The notes of the Mormon bank were issued and accepted in the community for a time. The backing for the notes was real estate. “The capital base of the Society was the land owned under mortgage by Church members. The Society would issue notes to land owners and receive in return a mortgage on the land. This mortgage then became an asset against which additional notes could be issued.”1 The leaders and members were counting on the value of the real estate to rise. D. Paul Sampson and Larry T. Wimmer later wrote:
It seems likely that bank officials used projected real estate values as a basis for establishing the $50 per share face value. The high face values of shares owned could possibly be the reason for the complaints in some letters and journals that the Saints were given to worldliness and to thinking that they were now wealthy. One might excuse them for thinking so, for with $5.25 they could purchase twenty shares of stock with a bank-credited face value of $1,000. The failure to realize such inflated values might explain the widespread discontent and apostasy after the bank’s failure.2
The Prophet records in his journal that by spring 1837 the spirit of speculation was rampant in the Church and that faultfinding and dissension followed in its wake.
At this time the spirit of speculation in lands and property of all kinds, which was so prevalent throughout the whole nation, was taking deep root in the Church. As the fruits of this spirit, evil surmisings, fault-finding, disunion, dissension, and apostasy followed in quick succession, and it seemed as though all the powers of earth and hell were combining their influence in an especial manner to overthrow the Church at once, and make a final end. Other banking institutions refused the “Kirtland Safety Society’s” notes. The enemy abroad, and apostates in our midst, united in their schemes, flour and provisions were turned towards other markets, and many became disaffected toward me as though I were the sole cause of those very evils I was most strenuously striving against, and which were actually brought upon us by the brethren not giving heed to my counsel.
No quorum in the Church was entirely exempt from the influence of those false spirits who are striving against me for the mastery; even some of the Twelve were so far lost to their high and responsible calling, as to begin to take sides, secretly, with the enemy.3
In several lengthy footnotes, B. H. Roberts, who prepared the History of the Church for publication, quotes several contemporary writers on their views of the financial climate in the nation and locally. Roberts cites History of the United States by Alexander H. Stephens “as additional evidence that that financial maelstrom in which the ‘Kirtland Safety Society’ met disaster was national and not merely local.” Said Stephens:
Soon after Mr. Van Buren became President occurred a great commercial crisis. This was in April, 1837, and was occasioned by a reckless spirit of speculation, which had, for two or three preceding years, been fostered and encouraged by excessive banking, and the consequent expansion of paper currency beyond all the legitimate wants of the country. During the months of March and April of this year the failures in New York City alone amounted to over $100,000,000.4
Regarding the financial conditions in Kirtland itself, Roberts first quotes Eliza R. Snow’s biography of her brother, Lorenzo Snow. She pinpoints the dissension among members of the Twelve Apostles but without naming names.
A spirit of speculation had crept into the hearts of some of the Twelve, and nearly, if not every quorum was more or less infected. Most of the Saints were poor, and now prosperity was dawning upon them—the Temple was completed, and in it they had been recipients of marvelous blessings, and many who had been humble and faithful to the performance of every duty—ready to go and come at every call of the Priesthood, were getting haughty in their spirits, and lifted up in the pride of their hearts. As the Saints drank in the love and spirit of the world, the Spirit of the Lord withdrew from their hearts, and they were filled with pride and hatred toward those who maintained their integrity. They linked themselves together in an opposing party—pretended that they constituted the Church, and claimed that the Temple belonged to them, and even attempted to hold it.5
One of the Twelve who was embittered against the Prophet was Parley P. Pratt. Pratt describes the scene in his autobiography and admits that he too was caught up in the same spirit for a time.
About this time (summer of 1837) after I had returned from Canada, there were jarrings and discords in the Church at Kirtland, and many fell away and became enemies and apostates. There were also envyings, lyings, strifes and divisions, which caused much trouble and sorrow. By such spirits I was also accused, misrepresented and abused. And at one time, I also was overcome by the same spirit in a great measure, and it seemed as if the very powers of darkness which war against the Saints were let loose upon me.6
It is interesting to note that Elder Pratt says he himself was first the target of accusations, misrepresentations, and abuse, and then he was overcome “by the same spirit in a great measure.” Not only Parley P. Pratt but several other leaders partook of the same spirit of dissension, which was exactly opposite of the spirit of brotherhood that had prevailed during the dedication of the temple just a few months earlier. It was the fulfillment of a prophecy made regarding Frederick G. Williams’s farm. The Lord had ceased to hold back the “wicked” beyond the five years he had prophesied that Kirtland would be a stronghold. “I will not that my servant Frederick G. Williams should sell his farm, for I, the Lord, will to retain a strong hold in the land of Kirtland, for the space of five years, in the which I will not overthrow the wicked, that thereby I may save some.”7 And the fury of dissension spread and grew.
