<​May 16​> “A plea had been entered in this suit by the council for the defendants, to which the council for the plaintiff demurred. The demurrer was argued on Wednesday morning the 8th. inst, and the parties finally joined issue on the charge for using unnecessary force and violence, and the Court gave permission by consent of the Bar to proceed with the trial, but the Council not being fully prepared, it was laid over until the following morning the 9th. inst.

“On Thursday morning after the usual preliminaries of opening Court, the above case was called up for trial, and the clerk ordered to impanel a jury; and here, sir, a scene took place which ought to make every honest American citizen blush and weep for the credit and honor of his country and laws. A number of men were called up and when questioned as to whether they had previously expressed opinions in relation to the suit now pending, nearly the whole answered in the affirmative. The further question was then put as to whether they had any prejudice against either of the parties, to which a great majority replied they had against Smith. They were then questioned as to what their prejudice had reference, his religious sentiments or general course of conduct. The greater part replied, to his religious sentiments; and the remainder said they were opposed to his general course of conduct. [HC 6:380] About twenty men had to be called upon one after another, out of which number the Court finally selected twelve as competent jurors, although the majority of these decidedly expressed their feelings of prejudice against the plaintiff. They were however accepted on the ground that they said they thought they could do justice to both parties, although some of them expressed a doubt whether they could do justice or not.

“The jury being sworn, the Court, or rather the Counsel, proceeded to examine the witnesses on the part of the plaintiff, which occupied nearly the whole day. But little of the real matter of fact could be set before the Court, on account of their being confined to the charge of unnecessary force and violence; but this was proven in the clearest point of light.

“I must refer to the testimony of old Mr. Dixon, whose silvery locks seem to tell an age of many years. His evidence related to the circumstance of the refusing for a length of time to give the plaintiff the privilege of Habeas Corpus, and threatening to drag him to in fifteen minutes from the time they arrived at . The old gentleman seemed to tremble with indignation while relating the simple facts as they transpired at the time; and, like a true lover of his country, appeared proud of the privilege of telling those men that the citizens of would not suffer themselves to be disgraced by permitting them to drag away a citizen of this to a foreign State for trial, without the privilege of a trial by Habeas Corpus, a privilege which is guaranteed to every individual under like circumstances, and especially when it was understood that he was to be dragged to , amongst a people whose hands are yet dripping with the blood of murdered innocence, and who thirst for the blood of General Joseph Smith as the howling wolf thirsts for its prey. Surely such a picture would melt the heart of any thing but an adamantine. There are those, and men too who profess to be the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, who can hear such things, and still wish the Missourians had got Gen. Smith to to murder him without judge or jury; and surely they are no better than murderers themselves, and only lack the opportunity to make them shedders of innocent blood.

“After the evidence was through on the part of the plaintiff, the witnesses for the defence were examined, which only occupied a few minutes. The arguments were then advanced on both sides, during which time I could not help noticing how apt the respectable gentleman of the opposite council was to sing he song of ‘old Joe Smith’s’, [p. 36]