JS, History, 1838–1856, vol. D-1, created 4 July 1845–4 Feb. 1846 and 1 July 1854–2 May 1855; handwriting of , Robert L. Campbell, and ; 275 pages, plus 6 pages of addenda; CHL. This is the fourth volume of a six-volume manuscript history of the church. This fourth volume covers the period from 1 Aug. 1842 to 1 July 1843; the remaining five volumes, labeled A-1, B-1, C-1, E-1 and F-1, continue through 8 Aug. 1844.
Historical Introduction
History, 1838–1856, volume D-1, constitutes the fourth of six volumes documenting the life of Joseph Smith and the early years of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The series is also known as the Manuscript History of the Church and was originally published serially from 1842 to 1846 and 1851 to 1858 as the “History of Joseph Smith” in the Times and Seasons and Deseret News. This volume contains JS’s history from 1 August 1842 to 1 July 1843, and it was compiled after JS’s death.
The material recorded in volume D-1 was initially compiled under the direction of church historian , with the assistance of . After Richards’s death in 1854, continued work on the volume as the new church historian with Bullock’s continued help. The process adopted by Richards and Bullock involved Richards creating a set of rough draft notes and Bullock transcribing the notes into the volume along with the text of designated documents (such as letters and meeting minutes). George A. Smith followed a similar pattern, though he dictated the draft notes to Bullock and other scribes.
According to the Church Historian’s Office journal, finished the third volume of the series, volume C-1, on Thursday, 3 July 1845, in , Illinois. He began work on the fourth volume, D-1, the next day, beginning on page 1362 with the entry for 1 August 1842. (The pages in volumes A-1–E-1 were numbered consecutively.) Bullock continued work on the record, drawing upon ’s draft notes, until 3 February 1846—the day before D-1 and the other volumes were packed up in preparation for the Latter-day Saints’ exodus from Nauvoo. At that point he had reached page 1485 with the entry for 28 February 1843. Subsequently, apparently after the collection had arrived in Utah, Bullock added a brief comment beneath that entry: “end of W. Richard’s compiling[.] the books packed Feby. 4— 1846 in Nauvoo[.] Miles Romney— present. The records carried by T Bullock from Winter Quarters to G S L [Great Salt Lake] City in 1848.”
A notation at the top of page 1486 reports that “the books were unpacked in G. S. L. City by and . June 7. 1853. J[onathan] Grimshaw & Miles Romney present.” Vertically, in the margin, is a poignant epitaph: “Decr. 1 1853 Dr. Willard Richards wrote one line of History—being sick at the time—and was never able to do any more.” With Richards’s death on 11 March 1854, JS’s cousin was called to the office of church historian. The notation on the top of page 1486 acknowledges this change in officers, noting, “commencement of George A. Smith’s compiling as Historian. April 13. 1854[.] [C]ommenced copying July 1. 1854.” From mid-April to the end of June 1854, George A. Smith, in collaboration with Thomas Bullock, worked on the draft notes for the history before a new scribe, , resumed writing in D-1 on 1 July 1854, beginning with the entry for 1 March 1843.
continued transcribing intermittently into the late fall of 1854, when he was assigned other duties in the Historian’s Office. He had reached page 1546 with the entry for 5 May 1843. Work resumed in February 1855 in the hand of Robert L. Campbell, recently returned from a mission. He concluded volume D-1 on the morning of 2 May 1855 and began writing in E-1 that afternoon.
The 274 pages of volume D-1 contain a record of much that is significant in the life of JS and the development of the church he founded. Among these events are
• JS’s 6 August 1842 prophecy that the Saints would become a mighty people in the midst of the Rocky Mountains.
•JS’s 8 August 1842 arrest on a warrant for being “an accessory before the fact” to an attack on former governor .
• ’s 17 August 1842 letter to governor , pleading for the humane treatment of her husband and family.
•JS’s 1 and 6 September 1842 instructions regarding the proper procedures for performing baptisms for the dead.
• JS’s 15 November 1842 “Valedictory” as he stepped down as editor of the Times and Seasons.
• The 26 December 1842 arrest of JS on a “proclamation” by former governor , and subsequent hearing in , Illinois.
• The 7 February 1843 recovery of a volume of patriarchal blessings given by , which had been stolen in , Missouri.
• JS’s 21 February 1843 remarks regarding the and .
• JS’s 2 April 1843 instruction at , Illinois, on the nature of God and other subjects.
• JS’s 16 May 1843 remarks at , Illinois, on the everlasting covenant and eternal marriage.
• The account of JS’s 23 June 1843 arrest and his hearing the following week at .
who had demanded him as a fugitive from justice, under the second section 4th. article of the Constitution of the , and the Act of Congress passed to carry into effect that article. The article is in these words, viz: “A person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in another State, shall on demand of the Executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the Crime.” The Act of Congress made to carry into effect this article, directs that the demand be made on the Executive of the State where the offender is found, and prescribes the proof to support the demand, viz Indictment or Affidavit. the Court deemed it respectful to inform the and Attorney Generals of the State of , of the action upon the habeas Corpus, on the day appointed for the hearing, the Attorney General for the State of , appeared and denied the jurisdiction of the Court to grant the Habeas Corpus. 1st. Because the warrant was not issued under colour or by authority of the , but by the State of . 2nd. Because no can issue in this case from either the Federal or State Courts to enquire into facts behind the writ. In support of the first point, a law of was read declaring that whenever the Executive of any other State shall demand of the of this , any person, as a fugitive from Justice and shall have complied with the requisition of the act of Congress in that case made and provided, it shall be the duty of the of this to issue his warrant to apprehend the said fugitive &c. It would seem that this Act does not purport to confer any additional power upon the of this , independent of the power conferred by the Constitution and laws of the but to make it the duty of the Executive to obey and carry into effect the Act of Congress. [HC 5:224]
The warrant on its face purports to be issued in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the , as well as of the State of . To maintain the position that this warrant was not issued under color or by authority of the laws of the , It must be proved, that the could not confer the power on the of—— . Because if Congress could and did confer it, no act of could take it away, for the reason that the constitution and laws of the passed in pursuance of it, and treaties, are the supreme law of the land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary—— notwithstanding. This is enough to dispose of that point. If the Legislature of as is probable, intended to make it the duty of the Governor to exercise the power granted by Congress, and no more, the Executive would acting by authority of the . It may be that the Legislature of appreciating the importance of the proper execution of those laws, and doubting whether the Governor could be punished for refusing to carry—— them into effect, deemed it prudent to impose it as a duty, the neglect of which would expose him to impeachment. If it intended more, the law is unconstitutional and void— 16 Peters 617 Prigg vs. . In supporting the second point the Attorney General seemed to urge that there was greater sanctity in a warrant issued by the—— Governor than by an inferior officer. The Court cannot assent to this distinction
This is a Government of laws, which prescribes a rule of action, as obligatory upon the Governor as upon the most obscure officer. The Character and purposes of the are greatly misunderstood by those who suppose that it does not review the acts of an Executive Functionary; all who are familiar with English history—— must know that it was extorted from an arbitary monarch and that it was hailed as a second Magna Charta, and that it was to protect the subject from arbitrary imprisonment by the King and his minions, which brought into existence [p. 1438]