Apostles Luke Johnson, Lyman Johnson, and John F. Boynton “were rejected from serving in that office” at the conference held on September 3, 1837. Elder Boynton, the only one of the three present, justified his negative conduct on the basis of the bank failure.
Privilege was given to those that were rejected of making their confession if they had any to make. Elder Boynton (which was the only one present at the time) arose and partially confessed his sins and partly justifying his conduct by reason of the failure of the bank. . . .
Elder Boynton then arose and still attributed his difficulties & conduct to the failure of the bank, stating that the bank he understood, was instituted by the will & revelations of God, & he had been told that it never would fail, let men do what they pleased.
Pres. Smith then arose and stated that if this had been published it was without authority, at least from him. He stated that he always said that unless the institution was conducted upon righteous principles it could not stand.
The Church was then called upon to know whether they were satisfied with the confession of Elder Boynton. Voted in the negative.8
High Council Trial
Perhaps when Elder Pratt said that he was “accused, misrepresented and abused,” he had in mind the charges that were leveled at him by complainants Abel Lamb, Nathan Haskins, Harlow Redfield, Artemas Millet, and Isaac Rogers on May 29, 1837, before the Kirtland High Council. In addition to Pratt, four others, including Frederick G. Williams, were named in the May 1837 complaint directed “to the Presidency of the Church of Latter-day Saints,” to wit: Apostle Lyman Johnson, President Frederick G. Williams, President David Whitmer, and Elder Warren Parrish. It is uncertain what the specific grounds were, but surely in President Williams’s case (and Parrish’s), part of the grievance would stem from the failure of the Kirtland Safety Society. I have previously referenced this meeting when citing President Williams’s own words (chapter 9), but I now present a fuller treatment. The complaint stated, “We, the undersigned, feeling ourselves aggrieved with the conduct of Presidents David Whitmer and Frederick G. Williams, and also with Elders Lyman E. Johnson, Parley P. Pratt, and Warren Parrish, believing that their course for some time past has been injurious to the Church of God, in which they are high officers, we therefore desire that the High Council should be assembled, and we should have an investigation of their behavior, believing it to be unworthy of their high calling—all of which we respectfully submit.”9
In the minutes of the meeting, which was presided over by President Sidney Rigdon (later after the adjournment he was joined by President Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith being absent), President Williams said he felt that, according to the Book of Covenants, the high council was not the proper body to try members of the Presidency of the Church. After some discussion, “President Williams then expressed a willingness to be tried for his conduct, and if this was the proper tribunal, he would be tried before it, but still thought it was not. . . . Councilor John Smith then put the question to the Council for decision, in substance as follows: Have the present Council authority, from the Book of Covenants, to try Presidents Williams and Whitmer? A majority of the Council decided that they could not conscientiously proceed to try Presidents Williams and Whitmer, and they were accordingly discharged.”10
After an adjournment of one hour, “Councilor Martin Harris moved that President Frederick G. Williams take a seat with the presidents” or, in other words, sit in judgment against the others. What followed would make a good scene in a tragicomedy.
After much discussion as to the propriety of his sitting, motion carried, and President Williams took his seat.
Elder Parley P. Pratt then arose and objected to being tried by President Rigdon or Joseph Smith, Jun., in consequence of their having previously expressed their opinion against him, stating also that he could bring evidence to prove what he then said. . . .
After much discussion between the councilors and parties, President Rigdon said that, under the present circumstances, he could not conscientiously proceed to try the case, and after a few remarks left the stand.
President Oliver Cowdery then said that although he might not be called upon to preside, yet if he should be, he should also be unfit to judge in the case, as he had previously expressed his opinion respecting the conduct of Elder Parley P. Pratt and others, and left the stand.
President Williams then arose and said, that as he had been implicated with the accused, he should be unwilling to preside in the case, and left the stand.
The Council and assembly then dispersed in confusion.11
I think it is significant that a majority of the council voted to dismiss the charges against President Williams and even voted to have him preside or sit in judgment against the remaining accused, who were Apostles Pratt and Johnson, and Warren Parrish. This implies that President Williams’s “conduct” had not “aggrieved” the parties in the same way the conduct of the others had or that his situation was not seen in the same light as the others. It is also significant that when President Williams recused himself (we must not forget that he was at this time a justice of the peace, sworn to uphold the truth), he used the phrase “that as he had been implicated with the accused” he should be unwilling to preside in the case. Being implicated by association is something that would haunt President Williams for the remainder of his life.
