Marital Power Exemplified in Mrs. Packard's Trial, and Self-Defence from the Charge of Insanity Part 16

Packard, late an inmate of the Insane Asylum of the State of Illinois.

That Mrs. Packard was a victim of a foul and cruel conspiracy I have not a single doubt, and that she is and ever has been as sane as any other person, I verily believe. But I do not feel called upon to a.s.sign reasons for my opinion, in the premises, as her case was fully investigated before an eminent Judge of our State, and after a full and careful examination, she was p.r.o.nounced sane, and restored to liberty.

Still I repeat, but for the cruel conspiracy against her, she could not have been incarcerated, as a lunatic, in an asylum. Whoever reads her full and fair report of her case, will be convinced of the terrible conspiracy that was practiced towards a truly thoughtful and accomplished lady. A conspiracy worthy of a demoniac spirit of ages long since pa.s.sed, and such as we should be loth to believe could be practiced in this enlightened age, did not the records of our court verify its truth.

To a kind and sympathizing public I commend her. The deep and cruel anguish she has had to suffer, at the hands of those who should have been her protectors, will, I doubt not, endear her to you, and you will extend to her your kindest sympathy and protection.

Trusting through her much suffering the public will become more enlightened, and that our n.o.ble and benevolent inst.i.tutions--the asylums for the insane--will never become perverted into inst.i.tutions of cruelty and oppression, and that Mrs. Packard may be the last subject of such a conspiracy as is revealed in her books, that will ever transpire in this our State of Illinois, or elsewhere.

Very respectfully, S. S. JONES."

ST. CHARLES, ILL., DEC. 2, 1864.

EDITORIAL REMARKS.

"a.s.suming, as in view of all the facts it is our duty to do, the correctness of the statements made by Mrs. Packard, two matters of vital importance demand consideration:

1. What have 'the rulers in the church' done about the persecution? They have not publicly denied the statements; virtually (on the principle that under such extraordinary circ.u.mstances silence gives consent,) they concede their correctness. Is the wrong covered up? the guilty party allowed to go unchallenged lest "the cause" suffer by exposure? If they will explain the matter in a way to exculpate the accused, these columns shall be prompt to do the injured full and impartial justice. We are anxious to know what they have to say in the premises. If Mrs. Packard _is_ insane because she rejects Calvinism, then _we_ are insane, liable to arrest, and to be placed in an insane asylum! We have a _personal_ interest in this matter.

2. Read carefully Judge Boardman's statement as to the bearing of "common law" on Mrs. Packard's case. If a bad man, hating his wife and wis.h.i.+ng to get rid of her, is base enough to fabricate a charge of insanity, and can find two physicians "in regular standing" foolish or wicked enough to give the legal certificate, the wife is helpless! The "common law" places her wholly at the mercy of her brutal lord. Certainly the statute should interfere. Humanity, not to say Christianity, demands, that special enactments shall make impossible, such atrocities as are alleged in the case of Mrs. Packard--atrocities which, according to Judge Boardman, _can_ be enacted in the name of "common law." We trust the case now presented will have at least the effect, to incite Legislative bodies to such enactments as will protect women from the possibility of outrages, which, we are led to fear, ecclesiastical bodies had rather cover up, than expose and rebuke to the prejudice of sectarian ends--the 'sacred cause.'"

As I have said, there was a successful effort made in the Ma.s.sachusett's Legislature to change the laws in reference to the mode of commitment into Insane Asylums that winter, 1865, and as Hon. S. E. Sewall was my "friend and fellow laborer," as he styles himself, in that movement, I made application to him this next winter, for such a recommend as I might use to aid me in bringing this subject before the Illinois' Legislature this winter, for the purpose of getting a change in their laws also. But finding that the Illinois' Legislature do not meet this year, I have had no occasion to use it, as I intended. Having it thus on hand, I will add this to the foregoing.

HON. S. E. SEWALL'S TESTIMONIAL.

"I have been acquainted with Mrs. E. P. W. Packard for about a year, I believe. She is a person of great religious feeling, high moral principle, and warm philanthropy. She is a logical thinker, a persuasive speaker, and such an agitator, that she sometimes succeeds where a man would fail. I think she will be very useful in the cause to which she has devoted herself, I mean procuring new laws to protect married women.

