I thought it was an evidence of insanity for her to order me into the kitchen; she ought to have known that I was not an ordinary servant. The proper place for the servant is in the kitchen at work, and not in the parlor; I took the place of the servant girl for a short time.
She wanted the flower beds in the front yard cleaned out, and tried to get Mr. Packard to do it; he would not do it. She went and put on an old dress and went to work, and cleaned the weeds out, and worked herself into a great heat. It was a warm day; she staid out until she was almost melted down with the heat.
Question.What did she do then?
Answer.She went to her room and took a bath, and dressed herself, and then lay down exhausted. She did not come down to dinner.
Ques.And did you think that was an evidence of insanity?
Ans.I did—the way it was done.
Ques.What would you have done under similar circumstances? Would you have set down in the clothes you had worked in?
Ans.No.
Ques.Probably you would have taken a bath and changed your clothes too. And so would any lady, would they not?
Ans.Yes.
Ques.Then would you call yourself insane?
Ans.No. But she was angry and excited, and showed ill-will. She was very tidy in her habits; liked to keep the house clean, and have her yard and flowers look well. She took considerable pains with these things.
I remained there until she was taken away; I approved taking her away; I deemed her dangerous to the church; her ideas were contrary to the church, and were wrong.
The baby was eighteen months old when she was taken away. She was very fond of her children and treated them very kindly. Never saw her misuse them. Never heard that she had misused them. Never heard that she was dangerous to herself or to her family. Never heard that she had threatened or offered to destroy anything, or injure any person.
Judge Bartlettwas next called to the stand.
Am acquainted with Mrs. Packard. Had a conversation with her on religious topics. We agreed very well in most things. She did not sayshe believed in the transmigration of souls; she said some persons had expressed that idea to her, but she did not believe it. It was spoken of lightly. She did not say ever to me, that Mr. Packard’s soul would go into an ox. She did not say anything about her being related to the Holy Ghost. I thought then, and said it, that religious subjects were her study, and that she would easily be excited on that subject. I could not see that she was insane. I would go no stronger than to say, that her mind dwelt on religious subjects. She could not be called insane, for thousands of people believe as she does, on religion.
Mrs. Sybil Dole, recalled.
At the time she got up from the table she went out. She said, “I will have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness. No! not so much as to eat with them.”
Re-cross-examined.—Question.Did you deem that an evidence of insanity?
Answer.I did.
Ques.She called Mr. Packard the unfruitful works of darkness?
Ans.I suppose so.
Ques.Did she also include you?
Ans.She might have done so.
Ques.This was about the time that her husband was plotting to kidnap her, was it not?
Ans.It was just before she was removed to the Asylum.
Ques.He had been charging her with insanity, had he not, at the table?
Ans.He had.
The prosecution now wished to adjourn the court for ten days, to enable them to get Dr. McFarland, Superintendent of the State Hospital, who, they claimed, would testify that she was insane. Counsel stated, he had been telegraphed to come, and a reply was received, that he was in Zanesville, Ohio, and would return in about ten days. They claimed his testimony would be very important. This motion the counsel of Mrs. Packard opposed, as it was an unheard-of proceeding to continue a cause after the hearing was commenced, to enable a party to hunt up testimony.
The matter was discussed on each side for a considerable length of time, when the court held that the defense should go on with their testimony, and after that was heard, then the court would determine about continuing the case to get Dr. McFarland, and perhaps he couldbe got before the defense was through, and if so, he might be sworn; and held that the defense should go on now.
The counsel of Mrs. Packard withdrew for consultation, and in a brief time returned, and announced to the court that they would submit the case without introducing any testimony, and were willing to submit it without argument. The counsel for Mr. Packard objected to this, and renewed the motion for a continuance; which the court refused.
The counsel for Mr. Packard then offered to read to the jury a letter from Dr. McFarland, dated in the month of December, 1863, written to Rev. Theophilus Packard; and also a certificate, under the seal of the State Hospital at Jacksonville, certifying that Mrs. Packard was discharged from the institution in June, 1863, and was incurably insane, which certificate was signed by Dr. McFarland, the Superintendent. To the introduction of this to the jury, the counsel for Mrs. Packard objected, as being incompetent testimony, and debarred the defense of the benefit of a cross-examination. The court permitted the letter and certificate to be read to the jury.
These documents were retained by Rev. Theophilus Packard, and the reporter has been unable to obtain copies of them. The letter is dated in December, 1863, at the State Hospital, Jacksonville, Illinois, and written to Rev. Theophilus Packard, wherein Dr. McFarland writes him that Mrs. Packard is hopelessly insane, and that no possible good could result by having her returned to the Hospital; that the officers of the institution had done everything in their power to effect a cure, and were satisfied she could not be cured, and refused to receive her into the institution.
The certificate, under the seal of the Hospital, was a statement, dated in June, 1863, at Jacksonville, Illinois, setting forth the time (three years) that Mrs. Packard had been under treatment, and that she had been discharged, as beyond a possibility of being cured.
The above is the import of these documents, which the reporter regrets he cannot lay before the public infull.
The prosecution now announced that they closed their case.
DEFENSE.
J. L. Simingtonwas the first witness called for the defense. Being sworn, he said
I live in Manteno; lived there since 1859, early in the spring. Knew Rev. Mr. Packard and Mrs. Packard. First became acquaintedwith them in 1858; I was then engaged in the ministry of the Methodist Church. I have practiced medicine eleven years.