A Warrant Involving Warren Parrish Sparks an Argument
A lengthy unsigned editorial appeared in the Elders’ Journal in Far West, Missouri, in August 1838. Since Joseph Smith Jr. was its editor, it is safe to assume that the article was written by him. In it, Joseph Smith stated that a major reason for the bank’s failure was due to the embezzlement of $25,000 by Warren Parrish.
The next business we find him [Warren Parrish] in, is robbing the Kirtland Bank of twenty five thousand dollars at one time, and large sums at others, the managers had in the mean time, appointed him as Cashier, and F. G. Williams as President, and they managed the institution with a witness. Parrish stole the paper out of the institution, and went to buying bogus or counterfeit coin with it, becoming a partner with the Tinker’s creek blacklegs, and in company with Julias Granger, in buying different kinds of property with it and devoting it to his own use, and soon entirely destroyed the institution.12
Although the facts are disputed—and they may at this late date never be resolved—it is clear that a major quarrel between Frederick G. Williams and Joseph Smith arose out of the bank troubles. In the same editorial published in the Elders’ Journal, Joseph Smith gives an account of his request to Frederick G. Williams, justice of the peace, to issue a warrant to search the trunk of Warren Parrish.
He [Warren Parrish] had the handling of large sums of money, and it was soon discovered, that after the money was counted and laid away, and come to be used and counted again, that there was always a part of it missing; this being the case, repeatedly, and those who owned it, knowing that there was no other person but Parrish who had access to it, suspicion of necessity fixed itself on him. At last, the matter went to such lengths, that a search warrant was called for, to search his trunk. The warrant was demanded at the office of F. G. Williams, Esq. but he refused to grant it, some difficulty arose on account of it.
The warrant, however, was at last obtained, but too late, for the trunk in question was taken out of the way, and could not be found; but as to his guilt, little doubt can be entertained by any person, acquainted with the circumstances.13
B. H. Roberts, while treating the subject of the Kirtland bank in A Comprehensive History of the Church, states that the argument took place while the Prophet was still the president of the bank, which would make it May 1837. “This movement of the prophet against Parrish’s speculation occurred previous to June, 1837, and hence previous to the Prophet’s withdrawal from the ill-fated institution and disposal of his interest therein; and his ‘caution’ against the validity of the Safety Society’s notes.”14 The Prophet’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, records one version of the argument in her book:
Prior to this, a bank was established in Kirtland. Soon after the sermon, above mentioned, Joseph discovered that a large amount of money had been taken away by fraud, from this bank. He immediately demanded a search warrant of Esquire Williams, which was flatly refused.
“I insist upon a warrant,” said Joseph, “for if you will give me one, I can get the money, and if you do not, I will break you of your office.” “Well, break it is, then,” said Williams, “and we will strike hands upon it.” “Very well,” said Joseph, “from henceforth I drop you from my quorum, in the name of the Lord.”
Williams, in wrath, replied “Amen.” Joseph entered a complaint against him, for neglect of duty, as an officer of justice; in consequence of which the magistracy was taken from him, and given to Oliver Cowdery.15
Mother Smith is at least partially in error. Oliver Cowdery and Frederick G. Williams served simultaneously as justices of the peace for three months. Oliver Cowdery, who served from June 14 to September 15, 1837, resigned after only three months. Frederick G. Williams served for one year and three months, from June 28, 1836, to September 25, 1837, and continued as a justice of the peace for ten days after Oliver’s resignation. An election was held in which Warren A. Cowdery (Oliver’s brother) and Thomas Burdick were elected to replace the two men as justices.16
It is highly doubtful, too, that Joseph at that time had sufficient political influence to cause the removal of Dr. Williams from office. Once, when times were better, the Presidency of the Church had attempted to get a Kirtland justice of the peace recalled and had failed.17 It may be that Joseph, in his wrath, swore to drop Frederick from the First Presidency. But if so, why did he nominate Williams to be his second counselor a few months later, at a conference of the Saints in Kirtland on September 3, 1837, and again at Far West, Missouri, on November 7, 1837?18
Another version of the argument, one written by Frederick’s son Ezra Granger Williams, a lad of fourteen years of age at the time, who claims to have been an eyewitness, relates that the Prophet wished to draw out more money from the bank for speculative purposes; but Williams, acting as an officer of the bank, refused his request, suggesting he knew more about the rules of banking than did the Prophet, whereupon an ugly quarrel followed and angry words were used. “I did not think that the Prophet had any faults, but heard him as he greatly condemned my father. Then shortly there-after he returned and on bended knees, crying like a child, humbly asked my father’s forgiveness, admitting that he was wrong and that my father was right. He pleaded with him to still be friends and to continue by his side as usual. My father gladly forgave him, but answered, ‘No,’ as the people would never have the confidence in him again that they had had before.”19
It is known that Joseph Smith could be blunt when correcting the errors he saw in others and would not be satisfied until they confessed them to his satisfaction. On one Sunday alone, he labored to “correct” six people after he had returned from church: his uncle John Smith, his counselor Sidney Rigdon, Presidents W. W. Phelps and John Whitmer, John Corrill, and Emma Smith, his wife.