I give Mrs. Packard these lines of recommendation, because she has asked for them. I do not think them at all necessary, for she can recommend herself, far better than I can.

S. E. SEWALL."

BOSTON, NOV. 27, 1865.

After these testimonials, and the editorial remarks accompanying them had appeared in these Boston journals, Mr. Packard sent various articles to these journals in reply, designing to counteract their legitimate influence in defence of my course. Some of these articles were published, and many were refused, by the editors. The "Universalist," and the "Daily Advertiser," published a part of his voluminous defence, which was made up almost entirely of certificates and credentials, but no denial of the truth of the general statement. The chief point in his defence which he seemed the most anxious to establish was, that my trial was not correctly reported--and not a fair trial--a mere mob triumph, instead of a triumph of justice. One of these papers, containing his impeachments of the court, was sent to Kankakee City, Illinois, where the court was held, and elicited many prompt and indignant replies. An article soon appeared in the Kankakee paper, on this subject, stating his defamations against the judge, lawyers, and jury, and then added, "Mr. Packard is both writing his wife into notoriety, and himself into infamy," by his publis.h.i.+ng such statements, as he would not dare to publish in Illinois; and it was astonis.h.i.+ng to them, how such a paper as the Boston "Daily Advertiser,"

should allow such scandals respecting the proceedings of Illinois' courts to appear in its columns. I will here give entire only one of the many articles sent to the Boston papers in reply. This article was headed,

THE REPLY OF THE REPORTER OF MRS. PACKARD'S TRIAL, TO REV. THEOPHILUS PACKARD'S CHARGE OF MISREPRESENTATION.

"_To the Editors of the Boston Daily Advertiser_:--

In the supplement of the Boston Daily Advertiser of May 3d, appears a collection of certificates, introduced by Rev. Theophilus Packard, which requires a notice from me. These certificates are introduced for one or two purposes. First, either to prove that the report of the trial of Mrs. Elizabeth Packard, held before the Hon. C. R.

Starr, Judge of the Second Judicial Circuit of the State of Illinois, on the question of her insanity, as published in the "Great Drama,"

is false; or, secondly, to prove to the readers of the Advertiser that Mr. Packard is not so bad a man as those who read the trial would be likely to suppose him to be.

In determining the truth of the statements of any number of persons relative to any given subject, it is always profitable to inquire who the persons that make the statements are, what is their relation to the subject-matter, and what their means of information.

I entered upon the defence of Mrs. Packard without any expectation of fee or reward, except such as arises from a consciousness of having discharged my duty toward a helpless and penniless woman, who was either indeed insane, or was most foully dealt with by him who had sworn to love, cherish and protect her. I was searching for the truth. I did then no more and no less than I should do for any person who claimed that their sacred rights were daily violated, and life made a burden most intolerable to be borne, by repeated wrongs.

The report was made from written notes of the testimony taken during the trial. And this is the first time I ever heard the correctness of the report called in question. It would be very unlikely that I should make an incorrect report of an important case, which I knew would be read by my friends and business acquaintances, and which (if incorrect) would work a personal injury. Policy and selfish motives would prevent me from making an incorrect report, if I was guided by nothing higher.

The first certificate presented is signed by Deacon A. H. Dole, and Sibyl T. Dole, who are the sister and brother-in-law of Mr. Packard, and, as the trial shows, his _co-conspirators_; J. B. Smith, another of his deacons, who was a willing tool in the transaction; and Miss Sarah Rumsey, another member of his Church, who went to live with Mr.

Packard when Mrs. Packard was first kidnapped. Let Jeff. Davis be put on trial, and then take the certificates of Mrs. Surratt, Payne, Azteroth, Arnold, Dr. Mudd and George N. Saunders, and I am led to believe they would make out Jeff. to be a "Christian President," whom the barbarous North were trying to murder. Their further certificate "that the disorderly demonstrations by the furious populace, filling the Court House while we were present at the said trial, were well calculated to prevent a fair trial," is simply bosh, but is on a par with the whole certificate. It is a reflection upon the purity of our judicial system, and upon our Circuit Court, that they would not make at home. And I can only account for its being made on the supposition that it would not be read in Illinois. "The furious populace"

consisted of about two hundred ladies of our city who visited the trial until it was completed, because they felt a sympathy for one of their own s.e.x, whose treatment had become notorious in our city. The conspirators allege that Mrs. Packard is insane. They each swore to this on the trial, but a jury of twelve men after hearing the whole case, upon their oaths said in effect they did not believe these witnesses, for by their verdict they found her SANE.

