Nauvoo Expositor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Nauvoo Expositor was a newspaper in Nauvoo, Illinois that published only one issue, which was dated June 7, 1844. The Expositor was founded by several disaffected associates of Joseph Smith, Jr., some of whom claimed that Smith had attempted to seduce their wives in the name of plural marriage.

The bulk of the Expositor's single issue was devoted to criticism of Smith, founder of the Latter Day Saint movement and the mayor of Nauvoo. After two days of consultation, Smith and the Nauvoo city council voted on June 10, 1844 to declare the paper a public nuisance, and ordered the paper's printing press destroyed.^[1] The town marshal carried out the order that evening.^[2] These actions generated considerable disturbance, and culminated in Smith's assassination by a vigilante group while he was in legal custody and awaiting a trial in nearby Carthage.

The paper's criticism of Smith was focused on three main points: (1) the opinion that Smith had once been a true prophet, but had become a fallen prophet because of his introduction of plural marriage, exaltation and other controversial doctrines; (2) the opinion that as church president and Nauvoo mayor, Smith held too much power and desired to create a theocracy (see also Council of Fifty, Theodemocracy); and (3) the belief that Smith was corrupting young women by forcing, coercing or introducing them to the practice of plural marriage.

Nauvoo's charter granted the city council powers equal to the Illinois legislature within the jurisdiction of Nauvoo. Power was granted to the city council to pass ordinances for the order and welfare of the city. For two days, Smith and the city council debated and discussed the matter. Ultimately, after considering William Blackstone's canon, the council declared the press a nuisance and ordered Smith, as Nauvoo's mayor, to order the city marshall to destroy the paper and the press.^[2]

Critics^[who?] regarded the press's destruction as an ethical affront to the freedom of the press. However, since the events there has been much discussion as to whether the council's actions were legal insofar as the law would have been contemporarily understood. In any event, whether or not the council's actions were strictly legal, there is general agreement among historians that the press's destruction escalated the continuing conflict between the Mormon community and their critics, leading ultimately to Smith's assassination.

Contents 1 Origin of the paper and reasons for its destruction 2 Legal opinions and analyses 2.1 Oaks' analysis 3 References 4 External links

[edit] Origin of the paper and reasons for its destruction

The Expositor was published by William Law and six associates. Law had been a former member of the First Presidency and a close associate to Smith. During the course of his association with Smith, Law came to believe that Smith had made several proposals to Law's wife Jane, under the premise that Jane Law would enter a polygamous marriage with Smith.^[3] Law claimed that when he confronted his wife, she told him that Smith had "asked her to give him half her love; she was at liberty to keep the other half for her husband." Some historians have also concluded that Smith had also planned to ask Smith's own wife, Emma, to enter a similar polygamous relationship with William Law,^{[citation needed]} but was directed by revelation not to follow through.^[4] As a result of what William Law came to believe about Joseph Smith, Law became disaffected with Smith and left the church. The Expositor was planned as an exposé of the church's practices which Law opposed.^[3]

The Expositor was declared a nuisance in part because it was deemed that if it were not immediately checked, it would inflame either Nauvoo's Mormon citizens or non-Mormon mobs and lead to public disorder or violence such as the Mormons had experienced during the Mormon War in Missouri.^{[citation needed]} In a letter to Governor Thomas Ford written four days after the destruction of the press, Smith described the city council’s opinion of the paper and its authors:

In the investigation it appeared evident to the council that the proprietors were a set of unprincipled men, lawless, debouchees, counterfeiters, Bogus Makers, gamblers, peace disturbers, and that the grand object of said proprietors was to destroy our constitutional rights and chartered privileges; to overthrow all good and wholesome regulations in society; to strengthen themselves against the municipality; to fortify themselves against the church of which I am a member, and destroy all our religious rights and privileges, by libels, slanders, falsehoods, perjury & sticking at no corruption to accomplish their hellish purposes. and that said paper of itself was libelous of the deepest dye, and very injurious as a vehicle of defamation,—tending to corrupt the morals, and disturb the peace, tranquillity and happiness of the whole community, and especially that of Nauvoo.^[5]

Assuming that the mayor's declaration and order passed the ex post facto legal hurdle, it also needed to meet the Nauvoo Charter's requirement that new ordinances must be published under certain criteria and could only become effective 30 days after the ordinance was passed.^{[citation needed]} This requirement was not met.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Legal opinions and analyses

Apart from its ethical implications, there has been some debate about whether the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor was legal. At the time, the United States Constitution did not prohibit states and local governments from infringing the freedom of the press. This First Amendment protection only applied to the federal government until the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution was enacted in 1868, and U.S. courts did not consistently enforce the First Amendment against states and localities until about 1931.

Thus, whether or not the destruction of the press was legal depends primarily on the laws of the state of Illinois and the Nauvoo Charter. Among the rights enacted in the 1818 Constitution of Illinois were a prohibition against ex post facto laws^[6] and a provision for the freedom of the press.^[7] It is clear that the city of Nauvoo's actions against the Expositor violated the Illinois constitution's freedom-of-press provision. This provision read as follows:

"22. The printing presses shall be free to every person, who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the general assembly or of any branch of government; and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

"23. In prosecutions for the publication of papers investigating the official conduct of officers, or of men acting in a public capacity, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence. And in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right of determining both the law and the fact, under the direction of the court as in other cases." (Art. VIII, cl. 22–23).

The destruction may also have violated Illinois' prohibition against ex post facto laws. Even without a specific ordinance, the city of Nauvoo could have tried to rely upon the existing common law doctrines of nuisance and libel, but it is doubtful whether they were applicable. The city might also have acted under the common law doctrine of eminent domain, which allows the government to take private property for public use. Such a taking, however, would have required, under the Illinois "Takings Clause", that the taking be approved by the Illinois general assembly, and that just compensation be given.^[8]

[edit] Oaks' analysis

A detailed legal analysis of the Nauvoo City Council's actions was undertaken by Dallin H. Oaks, then a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.^[9] Oaks opined that while the destruction of the Expositor's printing press was legally questionable, under the law of the time the newspaper certainly could have been declared libelous and therefore a public nuisance by the Nauvoo City Council. As a result, Oaks concludes that while under contemporaneous law it would have been legally permissible for city officials to destroy, or "abate," the actual printed newspapers, the destruction of the printing press itself was probably outside of the council's legal authority, and its owners could have sued for damages.^[10]

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• Nauvoo Expositor : complete text of the Expositor, with original columns and formatting.
• Nauvoo Charter : from History of the Church, Vol. 4, Ch. 13.
• Illinois Constitution : the full text of the 1818 Illinois Constitution.