After I returned home, I labored with Uncle John, and convinced him that he was wrong; and he made his confession, to my satisfaction. I then went and labored with President Rigdon, and succeeded in convincing him also of his error, which he confessed to my satisfaction.
The word of the Lord came unto me, saying, that President Phelps and President John Whitmer were under condemnation before the Lord for their errors. For which they made satisfaction the same day.
I also took up a labor with John Corrill, for not partaking of the Sacrament; he made his confession. Also my wife, for leaving the meeting before Sacrament; she made no reply, but manifested contrition by weeping.20
It is also well documented that Joseph Smith would sincerely forgive those who had trespassed or turned against him, such as in the cases of Parley P. Pratt and W. W. Phelps. After changing his attitude and conduct, Parley P. Pratt sought and received forgiveness from the Prophet.
And at one time, I also was overcome by the same spirit in a great measure, and it seemed as if the very powers of darkness which war against the Saints were let loose upon me. But the Lord knew my faith, my zeal, my integrity of purpose, and He gave me the victory. I went to Brother Joseph Smith in tears, and, with a broken heart and contrite spirit, confessed wherein I had erred in spirit, murmured, or done or said amiss. He frankly forgave me, prayed for me and blessed me. Thus, by experience, I learned more fully to discern and to contrast the two spirits, and to resist the one and cleave to the other.21
In W. W. Phelps’s case, he had been stubborn, defiant, and had even fomented the frenzy that led to Joseph’s and Hyrum’s incarceration at Liberty Jail; yet the Prophet freely forgave him as well.
It is true, that we have suffered much in consequence of your behavior—the cup of gall, already full enough for mortals to drink, was indeed filled to overflowing when you turned against us. . . .
Believing your confession to be real, and your repentance genuine, I shall be happy once again to give you the right hand of fellowship, and rejoice over the returning prodigal. . . .
“Come on, dear brother, since the war is past,
For friends at first, are friends again at last.”22
Williams Sustained in the First Presidency in Kirtland
Though the Prophet and President Williams were reconciled, there was, in fact, a public loss of confidence in his Second Counselor that was manifest at an assembly in Far West less than two months later.23 But at a conference of the Church held on September 3, 1837, in Kirtland, Ohio, Williams was sustained unanimously as a member of the First Presidency. “Prest Smith then presented S. Rigdon & F. G. Williams for his councilors and to constitute with himself the three first Prest of the Church. Vote unanimous in the affirmative, Prest. Smith then introdused O. Cowdery, J. Smith Sen.—Hiram Smith & John Smith for assistant Councilors. These last four together with the three fi[r]st are to be concidred the heads of the Church, Carried unanimously.”24
Although all in the Presidency were sustained, there were three Apostles, as noted earlier, who were not sustained in their positions of leadership at the September 3, 1837, conference. “The Twelve Apostles were then presented one by one, when Thomas B. Marsh, David W. Patten, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Orson Hyde, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, William Smith, and William E. M[c]Lellin were received unanimously in their Apostleship, Luke S. Johnson, Lyman E. Johnson, and John F. Boynton were rejected and disfellowshiped, though privileged with confessing and making satisfaction.”25
President Williams at the Court of Common Pleas, re: Promissory Note
A complaint was brought against Frederick G. Williams on April 27, 1837, by Samuel M. Starr to recover $125 contained in a promissory note that was to have been paid in three months time from its issuance on March 31, 1836, with interest, to Samuel M. Starr or bearer. The complaint was brought before the Court of Common Pleas of Geauga County in Chardon, Ohio.26 However, since the parties, by their mutual agreement, eventually settled the cause and paid the costs, the case was closed on October 24, 1837.27 The initial suit reads as follows:
Pleas before the Court of Common Pleas, within and for the County of Geauga in the State of Ohio, on the twenty fourth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty seven.— Be it remembered that heretofore to wit, on the twenty seventh day of April in the year above written, Samuel M. Starr sued out of the office of the Clerk of said Court a writ of Capias ad respondendum against Frederick G. Williams in the words and figures following to wit:
To the Sheriff of said County . . . Greeting:— You are hereby commanded that you take Frederick G. Williams if he be found in your bailiwick and him safely keep so that you have him before our Court of Common Pleas for said County at the Court House in Chardon on the fifth day of June next to answer unto Samuel M. Starr, in a plea of a assumpsit to his damage two hundred dollars as is said. Herein fail not, but of this writ and your service make due return. Witness Van R. Humphrey President of said Court at Chardon this 27th day of April A.D. 1837. D. D. Aiken Clerk.”