The second certificate is from Samuel Packard. It is a sufficient answer to this to say that he is the son of Mr. Packard, and entirely under his father's control, and that it is apparent upon the doc.u.ment that the boy never wrote a word of it.

Then follows a certificate from Lizzie, who takes umbrage because I called her in the report the "little daughter" of Mrs. Packard, and is made to say pertly she was then _fourteen_. She then acted like a good daughter, who loved her mother dearly, and her size and age never entered into the consideration of the audience of ladies whose hearts were touched and feelings stirred, till the fountain of their tears was broken, by the kind and natural emotions which were then exhibited by the mother and daughter. When Mrs. Packard was put in the hospital Lizzie was about ten years old, and a thinking public will determine what judgment she could then form about her mother's "religious notions" and her "insanity," "to the great sorrow of all our family."

One word further upon the certificate of Thomas P. Bonfield, and I will close. He says that the trial commenced very soon after the writ of habeas corpus was served on Mr. Packard, and therefore he could not obtain his evidence, and was prevented from obtaining the attendance of Dr. McFarland, Superintendent of the Insane Hospital of Illinois. Dr. McFarland was the only witness whose attendance Mr.

Packard's counsel expressed a desire for that was not present. They had his certificate that Mrs. Packard was insane, which they used as evidence, and which went to the jury. The defence had no opportunity for cross-examination, while Mr. Packard thus got the benefit of McFarland's evidence that she was insane, with no possibility of a contradiction. What more could he have had if the witness had been present?

The certificate further states that "a large portion of the community were more intent on giving Presbyterianism a blow than on investigating, or leaving the law to investigate, the question of Mrs. Packard's insanity." Well, what did the "feelings" of the community have to do with the court and jury? You selected the jury.

You said they were good men. If not good, you could have rejected them. The presiding judge is a member of the Congregational Church, which is nearly allied to the Presbyterian. Five of the twelve jurymen were regular attendants of the Presbyterian Church. No complaint was then made that you could not have a fair trial. If Packard believed he could not, the statute of Illinois provides for a change of venue, which pet.i.tion for a change of venue you had Mr.

Packard sign, but which you concluded not to present, because you thought it would _not_ be granted. If you thought it would not be granted, it was because you did not have a case that the venue could be changed, because when the proper affidavit is made for a change of venue, the Court has no power to refuse the application. The trial was conducted as all trials are conducted in Boston or in Illinois, and the verdict of the jury p.r.o.nounced Mrs. Packard sane.

The published report of the trial is made. It no doubt presents Mr.

Packard and his confederates in a very unfavorable light, but it is just as they presented themselves. If they do not like the picture they should not have presented the original.

STEPHEN R. MOORE.

KANKAKEE, ILL., MAY 16, 1865.

CONCLUSION.

In view of the above facts and principles on which this argument of "Self-defence from the charge of Insanity" is based, I feel sure that the array of sophisms which Mr. Packard may attempt to marshall against it, will only be like arguing the sun out of the heavens at noon-day. He is the only one who has ever dared to bring personal evidence of insanity against me, so far as my knowledge extends. Others believe me to be insane, but it is on the ground of his _testimony_, not from personal proof, by my own words and actions, independent of the coloring _he_ has put upon them.

For example, I find he has reported as proof of my insanity, "that I have punished the children for obeying him." Had this been the case, in the sense in which he meant it to be understood, it would look like an insane, or at least very improper, act. But it is not true that I ever punished a child for obeying their father; but on the contrary, have exacted implicit obedience to their father's wishes and commands, and have even enforced this, my own command, by punishments, to _compel_ them to respect their father's authority, by obeying his commands.