I was consulted as a family physician by Mrs. Packard in 1860. Was quite well acquainted with Mrs. Packard, and with the family. Lived fifty or sixty rods from their house. Saw her and the family almost daily. I did not see anything unusual in her, in regard to her mind. I never saw anything I thought insanity with her. So far as I know she was a sane woman. I have seen her since she came from the Hospital; have seen nothing since to indicate she was insane. My opinion is, she is a sane woman.
No cross-examination was made.
Dr.J. D. Mann, sworn, and says:
I live in Manteno; have lived there nine years. Practiced medicine there six years. I am not very intimately acquainted with either Mr. or Mrs. Packard. Mr. Packard invited me to go to his house to have an interview with Mrs. Packard. I went at his request. He requested me to make a second examination, which I did. There had been a physician there before I went. The last time, he wanted me to meet Dr. Brown, of this city, there. This was late in November last. He introduced me to Mrs. Packard. I had known her before she was taken to the Hospital, and this was the first time I had seen her since she had returned. I was there from one to two hours. I then made up my mind, as I had made up my mind from the first interview, that I could find nothing that indicated insanity. I did not go when Dr. Brown was there. Mr. Packard had told me she was insane, and my prejudices were, that she was insane. He wanted a certificate of her insanity, to take East with him. I would not give it.
The witness was not cross-examined.
Joseph E. Labrie, sworn, and says:
Have known Mrs. Packard six years; lived fifteen or twenty rods from their house. Knew her in spring of 1860. Saw her nearly every day—sometimes two or three times a day. I belong to the Catholic Church. Have seen her since her return from Jacksonville. I have seen nothing that could make me think her insane. I always said she was a sane woman, and say so yet.
Cross-examined.—I am not a physician. I am not an expert. She might be insane, but no common-sense man could find it out.
Re-examined.—I am a Justice of the Peace, and Notary Public. Mr. Packard requested me to go to his house and take an acknowledgmentof a deed from her. I went there, and she signed and acknowledged the deed. This was within the past two months.
Re-cross-examined.—I was sent for to go to the house in the spring of 1860. My wife was with me. It was about taking her to Jacksonville. Mrs. Packard would not come to the room where I was. I stayed there only about twenty minutes.
Have been there since she returned from the Hospital. The door to her room was locked on the outside. Mr. Packard said, he had made up his mind to let no one into her room.
The counsel for Mrs. Packard offered to read to the jury the following paper, which had been referred to by the witnesses, as evidence of Mrs. Packard’s insanity, and which Deacon Smith refused to hear read. The counsel for Mr. Packard examined the paper, and admitted it was the same paper.
The counsel for Mrs. Packard then requested permission of the court for Mrs. Packard to read it to the jury, which was most strenuously opposed. The court permitted Mrs. Packard to read it to the jury. Mrs. Packard arose, and read in a distinct tone of voice, so that every word was heard all over the court-room.
HOW GODLINESS IS PROFITABLEDeacon Smith—A question was proposed to this class, the last Sabbath Brother Dole taught us, and it was requested that the class consider and report the result of their investigations at a future session. May I now bring it up? The question was this:“Have we any reason to expect that a Christian farmer,as a Christian, will be any more successful in his farming operations, than an impenitent sinner—and ifnot, how is it that godliness is profitable unto all things? Or, in other words, does themotivewith which one prosecutes his secular business, other things being equal, make any difference in thepecuniaryresults?”Mrs. Dixon gave it as her opinion, at the time, that the motivedidaffect the pecuniary results.Now thepracticalresult to which this conclusion leads, is such as will justify us in our judging of Mrs. Dixon’s truemoralcharacter, next fall, by hersuccessin her farming operations this summer.My opinion differs from hers on this point; and myreasonsare here given in writing since I deem it necessary forme, under the existing state of feeling toward me, to put into a written formallI have to say, in the class, to prevent misrepresentation.Should I be appropriating an unreasonable share of time, as a pupil,Mr. Smith, to occupy four minutes of your time in reading them? I should like very much to read them, that the class may pass their honest criticisms upon them.AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.I think we have nointelligentreason for believing that the motives with which we prosecute our secular business, have any influence in thepecuniaryresults.My reasons arecommon sensereasons, rather than strictly Bible proofs, viz.: I regard man as existing in three distinct departments of being, viz., his physical or animal, his mental or intellectual, his moral or spiritual; and each of these three distinct departments are under the control oflaws, peculiar to itself; and these different laws do not interchange with, or affect eachother’sdepartment.For instance, a veryimmoralman may be a veryhealthy, long-lived man; for, notwithstanding he violates themoraldepartment, he may live in conformity to thephysicallaws of his animal nature, which secure to him his physical health. And, on the other hand, a very moral man may suffer greatly from a diseased body, and be cut off in the very midst of his usefulness by an early death, in consequence of having violated the physical laws of his animal constitution. But on the moral plane he is thegainer, and the immoral man is theloser.So our success in business depends upon our conformity tothose lawson which success depends—notupon themotiveswhich actonlyon the moral plane.Onthisground, the Christian farmer has no morereasonto expect success in his farming operations, than the impenitent sinner. In either case, the foundation for success must depend upon the degree offidelitywith which thenatural lawsare applied, which cause the natural result—notupon themotivesof the operator; since these moral acts receive their penalty and reward on an entirely different plane of his being.Now comes in the question, how then is it true, that “godliness isprofitableunto all things,” if godliness is no guarantee to success in business pursuits?I reply, that the profits of godliness cannot mean, simply,pecuniaryprofits, because this would limit the gain of godliness to this world, alone; whereas, it is profitable not only forthis life, but also for thelife to come. Gain and loss, dollars and cents, are not the coins current in the spiritual world.But happiness and misery are coins which are current inbothworlds. Therefore, it appears to me, that happiness is the profit attendant upon godliness, and for this reason, apractically godlyperson, who lives in conformity to all the various laws of his entire being, may expect to secure to himself, as a natural result, a greater amount of happiness than the ungodly person.So that, in this sense, “Godliness is profitable unto all things,” to every department of our being.E. P. W. PACKARD.Manteno, March 22, 1860.