Upon which writ was the following endorsement to wit:
“Suit brought on note of hand dated March 31, 1836 and payable three months from date to plff. or bearer for $125. with interest. Amt. appearing due $132.08.”
Afterwards to wit, at the June term of said Court in the year aforesaid; the foregoing writ was returned into Court by the Sheriff of our said County endorsed as follows to wit:—
“In obedience to the command of this writ I on this sixteenth day of April 1837 assisted the within named Deft and took his bail bond with Rodger Orton & W. Parrish as surety conditioned that the within named deft. Appear before the Court of Com. Pleas next to be holden within & for said County & enter Special Bail in the action. A copy of bail bond is hereunto returned.
Abel Kimball 2d Sheff.”
There are two cases of promissory notes due Frederick G. Williams or bearer (in these instances the bearer is Samuel M. Starr) that were recorded in Warren A. Cowdery’s docket.28 Williams evidently paid portions of his debt to Starr by turning over to him these two promissory notes that were originally due him.
President Williams at the Court of Common Pleas, re: Kirtland Safety Society
A second suit before the Court of Common Pleas involving Frederick G. Williams came as a result of his ties with the Kirtland Safety Society. Besides serving as secretary pro tempore of the society for six months, beginning in early January 1837, Frederick G. Williams was constrained to assume the duties of bank president when Joseph Smith resigned in early June 1837. The Prophet records his disassociation with the bank and comments on the general downturn of the banking system in the United States and England, due in large measure to “speculation and wickedness.”
Some time previous to this [July 7, 1837] I resigned my office in the “Kirtland Safety Society,” disposed of my interest therein, and withdrew from the institution; being fully aware, after so long an experiment, that no institution of the kind, established upon just and righteous principles for a blessing not only to the Church but the whole nation, would be suffered to continue its operations in such an age of darkness, speculation and wickedness. Almost all banks throughout the country, one after the other, have suspended specie payment, and gold and silver have risen in value in direct ratio with the depreciation of paper currency. The great pressure of the money market is felt in England as well as America, and bread stuffs are everywhere high.29
Not only did the Prophet resign his post as president/treasurer, but Sidney Rigdon resigned his post as cashier/secretary. According to Joseph Smith’s account found in the Elders’ Journal, Warren Parrish, who had been a teller in the bank and had kept the stock ledger,30 became the new cashier and Frederick G. Williams the new president.31 It was then left to President Williams to deal with the headaches of a bankrupt banking operation. But Joseph Smith and all the other former officers could not escape persecution at the hands of hostile shareholders who had lost their investments. Likewise, all the principal officers faced the indignities associated with being sued at law by the irate non-Mormon citizens of Kirtland, who held worthless banknotes.
As noted, Samuel D. Rounds, a non-Mormon, had leveled individual charges against Kirtland Safety Society officers barely a month after it had begun operations. Charged were Joseph Smith and five others—Frederick G. Williams, Sidney Rigdon, Newell K. Whitney, Horace Kingsbury, and Warren Parrish—for operating a bank without obtaining a corporate charter from the legislature. Frederick G. Williams’s writ of summons, dated February 9, 1837, called for him to appear before the Court of Common Pleas at the Geauga County courthouse in Chardon, Ohio, on March 21, 1837. The suit was to recover a $1,000 debt and a $1,000 penalty against Frederick G. Williams, who “on the fourth day of January, 1837 did act as an officer, servant, agent, and trustee of a Bank called ‘The Kirtland Safety Society Anti-Banking Co’ which said bank was not then and there incorporated by law.”32
January 4, 1837, is when President Williams had signed the two extant Kirtland Safety Society banknotes as secretary pro tempore. Quoting from the October 24, 1837, record of the Court of Common Pleas within and for the County of Geauga in the State of Ohio, the writ of summons read as follows:
To the Sheriff of our said County . . . Greeting: We Command you that Geauga County . . . Summon Frederick G. Williams if he be found in your bailiwick, to appear before our Court of Common Pleas to be held at the court house in the town of Chardon the twenty first day of March next, to answer Samuel D. Rounds who sues as well for the State of Ohio as for himself in a plea of debt for one thousand dollars, damage one thousand dollars, as is said. Herein fail not but of this writ and your service make due return. Witness: The Honourable Van R. Humphrey President of our said Court at Chardon the ninth day of February, Anno Domini one thousand eight hundred and thirty seven. D. D. Aikin Clerk.