But this I have also done. I have maintained the theory, by logic and practice both, that a mother had a right to enforce her own reasonable commands--that her authority to do so was delegated to her by G.o.d himself, and not by her husband--and that this right to command being delegated to her by G.o.d himself, as the G.o.d given right identified with her maternity, the husband had no right to interfere or usurp this G.o.d bestowed right from the wife. But on the contrary, it was the husband's duty, as the wife's G.o.d appointed protector, to see that this right was defended to the wife by his authority over the children, requiring of them obedience to her commands, as one whose authority they must respect. Yes, I have trained my children to respect my authority as a G.o.d delegated authority, equal in power, _in my sphere_, to their father's G.o.d delegated authority.

And farther, I have taught them, that I had no right to go out of _my sphere_ and interfere with their father's authority in his sphere; neither had their father a right to trespa.s.s upon my sphere, and counter order my commands. I maintain, that the one who commands is the only rightful one to countermand. Therefore, the father has no right to countermand the mother's orders, except _through her_; neither has the mother a right to countermand the father's order, except through _him_. Here is the principle of "equal rights," which our government is bound to respect. And it is because they do not respect it, that my husband has usurped all my maternal rights, thus proving himself traitor, not only to his own manliness, but traitor to the principles of G.o.d's government.

But as this is a volume of facts, rather than theories, I will add one fact in vindication of my a.s.sertion, that I uniformly taught my children to respect their father's authority. When I was incarcerated in my prison, my oldest son, Theophilus, was in the post-office in Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, as clerk, and had not seen me for two years. His regard for me was excessive. He had been uniformly filial, and very kind to me, and therefore when he learned that his loving mother was a prisoner in a lunatic asylum, he felt an unconquerable desire to see me, and judge for himself, whether I was really insane, or whether I was the victim of his father's despotism. His father, aware of this feeling, and fearing he might ascertain the truth respecting me, by some means, sent him a letter, commanding him not to write to his mother now in the asylum, and by no means visit her there, adding, if he did so, he should disinherit him.

Theophilus was now eighteen years of age, and, as yet, had never known what it was to disobey either his father's or mother's express commands.

But now his love for his mother led him to question the justice of this seemingly arbitrary command, and he, fearful of trusting to his own judgment in this matter, sought advice from those who had once been Mr.

Packard's church members and deacons in Mt. Pleasant, and from all he got the same opinion strongly defended, that he had a right to disobey _such_ a command. He therefore ventured to visit his mother in her lonely prison home in defiance of his father's edict. I was called from my ward to meet my darling first-born son in the reception room, when I had been in my prison about two months. After embracing me and kissing me with all the fondness of a most loving child, and while shedding our mutual tears of ecstasy at being allowed once more to meet on earth, he remarked, "Mother, I don't know as I have done right in coming to see you as I have, for father has forbid my coming, and you have always taught me never to disobey my father."

"Disobeyed your father!" said I. "Yes, I have always taught you it was a sin to disobey him, and I do fear you have done wrong, if you have come to see me in defiance of your father's command. You know we can never claim G.o.d's blessing in doing wrong, and fear our interview will not be a blessing to either of us, if it has been secured at the price of disobedience to your father's command."

Here his tears began to flow anew, while he exclaimed, "I was afraid it would prove so! I was afraid you would not approve of my coming! But, mother, I could not bear to feel that you had become insane, and I could not believe it, and would not, until I had seen you myself; and now I see it is just as I expected, you are not insane, but are the same kind mother as ever. But I am sorry if I have done wrong by coming."

I wept. He wept. I could not bear to blame my darling boy. And must I? was the great question to be settled. "My son," said I, "let us ask G.o.d to settle this question for us," and down we both kneeled by the sofa, and with my arm around my darling boy, I asked G.o.d if I should blame him for coming to see me in defiance of his father's order. While asking for heavenly wisdom to guide us in the right way, the thought came to me, "go and ask Dr. McFarland."

I accordingly went to the Doctor's parlor, where I found him alone, reading his paper. I said to him, "Doctor, I have a question of conscience to settle, and I have sought your help in settling it, namely, has my son done wrong to visit me, when his father has forbid his coming, and has threatened to disinherit him if he did? He has the letter with him showing this to be the case."