HOW GODLINESS IS PROFITABLE
Deacon Smith—A question was proposed to this class, the last Sabbath Brother Dole taught us, and it was requested that the class consider and report the result of their investigations at a future session. May I now bring it up? The question was this:
“Have we any reason to expect that a Christian farmer,as a Christian, will be any more successful in his farming operations, than an impenitent sinner—and ifnot, how is it that godliness is profitable unto all things? Or, in other words, does themotivewith which one prosecutes his secular business, other things being equal, make any difference in thepecuniaryresults?”
Mrs. Dixon gave it as her opinion, at the time, that the motivedidaffect the pecuniary results.
Now thepracticalresult to which this conclusion leads, is such as will justify us in our judging of Mrs. Dixon’s truemoralcharacter, next fall, by hersuccessin her farming operations this summer.
My opinion differs from hers on this point; and myreasonsare here given in writing since I deem it necessary forme, under the existing state of feeling toward me, to put into a written formallI have to say, in the class, to prevent misrepresentation.
Should I be appropriating an unreasonable share of time, as a pupil,Mr. Smith, to occupy four minutes of your time in reading them? I should like very much to read them, that the class may pass their honest criticisms upon them.
AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.
I think we have nointelligentreason for believing that the motives with which we prosecute our secular business, have any influence in thepecuniaryresults.
My reasons arecommon sensereasons, rather than strictly Bible proofs, viz.: I regard man as existing in three distinct departments of being, viz., his physical or animal, his mental or intellectual, his moral or spiritual; and each of these three distinct departments are under the control oflaws, peculiar to itself; and these different laws do not interchange with, or affect eachother’sdepartment.
For instance, a veryimmoralman may be a veryhealthy, long-lived man; for, notwithstanding he violates themoraldepartment, he may live in conformity to thephysicallaws of his animal nature, which secure to him his physical health. And, on the other hand, a very moral man may suffer greatly from a diseased body, and be cut off in the very midst of his usefulness by an early death, in consequence of having violated the physical laws of his animal constitution. But on the moral plane he is thegainer, and the immoral man is theloser.
So our success in business depends upon our conformity tothose lawson which success depends—notupon themotiveswhich actonlyon the moral plane.
Onthisground, the Christian farmer has no morereasonto expect success in his farming operations, than the impenitent sinner. In either case, the foundation for success must depend upon the degree offidelitywith which thenatural lawsare applied, which cause the natural result—notupon themotivesof the operator; since these moral acts receive their penalty and reward on an entirely different plane of his being.
Now comes in the question, how then is it true, that “godliness isprofitableunto all things,” if godliness is no guarantee to success in business pursuits?
I reply, that the profits of godliness cannot mean, simply,pecuniaryprofits, because this would limit the gain of godliness to this world, alone; whereas, it is profitable not only forthis life, but also for thelife to come. Gain and loss, dollars and cents, are not the coins current in the spiritual world.
But happiness and misery are coins which are current inbothworlds. Therefore, it appears to me, that happiness is the profit attendant upon godliness, and for this reason, apractically godlyperson, who lives in conformity to all the various laws of his entire being, may expect to secure to himself, as a natural result, a greater amount of happiness than the ungodly person.
So that, in this sense, “Godliness is profitable unto all things,” to every department of our being.
E. P. W. PACKARD.
Manteno, March 22, 1860.
Mrs. Packard then stated that the above was presented to the class, the 15th day of the following April, and wasrejectedby the teacher Deacon Smith, on the ground of its being irrelevant to the subject, since she had not confined herself to the Bible alone for proof of her position.
As she took her seat, a murmur of applause arose from every part of the room, which was promptly suppressed by the sheriff.
Daniel Beedy, sworn, and says:
I live in Manteno. Have known Mrs. Packard six years; knew her in the spring of 1860. I lived a mile and a half from them. Have seen her very frequently since her return from Jacksonville. Had many conversations with her before she was taken away, and since her return. She always appeared to me like a sane woman. I heard she was insane, and my wife and I went to satisfy ourselves. I went there soon after the difficulties in the Bible class.
She is not insane. We talked about religion, politics, and various matters, such as a grey-haired old farmer could talk about, and I saw nothing insane about her.
Mr.Blessing, sworn, and says:
I live in Manteno; have known Mrs. Packard six years; knew her in the spring of 1860; lived eighty rods from their house. She visited at my house. I have seen her at church. She attended the Methodist church for a while after the difficulties commenced, and then I saw her every Sunday. I never thought her insane.