Upon which writ was the following endorsement to wit: “Suit brot to recover of deft. a penalty of $1000. incurred by acting on the 4th day of Jan.ry 1837 as an officer of a Bank not incorporated by law of this State, and denominated “The Kirtland Safety Society Anti Bank-ing Co.” contrary to the Statute in such case made and provided: Amt. claimed to be due $1000. Feb.ry 8, 1837.”33
We learn from the record that the summons to appear was not given to Frederick G. Williams directly (he being absent), but rather it was delivered on February 10, 1837, to Rebecca, President Williams’s wife, which was undoubtedly a disconcerting experience for her.
Afterwards to wit at the March term of said Court in the year aforesaid [1837], the foregoing writ, was returned into Court by the Sheriff of our said County endorsed as follows to wit:
“. . . I have executed the command of this by leaving a true copy of the Same with the endorsements thereon with the wife of the within named Williams he being gone from home, this 10 day of Feb. 1837. Abel Kimball, 2nd Sheriff.”34
At the same March hearing, Samuel D. Rounds entered a plea to have Frederick G. Williams pay a forfeiture fee of $1,000, as well as the original $1,000 “for assisting in the discounting of paper and lending money for said Banks.”
And also for that the said defendant afterwards to wit: on the day and year last aforesaid at Kirtland township aforesaid in the County of Geauga aforesaid did act as an officer of a certain other Bank called and denominated “The Kirtland Safety Society Anti-Banking Co.” which said last mentioned Bank was not then and there incorporated by law, by then and there assisting in the discounting of paper and lending money for said Banks contrary to the statute in such case made and provided, whereby and by force of the said Statute the said defendant has forfeited for said last mentioned offence the further sum of one thousand dollars and thereby and by force of said Statute an action hath accrued to the plaintiff who sues as aforesaid to have and demand of and from the said defendant for the said State of Ohio and for himself the said last mentioned sum of one thousand dollars, one half for the said State of Ohio and the other half for the plaintiff.35
The plaintiff Samuel D. Rounds claimed, through his attorney, R. Hitchcock, that the defendant, Frederick G. Williams, had repeatedly refused to pay the several thousand dollars.
Yet the said defendant although often requested so to do, has not paid the several sums of one thousand dollars, nor any of them nor either of them nor any part thereof, to the said State of Ohio and to the plaintiff who sues as aforesaid and has always neglected and refused so to do, which is to the damage of the plaintiff the sum of one thousand dollars and therefore he brings this suit &c. R. Hitchcock Plff. Attorney.36
The next appearance in court came in June 1837, at which time the case was argued before the judge. I wish we knew more about the proceedings and whether or not President Williams was represented by counsel. In any event, we know the results of that hearing: “It was adjudged by the Court that the said demurrer be overruled with costs: whereupon on motion of the defendant, leave was given him to amend, on payment of costs.” The court then ordered that this case be continued at the next term, which would come on October 24, 1837. “Afterwards to wit, at the June term of said Court in the year aforesaid, this cause came on to be heard upon a demand to the declaration of the plaintiff, and was argued by counsel; On consideration whereof it was adjudged by the Court that the said demurrer be overruled with costs: whereupon on motion of the defendant, leave was given him to amend, on payment of costs: And it was ordered by the Court that this cause be continued until the next term of said Court.”37
Ultimately, the defendant in the case, Frederick G. Williams, did make his final appearance before the court on October 24, 1837, as ordered. The plaintiff, Samuel D. Rounds, however, did not, even though he was “demanded” to appear on three occasions. The final disposition of the case was judged a nonsuit by default, but the plaintiff, Samuel D. Rounds, was ordered to pay the court costs.
And now at this term of said Court, that is to say, at the term thereof first aforesaid [October 24, 1837], comes the defendant; and the plaintiff being three times demanded to come into Court and prosecute his suit, comes not but makes default. It is therefore considered by the Court that the plaintiff become nonsuit, and that the defendant recover against him, his costs and charges by him in and about the defending of this suit, in that behalf expended, taxed at seven dollars and fifteen cents: and it is ordered by the Court that the plaintiff pay the costs and charges by him made in and about the prosecuting of this suit, taxed at three dollars and thirty six cents, and in default thereof, that execution issues to collect the same.
The case of Warren Parish, one of six defendants named in similar suits, had an identical outcome.39
Since the record clearly states that on October 24, 1837, the defendant, Frederick G. Williams, was present at the Common Pleas Court of Geauga County, in Chardon, Ohio (and Samuel D. Rounds, the plaintiff, was not), it means that President Williams was still in Ohio through late October. We learn more precisely that he was in Kirtland through October 29, 1837, from a dated receipt of charges incurred by President Williams as the administrator for the Algernon Sidney Gilbert estate.
