_Wednesday, 4_.--At nine o'clock a. m., repaired to the court-room, Judge Pope on the bench, and ten ladies by his side, when Josiah Lamborn, attorney-general of the state of Illinois, appeared and moved to dismiss the proceedings, and filed the following objections to the jurisdiction of the court,--viz.: _Objection of Jurisdiction_. 1. The arrest and the detention of Smith was not under or by color of authority of the United States, or of any officer of the United States, but under and by color of authority of the State of Illinois, by the officers of Illinois. 2. When a fugitive from justice is arrested by authority of the governor of any state upon the requisition of the governor of another state, the courts of justice, neither state nor federal, have any authority or jurisdiction to enquire into any facts behind the writ. My counsel then offered to read, in evidence, affidavits of several persons, showing conclusively that I was at Nauvoo, in the county of Hancock, and state of Illinois on the whole of the 6th and 7th days of May, in the year 1842, and on the evenings of those days more than three hundred miles distant from Jackson county, in the state of Missouri, where it is alleged that the said Boggs was shot; and that I had not been in the state of Missouri at any time between the 10th day of February and the 1st day of July, 1842, the said persons having been with me during the whole of that period. That on the 6th day of May aforesaid, I attended an officer's drill at Nauvoo aforesaid, in the presence of a large number of people; and on the 7th day of May aforesaid I reviewed the Nauvoo Legion in presence of many thousand people. The reading of these affidavits was objected to by the attorney-general of the state of Illinois, on the grounds that it was not competent for Smith to impeach or contradict {221} the return of the habeas corpus. It was contended by my counsel, 1st, that I had a right to prove that the return was untrue. 2nd, that the said affidavits did not contradict the said return, as there was no averment under the oath in said return that I was in Missouri at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, or had fled from the justice of that state. The court decided that the said affidavits should be read in evidence, subject to all objections; and they were read accordingly, all of which will appear on my discharge. B. S. Edwards, Esq., opened the defense in an animated speech, and made some very pathetic allusions to our sufferings in Missouri, followed by Mr. Butterfield, who made the following points:-- _Summary of Counsel Butterfield's Argument_.