After the word was given out by her husband that she was insane, she claimed my particular protection, and wanted me to obtain a trial for her by the laws of the land, and such an investigation she said she was willing to stand by. She claimed Mr. Packard was insane, if any one was. She begged for a trial. I did not then do anything, because I did not like to interfere between man and wife. I never saw anything that indicated insanity. She was always rational. Had conversations with her since her return. She first came to my house. She claimed a right to live with her family. She considered herself more capable of taking care of her family than any other person.
I saw her at Jacksonville. I took Dr. Shirley with me to test her insanity. Dr. Shirley told me she was not insane.
Cross-examination waived.
Mrs.Blessing, sworn, and says:
Have known Mrs. Packard seven years; knew her in 1860. Lived near them; we visited each other as neighbors. She first came to our house when she returned from Jacksonville. I did not see anything that indicated that she was insane. I saw her at Jacksonville. She had the keys, and showed me around. I heard the conversation there with Dr. Shirley; they talked about religion; did not think she talked unnatural. When I first went in, she was at work on a dress for Dr. McFarland’s wife. I saw her after she returned home last fall, quite often, until she was locked in her room. On Monday after she got home, I called on her; she was at work; she was cleaning up the feather beds; they needed cleaning badly. I went there afterward; her daughter let me in. On Saturday before the trial commenced, I was let into her room by Mr. Packard; she had no fire in it; we sat there in the cold. Mr. Packard had a handful of keys, and unlocked the door and let me in. Mrs. Hanford was with me. Before this, Mrs. Hanford and myself went there to see her; he would not let us see her; he shook his hand at me, and threatened to put me out.
Mrs.Haslet, sworn, and said:
Know Mrs. Packard very well; have known her since they lived in Manteno; knew her in the spring of 1860; and since she returned from Jacksonville, we have been on intimate terms. I never saw any signs of insanity with her. I called often before she was kidnapped and carried to Jacksonville, and since her return.
I recollect the time Miss Rumsey was there; I did not see anything that showed insanity. I called to see her in a few days after she returned from Jacksonville; she was in the yard, cleaning feather beds. I called again in a few days; she was still cleaning house. The house needed cleaning; and when I again called, it looked as if the mistress of the house was at home. She had no hired girl. I went again, and was not admitted. I conversed with her through the window; the window was fastened down. The son refused me admission. The window was fastened with nails on the inside, and by two screws, passing through the lower part of the upper sash and the upper part of the lower sash, from the outside. I did not see Mr. Packard this time.
Cross-examination.—She talked about getting released from her imprisonment. She asked if filing a bill of complaint would lead to a divorce. She said she did not want a divorce; she only wanted protection from Mr. Packard’s cruelty. I advised her to not stand it quietly, but get a divorce.
Dr.Duncanson, sworn, and said:
I live here; am a physician; have been a clergyman; have been a practicing physician twenty-one years. Have known Mrs. Packard since this trial commenced. Have known her by general report for three years and upwards. I visited her at Mr. Orr’s. I was requested to go there and have a conversation with her and determine if she was sane or insane. Talked three hours with her, on political, religious and scientific subjects, and on mental and moral philosophy. I was educated at and received diplomas from the University of Glasgow, and Anderson University of Glasgow. I went there to see her, and prove or disprove her insanity. I think not only that she is sane, but the most intelligent lady I have talked with in many years. We talked religion very thoroughly. I find her an expert in both departments, Old School and New School theology. There are thousands of persons who believe just as she does. Many of her ideas and doctrines are embraced in Swedenborgianism, and many are found only in the New School theology. The best and most learned men of both Europe and this country, are advocates of these doctrines, in one shape or the other; and some bigots and men with minds of small calibre may call these great minds insane; but that does not make them insane. An insane mind is a diseased mind. These minds are the perfection of intellectual powers, healthy, strong, vigorous, and just the reverse of diseased minds, or insane. Her explanation of woman representing the Holy Ghost, and man representing the male attributes of the Father, and that the Son is the fruit of the Father and the Holy Ghost, is a very ancient theological dogma, and entertained by many of our most eminent men. On every topic I introduced, she was perfectly familiar, and discussed them with an intelligence that at once showed she was possessed of a good education, and a strong and vigorous mind. I did not agree with her in sentiment on many things, but I do not call people insane because they differ from me, nor from a majority, even, of people. Many persons called Swedenborg insane. That is true; but he had the largest brain of any person during the age in which he lived; and no one now dares call him insane. You might with as much propriety call Christ insane, because he taught the people many new and strange things; or Galileo; or Newton; or Luther; or Robert Fulton; or Morse, who electrified the world; or Watts or a thousand others I might name. Morse’s best friends for a long time thought him mad; yet there was a magnificent mind, the embodiment of health and vigor.
So with Mrs. Packard; there is wanting every indication of insanitythat is laid down in the books. I pronounce her a sane woman, and wish we had a nation of such women.
This witness was cross-examined at some length, which elicited nothing new, when he retired.
The defense now announced to the court that they had closed all the testimony they wished to introduce, and inasmuch as the case had occupied so much time, they would propose to submit it without argument. The prosecution would not consent to this arrangement.
The case was argued ably and at length, by Messrs. Loomis and Bonfield for the prosecution, and by Messrs. Orr and Loring on the part of the defense.
It would be impossible to give even a statement of the arguments made, and do the attorneys justice, in the space allotted to this report.