Estate of Algernon S Gilbert De
Oct 29, 1837 – 2 Days Session at court 12/
$3.00
tavern expenses at same
$1.88
Cost paid clerk
$3.00
" " Print for advertising
$1.50
Oct 20–21 – 2 days Session examining book & paper & Settling account with N Whitney Surviving partner of Algernon S Gilbert – 12/
$3.00
Kirtland 21st October 1837
F. G. Williams Administrator of Est Algernon S Gilbert Desd40
Hence, the earliest President Williams could have begun his journey to Missouri would have been the next day, October 30. What this means is that he was, in all likelihood, not present at the conference held on November 7, 1837, in Far West, Missouri, when he was dropped from the quorum of the First Presidency. It would have been virtually impossible for Frederick to travel more than eight hundred miles to Zion in one week, unless he was able to make all the connections by steamboat. The Far West Record, however, is silent on whether or not he was present at that conference. But the fact that the minutes have two people speaking up for Frederick G. Williams suggests that he could not speak for himself, because he was not there.
As a gauge for the length of time it normally took to make the journey by land, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, just the month before, had taken a little over four weeks to travel from Kirtland to Far West. They departed Kirtland on September 27, 1837, and arrived in Far West “some time in the latter part of October or first of November.”41
Master List of Williams at the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas
November Term 1807
Complaint by Frederick G. Williams through his attorney Samuel W. Phelps, against Henry G. Edwards for nonpayment of promissory note for $44.59.42
March Term 1808
In the above case, the defendant, Henry G. Edwards, was charged to pay the note plus Court cost, totaling $60.43
February 9, 1837
Writ of summons for Frederick G. Williams regarding Kirtland Safety Society, served on Rebecca Williams in the absence of Dr. Williams.44
March 21, 1837
Hearing on the complaint by Samuel D. Rounds against Frederick G. Williams as an officer of the Kirtland Safety Society, to recover $1,000 plus a $1,000 fee.
April 27, 1837
Writ of summons for Frederick G. Williams regarding nonpayment of a promissory note for $125.45
June Term 1837
Continuance of the complaint by Samuel D. Rounds against Frederick G. Williams as an officer of the Kirtland Safety Society, argued before judge. Case continued to next term.
July 22, 1837
Complaint by Samuel M. Starr against Frederick G. Williams for nonpayment of promissory note for $125.46
October 24, 1837
The plaintiff, Samuel M. Starr, and the defendant, Frederick G. Williams, mutually agreed to settle the case and pay the costs; thus the case was closed on October 24, 1837.47
October 24, 1837
Final disposition of the complaint by Samuel D. Rounds against Frederick G. Williams as an officer of the Kirtland Safety Society. The judge ruled that it was a nonsuit by default because the plaintiff Samuel D. Rounds did not appear in court as demanded on three different occasions. Nevertheless, Samuel D. Rounds was ordered to pay the court costs.48
Notes
1. Scott H. Partridge, “The Failure of the Kirtland Safety Society,” BYU Studies 12, no. 4 (1972): 442.
2. D. Paul Sampson and Larry T. Wimmer, “The Kirtland Safety Society: The Stock Ledger Book and the Bank Failure,” BYU Studies 12, no. 4 (1972): 430.
3. Joseph Smith Jr., History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. B. H. Roberts, 2d ed., rev., 7 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1971), 2:487–88 (hereafter cited as History of the Church).
8. Fred C. Collier and William S. Harwell, eds., The Kirtland Council Minute Book, 2d ed. (Salt Lake City: Collier’s Publishing, 2002), 185.
9.History of the Church, 2:484–85. A little over a month earlier, in Missouri, Presidents W. W. Phelps and John Whitmer had been arraigned before the high council of Zion in Far West for irregularities in their conduct. B. H. Roberts believes that that council meeting would “have an important bearing upon facts which will later appear in the body of this history.” History of the Church, 2:483.
14. B. H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Century One, 6 vols. (Provo, Utah: Corporation of the President, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1965), 1:409.
15. Lavina Fielding Anderson, ed., Lucy’s Book: A Critical Edition of Lucy Mack Smith’s Family Memoir (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2001), 596–97. This critical edition compares the original rough-draft manuscript (referred to as Lucy: 1844–45), with the more polished manuscript produced by Martha Jane Coray (Lucy’s assistant) with the help of her husband, Howard Coray (referred to as Coray 1845), and the first publication of the book under the direction of Orson Pratt (referred to as Coray/Pratt: 1853). It also includes input from several subsequent editions. The above quote is from the first published edition, the Coray/Pratt: 1853 version. In the original rough-draft manuscript, Mother Smith writes Williams’s full name, “Esqr Frederick G. Williams.”
