“.— A few short months ago it was heralded through this , that was the individual who attempted to murder , of . It was confidently stated that Joseph Smith [HC 6:35] was ‘accessory before the fact;’ the thing was swallowed as a precious morsel, by the enemies of Mormonism; it was iterated, and reiterated by the public journals, and the general expression of a certain class was, that Mr Smith ought to be hung; there was no doubt of his guilt;— he was one of the most inhuman, diabolical, dangerous and malignant persons in the universe— and when a requisition was made for him by the of , it was considered worse than ‘arson’ or ‘treason,’ that he should be acquited by the legal authorities of this ; under : and afterwards when was taken, it was exultingly stated that they had got the scoundrel, and that he would now receive the due demerit of his crime. How stands the matter when it is investigated? investigated by a court. The following will show:

It appears then that after all the bluster, the hue and cry about Mormon outrages, Mormon intrigue, ‘blood,’ ‘arson’, and ‘murder,’ that ‘there was not sufficient proof adduced against him to predicate an indictment for shooting , and the grand jury therefore did not indict him forthat offence.’ This speaks for itself; it needs no comment. We are glad for the sake of suffering innocence, that stands clear in the eyes of the law. Thus it seems that after exerting all their malice and hellish rage to implicate the innocent, they can find no proof against him. But yet he must be again incarcerated without proof for another hearing. This is justice. If he was guilty of breaking jail, why not try and punish him for that before that court? Where is the necessity of remanding him to another county for another hearing? It is evident that they wish to immolate him, and by offering him as a sacrifice, glut their thirst for innocent blood”. [p. 1736]