On the 18th day of January, 1864, at 10 o’clock,P. M., the jury retired for consultation, under the charge of the sheriff. After an absence of seven minutes, they returned into court, and gave the following verdict:
STATE OF ILLINOIS,}ss.KANKAKEE COUNTY.We, the undersigned, Jurors in the case of Mrs. Elizabeth P. W. Packard, alleged to be insane, having heard the evidence in the case, are satisfied that said Elizabeth P. W. Packard isSANE.John Stiles,Foreman.H. Hirshberg.Daniel G. Bean.Nelson Jervais.F. G. Hutchinson.William Hyer.V. H. Young.Geo. H. Andrews.G. M. Lyons.J. F. Mafit.Thomas Muncey.Lemuel Milk.
We, the undersigned, Jurors in the case of Mrs. Elizabeth P. W. Packard, alleged to be insane, having heard the evidence in the case, are satisfied that said Elizabeth P. W. Packard isSANE.
Cheers rose from every part, of the house; the ladies waved their handkerchiefs, and pressed around Mrs. Packard, and extended her their congratulations. It was sometime before the outburst of applause could be checked. When order was restored, the counsel for Mrs. Packard moved the court, that she be discharged. Thereupon the court ordered the clerk to enter the following order:
STATE OF ILLINOIS,}ss.KANKAKEE COUNTY.It is hereby ordered that Mrs. Elizabeth P. W. Packard be relieved from all restraint incompatible with her condition as a sane woman.C. R. STARR,Judge of the 20th Judicial Circuit of the State of IllinoisJanuary 18, 1864.
It is hereby ordered that Mrs. Elizabeth P. W. Packard be relieved from all restraint incompatible with her condition as a sane woman.
C. R. STARR,Judge of the 20th Judicial Circuit of the State of IllinoisJanuary 18, 1864.
Thus ended the trial of this remarkable case. During each day of the proceedings the court-room was crowded to excess by an anxious audience of ladies and gentlemen, who are seldom in our courts. The verdict of the jury was received with applause, and hosts of friends crowded upon Mrs. Packard to congratulate her upon her release.
During the past two months, Mr. Packard had locked her up in her own house, fastened the windows outside, and carried the key to the door, and made her a close prisoner. He was maturing a plan to immure her in an Asylum in Massachusetts, and for that purpose was ready to start on the Thursday before the writ was sued out, when his plan was disclosed to Mrs. Packard by a letter he accidentally dropped in her room, written by his sister in Massachusetts, telling him the route he should take, and that a carriage would be ready at the station to put her in and convey her to the Asylum.
Vigorous action became necessary, and she communicated this startling intelligence through her window to some ladies who had come to see her, and were refused admission into the house.
On Monday morning, and before the defense had rested their case, Mr. Packard left the State, bag and baggage, for parts unknown, having first mortgaged his property for all it is worth to his sister and other parties.
We cannot do better than close this report with the following editorial from the Kankakee Gazette, of January 21, 1864:
MRS. PACKARD.
The case of this lady, which has attracted so much attention and excited so much interest for ten days past, was decided on Monday evening last and resulted, as almost every person thought it must, in a complete vindication of her sanity. The jury retired on Monday evening, after hearing the arguments of the counsel; and after a brief consultation, they brought in a verdict that Mrs. Packard is asanewoman.
Thus has resulted an investigation which Mrs. Packard has long and always desired should be had, but which her cruel husband has ever sternly refused her. She has always asked and earnestly pleaded for a jury trial of her case, but her relentless persecutor has ever turned a deaf ear to her entreaties, and flagrantly violated all the dictates of justice and humanity.
She has suffered the alienation of friends and relatives; the shock of a kidnapping by her husband and his posse when forcibly removed to the Asylum; has endured three years incarceration in that Asylum—upon the general treatment, in which there is severe comment in the State, and which in her special case was aggravatingly unpleasant and ill-favored; returning to her home she found her husband’s saintly blood still congealed, a winter of perpetual frown on his face, and the sad dull monotony of “insane, insane,” escaping his lips in all his communications to and concerning her; her young family, the youngest of the four at home being less than four years of age, these children—over whose slumbers she had watched, and whose wailings she had hushed with all a mother’s care and tenderness—had been taught to look upon her as insane, and they were not to respect the counsels or heed the voice of a maniac just loosed from the Asylum, doom sealed by official certificates.
Soon her aberration of mind led her to seek some of her better clothing carefully kept from her by her husband, which very woman-like act was seized by him as an excuse for confining her in her room, and depriving her of her apparel, and excluding her lady friends. Believing that he was about to again forcibly take her to an asylum, four responsible citizens of that village made affidavit of facts which caused the investigation as to her sanity or insanity. During the whole of the trial she was present, and counseled with her attorneys in the management of the case.
Notwithstanding the severe treatment she has received for nearly four years past, the outrages she has suffered, the wrong to her nature she has endured, she deported herself during the trial as one who is not only not insane, but as one possessing intellectual endowments of a high order, and an equipoise and control of mind far above the majority of human kind. Let the sapient Dr. Brown, who gave a certificate of insanity after a short conversation with her, and which certificate was to be used in aid of her incarceration for life—suffer as she has suffered, endure what she has endured, and the world would be deprived of future clinical revealings from his gigantic mind upon the subject of the spleen, and he would, to a still greater extent than in the past,“fail to illuminate” the public as to the virtues and glories of the martyr who is “watching and waiting” in Canada.