16. See Kirtland Township Trustee’s Minutes and Poll Book, 1817–38, 153, 155, 157.
17. On November 7, 1836, seventy-one signatures were collected on a petition demanding the resignation of Esquire A. Hansen of Kirtland. They did not succeed, however, as Justice Hansen served out his term, which expired on June 18, 1837, when Oliver Cowdery was elected in his place. The petition is found at the Lake County Historical Society, Mentor, Ohio.
18.History of the Church, 2:509, 522–23. As it turned out, Williams was dropped from the Presidency at the second conference, but only because the conference voted against the Prophet’s nomination.
19. Nancy Clement Williams, After 100 Years (Independence, Mo.: Zion’s Printing and Publishing, 1951), 113–14. On a National Public Radio broadcast of Radio West with host Doug Fabrizzio that aired on KUER Salt Lake City on December 21, 2005, LDS historian Richard Lyman Bushman confirmed that Joseph Smith had a temper but that he would quickly ask for forgiveness.
22.History of the Church, 4:163–64. W. W. Phelps’s letter to Joseph, asking for the Prophet’s forgiveness, is dated June 29, 1840, from Ohio and is found in History of the Church, 4:141–42. Joseph’s letter back to Phelps is dated July 22, 1840, from Nauvoo, Illinois.
23. At the Church conference held at Far West, Missouri, on November 7, 1837, the proposal to sustain President Williams in the First Presidency was met with opposition, and, after a lengthy debate, Hyrum Smith was voted to take his place. See History of the Church, 2:522–23.
24. Dean C. Jessee, ed., The Papers of Joseph Smith, 2 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989–92), 2:217. It is curious that the version of the minutes published in the History of the Church (2:509) states that the sustaining vote for the First Presidency was not carried unanimously in the case of Frederick G. Williams. It would appear that the later compilers of the history, knowing that President Williams would not be sustained in Far West, added their own editorial comment.
26. Recorded in Geauga County Common Pleas Court Record, Book U, 384–85, Chardon, Geauga Co., Ohio.
27. Recorded in Geauga County Common Pleas Court Record, Book U, 354–55.
28. “Warren Cowdery Docket,” 301–2, see Docket of Oliver Cowdery and Warren A. Cowdery in one volume, Mormon File, Huntington Library, San Marino, Calif.
30. “The handwriting in the ledger has been identified by Dean Jessee, senior historical associate in the Church Historical Department, as that of Warren Parrish, a leading ecclesiastical and bank figure of the time.” Sampson and Wimmer, “Kirtland Safety Society,” 427.
31. “The managers had in the mean time, appointed him [Warren Parrish] as Cashier, and F. G. Williams as President, and they managed the institution with a witness.” Elders’ Journal 1 (August 1838): 58.
32. Geauga County Common Pleas Court Record, Book U, 354–56.
33. Geauga County Common Pleas Court Record, Book U, 354–55.
34. Geauga County Common Pleas Court Record, Book U, 355.
35. Geauga County Common Pleas Court Record, Book U, 355.
36. Geauga County Common Pleas Court Record, Book U, 355.
37. Geauga County Common Pleas Court Record, Book U, 355–56.
38. Geauga County Common Pleas Court Record, Book U, 356.
39. Geauga County Common Pleas Court Record, Book U, 353–54.
40. Document found among Frederick G. Williams’s papers at the Church History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City.
41.History of the Church, 2:521. Given these dates on Smith’s travel to Far West, Nancy C. Williams is clearly mistaken when she states that the Prophet traveled to Missouri with F. G. Williams in Frederick’s wagon and that his son Ezra drove for a portion of the journey. Williams, After 100 Years, 115. However, the Prophet may have traveled the last hundred miles with the Williamses. See chapter 28, “Sorrows in Zion: 1837–1838,” herein.
42. Geauga County Common Pleas Court Record, Book A, 92–94. It is interesting to point out that the first time Frederick G. Williams appeared at the Court of Common Pleas in Chardon, Geauga County, Ohio, was in 1808 when he was twenty-one years old, unmarried, and living in Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. In that case, Williams brought action against Henry G. Edwards for nonpayment of a promissory note for $44.59 that had been executed on November 15, 1806. The defendant was charged to pay the note plus court costs for a total of $60. Frederick’s father, William Wheeler Williams, was the defendant in four cases brought before the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas between 1806 and 1809.
43. Geauga County Common Pleas Court Record, Book A, 92–94.
44. Geauga County Common Pleas Court Record, Book U, 354.
45. Geauga County Common Pleas Court Record, Book U, 384.
46. Geauga County Common Pleas Court Record, Book U, 385.
47. Geauga County Common Pleas Court Record, Book U, 384–85.
48. Geauga County Common Pleas Court Record, Book U, 354–56.
