of the aggressive moves made by the non-Mormons which provoked the Saints to retaliate. Neither did the Court regard the fact that the Saints were legally commissioned troops in the State Militia. The Mormon side of the case was not heard at all.

The so-called “trial” at Richmond was not a trial at all but a hearing for commitment. The prisoners, however, viewed it as merely another in a long line of personal abuses heaped against them by their Missouri ^[400] neighbors. As far as the Saints were concerned, their sufferings were simply the result of religious bigotry. After their capture, the liberties of the prisoners were drastically curtailed. Their captors refused to inform them of the charges held against them, kept them chained together at all times so as to prevent escape, treated them generally with abuse, and would not give their letters passage until they had been carefully screened. During their six-month incarceration, numerous attempts were made to secure an immediate trial in their cases. Each attempt met with failure. The prisoners came to the conclusion that there was no justice for Mormons in Missouri.

The evidence produced by the hearing had immediate repercussions throughout the State. Various newspapers requested permission to print it. The Legislature, however, refused on the grounds that the testimony was ex parte, that is, one-sided, in nature. To print it in the press would only serve to prejudice the forthcoming trials of the prisoners. As will be shown in subsequent chapters, the events presented in this section of the study were to have reverberations in Missouri and throughout the nation for many years to come. ^[401]