The heroic motto: “suffer and be strong,” is fairly illustrated in her case. While many would have opposed force to his force, displayed frantic emotions of displeasure at such treatment, or sat convulsed and “maddened with the passion of her part,” she meekly submitted to the tortures of her bigoted tormentor, trusting and believing in God’s Providence the hour of her vindication and her release from thraldom would come. And now the fruit of her suffering and persecution have all the autumn glory of perfection.
“One who walkedFrom the throne’s splendor to the bloody block,Said: ‘This completes my glory’ with a smileWhich still illuminates men’s thoughts of her.”
Feeling the accusations of his guilty conscience, seeing the meshes of the net with which he had kept her surrounded were broken, and a storm-cloud of indignation about to break over his head in pitiless fury, the intolerant Packard, after encumbering their property with trust-deeds, and despoiling her of her furniture and clothing, left the country. Let him wander! with the mark of infamy upon his brow, through far-off States, where distance and obscurity may diminish till the grave shall cover the wrongs it cannot heal.
It is to be hoped Mrs. Packard will make immediate application for a divorce, and thereby relieve herself of a repetition of the wrongs and outrages she has suffered by him who for the past four years has only used the marriage relation to persecute and torment her in a merciless and unfeeling manner.
When this Trial terminated, I returned to my home in Manteno, where five days previous I had bestowed the parting kiss upon my three youngest children, little thinking it would be the last embrace I should be allowed to bestow upon these dear objects of my warmest affections. But alas! so it proved to be. Mr. Packard had fled with them to Massachusetts, leaving me in the court room a childless widow. He could not but see that the tide of popular indignation was concentrating against him, as the revelations of the court ventilated the dreadful facts of this conspiracy, and he “fled his country,” a fugitive from justice. He, however, left a letter for me which was handed me before I left the Court-house, wherein he stated that he had moved to Massachusetts, and extended to me an invitation to follow him, with the promise that he would provide me a suitable home. But I did not feel much like trusting either to his humanity or judgment in providing me another home. Indeed, I did not think it safe to follow him, knowing that Massachusetts’ laws gave him the absolute custody of my person as well as Illinois’ laws. He went to South Deerfield, Massachusetts, and sought shelter for himself and his children in the family of his sister, Mrs. Severance, one of his co-conspirators. Here he found willing ears to credit his tale of abuses he had suffered in this interference of his rights to do as he pleased with his lawful wife—and in representing the trial as a “mock trial,” an illegal interference with his rights as head of his own household, and a “mob triumph,”—and in short, he was an innocent victim of a persecution against his legally constituted rights as a husband, to protect his wife in the way his own feelings of bigotry and intolerance should dictate!
This was the region of his nativity and former pastorate, which he had left about eleven years previously, with an unblemished external character, and sharing, to an uncommon degree, the entire confidence of the public as a Christian man and a minister. Nothing hadoccurred,to their knowledge, to disturb this confidence in his present integrity as an honest reporter, and the entire community credited his testimony as perfectly reliable, in his entire misrepresentations of the facts in the case, and the character of the trial. His view was the only view the community were allowed to hear, so far as it was in his power to prevent it. The press also lent him its aid, as his organ of communication. He met also his old associates in the ministry, and by his artfully arranged web of lies, and his cunning sophistries, he deluded them also into a belief of his views, so that they, unanimously, gave him their certificate of confidence and fraternal sympathy. Yea, even my own father and brothers became victims also of his sophisms and misrepresentations, so that they honestly believed me to be insane, and that the Westerners had really interfered with Mr. Packard’s rights and kind intents towards his wife, in intercepting as they had, his plans to keep her incarcerated for life.
Thus this one-sided view of the facts in the case so moulded public sentiment in this conservative part of New England, that he even obtained a certificate from my own dear father, a retired orthodox clergyman in Sunderland, Massachusetts, that, so far as he knew, he had treated his daughter generally with propriety!! This certificate served as a passport to the confidence of Sunderland people in Mr. Packard as a man and a minister, and procured for him a call to become their minister in holy things. He was accordingly hired, as stated supply, and paid fifteen dollars a Sabbath for one year and a half, and was boarded by my father in his family, part of the time, free of charge.
