The Petition before Congress
Following the interview with the President the brethren spent some time hunting up senators and representatives with whom they might converse and receive a hearing. They found the delegation from Illinois friendly, and were able to make a number of friends among the honorable gentlemen in Washington. A meeting was held with the congressional delegation from Illinois, for the purpose of considering the best means for getting their business before Congress. Mr. Robinson, of the delegation, offered some opposition against the Saints presenting any claims against Missouri to be liquidated by the United States, on the ground that the Saints should make their appeal to the judiciary of Missouri and the state officials, where the wrongs were committed. The Prophet opposed such a stand with great vigor, explaining that every effort had already been made to get the governor of Missouri and the courts to consider their claims, but without result. Mr. Robinson then said this was his first impression of the matter, but he would take it under consideration. The following day another meeting was held and it was decided that a petition should be drawn up to be presented to Congress, and Senator Richard M. Young, of Illinois, promised to present it in the United States Senate. They were advised that all facts presented should be authenticated by affidavits, so word was sent to the Saints in Illinois to prepare immediately such necessary information as would be required.[3 ] The petition was duly presented to the judiciary committee. It covered the outrages against the members of the Church from the expulsion from Jackson County, in 1833, to the banishment from the state in 1838 –39. The dastardly course of Governor Boggs in aiding the enemies of the Saints and his exterminating order received proper consideration. The concluding paragraphs of this petition are as follows:
“For these wrongs, the ‘Mormons’ ought to have some redress: yet how and where shall they seek and obtain it? Your constitution guarantees to every citizen, even the humblest, the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. It promises to all, religious freedom, the right to all to worship God beneath their own vine and fig tree, according to the dictates of their conscience. It guarantees to all the citizens of the several states the right to become citizens of any one of the states, and to enjoy all the rights and immunities of the citizens of the state of his adoption. Yet of all these rights have the ‘Mormons’ been deprived. They have, without a cause, without a trial, been deprived of life, liberty and property. They have been persecuted for their religious opinions. They have been driven from the state of Missouri, at the point of the bayonet, and prevented from enjoying and exercising the rights of citizens of the state of Missouri. It is the theory of our laws, that for the protection of every legal right, there is provided a legal remedy. What then, we would respectfully ask, is the remedy of the ‘Mormons’? Shall they apply to the legislature of the state of Missouri for redress? They have done so. They have petitioned, and these petitions have been treated with silence and contempt. Shall they apply to the federal courts? They were, at the time of the injury, citizens of the state of Missouri. Shall they apply to the court of the state of Missouri? Whom shall they sue? The order for their destruction, then extermination, was granted by the executive of the state of Missouri. Is not this a plea of justification for the loss of individuals, done in pursuance of that order? If not, before whom shall the ‘Mormons’ institute a trial? Shall they summon a jury of the individuals who composed the mob? An appeal to them were in vain. They dare not go to Missouri to institute a suit; their lives would be in danger.
“For ourselves we see no redress, unless it is awarded by the Congress of the United States. And here we make our appeal as American Citizens, as Christians, and as Men—believing that the high sense of justice which exists in your honorable body, will not allow such oppression to be practiced upon any portion of the citizens of this vast republic with impunity; but that some measures which your wisdom may dictate, may be taken, so that the great body of people who have been thus abused, may have redress for the wrongs which they have suffered. And to your decision they look with confidence; hoping it may be such as shall tend to dry up the tears of the widow and orphan, and again place in situations of peace, those who have been driven from their homes, and have had to wade through scenes of sorrow and distress.
“And your Memorialists, as in duty bound, will ever pray.”
The Prophet’s Interview with President Van Buren
While the Prophet was waiting for the action of Congress, he visited several branches of the Church in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and other parts, returning to Washington the fore part of February. During this time he had another interview with President Martin Van Buren and one with John C. Calhoun, and he records the following in his journal:
“During my stay I had an interview with Martin Van Buren, the President, who treated me very insolently, and it was with great reluctance he listened to our message, which, when he had heard, he said: ‘Gentlemen, your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you;’ and ‘If I take up for you I shall lose the vote of Missouri.’ His whole course went to show that he was an office-seeker, that self-aggrandizement was his ruling passion, and that justice and righteousness were no part of his composition. I found him such a man as I could not conscientiously support at the head of our noble Republic. I also had an interview with Mr. John C. Calhoun, whose conduct towards me very ill became his station. I became satisfied there was little use for me to tarry, to press the just claims of the Saints on the consideration of the President and Congress, and stayed but a few days, taking passage in company with Porter Rockwell and Dr. Foster on the railroad and stages back to Dayton, Ohio” (Documentary History of the Church, vol. 4:80).
The Action of Congress
Judge Elias Higbee remained in Washington during the time the petition was before Congress. He met on several occasions with the judiciary committee, which had the matter in hand. The members from Missouri offered considerable opposition, as naturally might be supposed, to the charges made against the officials of that state. They did all in their power to prevent any consideration of the petition. Many false statements and charges were made which Judge Higbee was able to refute. On the 26th of February, he wrote the Prophet as follows: “I am just informed by General Wall (the chairman of the committee), before whom, or to whom, our business is referred, that the decision is against us, or in other words unfavorable, that they believe redress can only be had in Missouri, the courts and the legislature.” On the 4th of March, 1840, President Joseph Smith arrived in Nauvoo. The same day the senate committee made its report. After setting forth some of the items in the petition the committee said:
“The petition is drawn up at great length, and sets forth, with feeling and eloquence, the wrongs of which they complain; justifies their own conduct, and aggravates that of those whom they call their persecutors, and concludes by saying they see no redress, unless it be obtained of the Congress of the United States, to whom they make their solemn, last appeal, as American citizens, as Christians, and as men; to which decision they say they will submit.
“The committee have examined the case presented by the petition, and heard the views urged by their agent, with care and attention; and after full examination and consideration, unanimously concur in the opinion—
“That the case presented for their investigation is not such a one as will justify or authorize any interposition by this government.
“The wrongs complained of are not alleged to be committed by any of the officers of the United States, or under the authority of its government in any manner whatever. The allegations in the petition relate to the acts of its citizens, and inhabitants and authorities of the State of Missouri, of which state the petitioners were at the time citizens, or inhabitants.
“The grievances complained of in the petition are alleged to have been done within the territory of the State of Missouri. The committee, under these circumstances, have not considered themselves justified in inquiring into the truth or falsehood of the facts charged in the petition. If they are true, the petitioners must seek relief in the courts of judication of the State of Missouri, or of the United States, which has the appropriate jurisdiction to administer full and adequate redress for the wrongs complained of, and doubtless will do so fairly and impartially; or the petitioners may, if they see proper, apply to the justice and magnanimity of the State of Missouri—an appeal which the committee feel justified in believing will never be made in vain by the injured or oppressed.
“It can never be presumed that a state either wants the power or lacks the disposition to redress the wrongs of its own citizens, committed within her own territory, whether they proceed from the lawless acts of her officers or of any other persons. The committee therefore report that they recommend the passage of the following resolution:
“Resolved, That the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the memorial in this case; and that the memorialists have leave to withdraw the papers which accompany their memorial” (Documentary History of the Church, vol. 4:90–2).