The condition in which Mr. Packard left me I will now give in the language of another, by inserting here a quotation from one of the many Chicago papers which published an account of this trial with editorial remarks accompanying it. The following is a part of one of these Editorial Articles, which appeared under the caption:—
“A HEARTLESS CLERGYMAN.”Chicago, March 6, 1864.“We recently gave an extended account of the melancholy case of Mrs. Packard, of Manteno, Ill., and showed how she was persecuted by her husband, Rev. Theophilus Packard, a bigoted Presbyterian minister of Manteno. Mrs. Packard became liberal in her views, in fact, avowed Universalist sentiments; and as her husband was unable to answer her arguments, he thought he could silence her tongue, by calling herinsane, and having her incarcerated in the Insane Asylum at Jacksonville, Illinois. He finally succeeded in finding one or two orthodox physicians, as bigoted as himself, ready to aid him in his nefarious work, and she was confined in the asylum, under the charge (?) of Dr. McFarland, who kept her there three years. She at last succeeded in having a jury trial, and was pronouncedsane. Previous, however, to the termination of the trial, this persecutor of his wife, mortgaged his property, took away his children from the mother, and left her penniless and homeless, without a cent to buy food, or a place where to lay her head! And yet he pretended to believe that she wasinsane! Is this the way to treat an insane wife! Abandon her, turn her out upon the world without a morsel of bread, and no home? Her husband calls herinsane. Before the case is decided by the jury, he starts for parts unknown. Was there ever such a case of heartlessness? If Mr. Packardbelievedhis wife to be hopelesslyinsane, why did he abandon her? Is this the way to treat a companion afflicted with insanity? If he believed his own story, he should, like a devoted husband, have watched over her with tenderness, his heart full of love should have gone out towards the poor, afflicted woman, and he should have bent over her and soothed her, and spent the last penny he had, for her recovery! But instead of this, he gathers in his funds, “packs up his duds,” and leaves his poor,insanewife, ashecalls her, in the court room, without food or shelter. He abandons her, leaving her penniless, homeless and childless!“Mrs. Packard is now residing with Mr. Z. Handford, of Manteno, who writes to the KankakeeGazetteas follows:“In the first place, Mrs. Packard is now penniless. After having aided her husband for twenty-one years, by her most indefatigable exertions, to secure for themselves a home, with all its clustering comforts, he, with no cause, except a difference in religious opinions, exiled her from her home, by forcing her into Jacksonville Insane Asylum, where he hoped to immure her for life, or until she would abandon whathecalls her ‘insane notions.’“But in the overruling providence of a just God, her case has been ventilated, at last, by a jury trial, the account of which is already before the public.“From the time of her banishment into exile, now more than three and a half years, he has not allowed her the control of one dollar of their personal property. And she has had nothing to do with theirreal estate, within that time, excepting to sign one deed for the transfer of some of their real estate in Mount Pleasant, Iowa, which she did at her husband’s earnest solicitations, and his promise to let her have her ‘defense,’ long enough to copy, which document he had robbed her of three years before, by means of Dr. McFarland as agent. Her signature,thus obtained, was acknowledged as a valid act, and the deed was presented to the purchaser as a valid instrument, even after Mr. Packard had just before taken anoaththat his wife was aninsanewoman!“He has robbed her of all her patrimony, including not only her furniture, but her valuable clothing also, and a note of six hundred dollars on interest, which he gave her seven years before, as an equivalent for this amount of patrimony which her father, Rev. Samuel Ware, of Sunderland, Massachusetts, sent Mrs. Packard for her special benefit, and to be used for her and her children as her own judgment should dictate. He has taken her furniture and clothing, or the avails of them, with him to Massachusetts, without allowing her a single article of furniture for her own individual comfort and use. Thus he has left her without a single penny of their common property to procure for herself the necessaries of life.“He has left her homeless. Before the court closed, Mr. Packard left this scene of revelations, and mortgaged and rented their home in Manteno, and dispossessed it by night of its furniture, so that when the court closed, Mrs. Packard had no sort of home to return to, the new renter having claimed possession of her home, and claiming a legal right to all its privileges, excluding her from its use entirely as a home, without leaving her the least legal claim to any of the avails of the rent or sales for the supply of her present necessities.“Again, she is childless. Her cruel husband, not satisfied with robbing his wife of all her rightful property, has actuallykidnappedall her dear children who lived at home, taking them with him, clandestinely, to Massachusetts, leaving her a ‘childless widow,’ entirely dependent for her living, either upon her own exertions, or the charities of the public. We will not attempt to describe the desolation of her maternal heart, when she returned to her deserted home, to find it despoiled of all her dearest earthly treasures; with no sweet cherub, with its smiling, joyous face to extend to her the happy, welcome kiss of a mother’s return.“But one short week previous, Mrs. Packard had bestowed the parting kiss upon her three youngest children, little dreaming it would bethe last embrace the mother would ever be allowed to bestow upon her dear offspring, in their own dear home. But now, alas! where is her only daughter, Elizabeth, of thirteen years, and her George Hastings, of ten years, and her darling baby, Arthur Dwight, of five years? Gone! gone! never to return, while the mandate of their father’s iron will usurps supreme control of this household!“Yes, the mother’s home and heart are both desolate, for her heart-treasures—her dear children—are no more to be found. At length, rumor reaches her that her babe, Arthur, is at their brother Dole’s. The anxious mother hastens to seek for it there. But all in vain. The family, faithful to their brother’s wishes, keep the babe carefully hid from the mother, so that she cannot get even one glimpse of her sweet, darling boy. Her cruel husband, fearing her attempts to secure the child might prove successful, has sent for it to be brought to him in Massachusetts, where he now is fairly out of the mother’s reach.”Z. Hanford.
“A HEARTLESS CLERGYMAN.”
Chicago, March 6, 1864.
“We recently gave an extended account of the melancholy case of Mrs. Packard, of Manteno, Ill., and showed how she was persecuted by her husband, Rev. Theophilus Packard, a bigoted Presbyterian minister of Manteno. Mrs. Packard became liberal in her views, in fact, avowed Universalist sentiments; and as her husband was unable to answer her arguments, he thought he could silence her tongue, by calling herinsane, and having her incarcerated in the Insane Asylum at Jacksonville, Illinois. He finally succeeded in finding one or two orthodox physicians, as bigoted as himself, ready to aid him in his nefarious work, and she was confined in the asylum, under the charge (?) of Dr. McFarland, who kept her there three years. She at last succeeded in having a jury trial, and was pronouncedsane. Previous, however, to the termination of the trial, this persecutor of his wife, mortgaged his property, took away his children from the mother, and left her penniless and homeless, without a cent to buy food, or a place where to lay her head! And yet he pretended to believe that she wasinsane! Is this the way to treat an insane wife! Abandon her, turn her out upon the world without a morsel of bread, and no home? Her husband calls herinsane. Before the case is decided by the jury, he starts for parts unknown. Was there ever such a case of heartlessness? If Mr. Packardbelievedhis wife to be hopelesslyinsane, why did he abandon her? Is this the way to treat a companion afflicted with insanity? If he believed his own story, he should, like a devoted husband, have watched over her with tenderness, his heart full of love should have gone out towards the poor, afflicted woman, and he should have bent over her and soothed her, and spent the last penny he had, for her recovery! But instead of this, he gathers in his funds, “packs up his duds,” and leaves his poor,insanewife, ashecalls her, in the court room, without food or shelter. He abandons her, leaving her penniless, homeless and childless!
“Mrs. Packard is now residing with Mr. Z. Handford, of Manteno, who writes to the KankakeeGazetteas follows:
“In the first place, Mrs. Packard is now penniless. After having aided her husband for twenty-one years, by her most indefatigable exertions, to secure for themselves a home, with all its clustering comforts, he, with no cause, except a difference in religious opinions, exiled her from her home, by forcing her into Jacksonville Insane Asylum, where he hoped to immure her for life, or until she would abandon whathecalls her ‘insane notions.’
“But in the overruling providence of a just God, her case has been ventilated, at last, by a jury trial, the account of which is already before the public.
“From the time of her banishment into exile, now more than three and a half years, he has not allowed her the control of one dollar of their personal property. And she has had nothing to do with theirreal estate, within that time, excepting to sign one deed for the transfer of some of their real estate in Mount Pleasant, Iowa, which she did at her husband’s earnest solicitations, and his promise to let her have her ‘defense,’ long enough to copy, which document he had robbed her of three years before, by means of Dr. McFarland as agent. Her signature,thus obtained, was acknowledged as a valid act, and the deed was presented to the purchaser as a valid instrument, even after Mr. Packard had just before taken anoaththat his wife was aninsanewoman!
“He has robbed her of all her patrimony, including not only her furniture, but her valuable clothing also, and a note of six hundred dollars on interest, which he gave her seven years before, as an equivalent for this amount of patrimony which her father, Rev. Samuel Ware, of Sunderland, Massachusetts, sent Mrs. Packard for her special benefit, and to be used for her and her children as her own judgment should dictate. He has taken her furniture and clothing, or the avails of them, with him to Massachusetts, without allowing her a single article of furniture for her own individual comfort and use. Thus he has left her without a single penny of their common property to procure for herself the necessaries of life.
“He has left her homeless. Before the court closed, Mr. Packard left this scene of revelations, and mortgaged and rented their home in Manteno, and dispossessed it by night of its furniture, so that when the court closed, Mrs. Packard had no sort of home to return to, the new renter having claimed possession of her home, and claiming a legal right to all its privileges, excluding her from its use entirely as a home, without leaving her the least legal claim to any of the avails of the rent or sales for the supply of her present necessities.
“Again, she is childless. Her cruel husband, not satisfied with robbing his wife of all her rightful property, has actuallykidnappedall her dear children who lived at home, taking them with him, clandestinely, to Massachusetts, leaving her a ‘childless widow,’ entirely dependent for her living, either upon her own exertions, or the charities of the public. We will not attempt to describe the desolation of her maternal heart, when she returned to her deserted home, to find it despoiled of all her dearest earthly treasures; with no sweet cherub, with its smiling, joyous face to extend to her the happy, welcome kiss of a mother’s return.
“But one short week previous, Mrs. Packard had bestowed the parting kiss upon her three youngest children, little dreaming it would bethe last embrace the mother would ever be allowed to bestow upon her dear offspring, in their own dear home. But now, alas! where is her only daughter, Elizabeth, of thirteen years, and her George Hastings, of ten years, and her darling baby, Arthur Dwight, of five years? Gone! gone! never to return, while the mandate of their father’s iron will usurps supreme control of this household!
“Yes, the mother’s home and heart are both desolate, for her heart-treasures—her dear children—are no more to be found. At length, rumor reaches her that her babe, Arthur, is at their brother Dole’s. The anxious mother hastens to seek for it there. But all in vain. The family, faithful to their brother’s wishes, keep the babe carefully hid from the mother, so that she cannot get even one glimpse of her sweet, darling boy. Her cruel husband, fearing her attempts to secure the child might prove successful, has sent for it to be brought to him in Massachusetts, where he now is fairly out of the mother’s reach.”
Z. Hanford.
I made various attempts to recover my furniture, which I found was stored at Deacon Doles’ house, a brother-in-law of Mr. Packard’s, under the pretense, that he had bought it, although he could never show one paper as proof of property transferred. I took counsel of the Judge and lawyers at Kankakee, to see if I could in any way recover my stolen furniture, which I had bought with my own patrimony. “Can I replevy it as stolen property?” said I. “No,” said my advisers, “you cannot replevy anything, for you are a married woman, and a married woman has no legal existence, unless she holds property independent of her husband. As this is not your case, you are nothing and nobody in law. Your husband has a legal right to all your common property—you have not even a right to the hat on your head!” “Why?” said I, “I have bought and paid for it with my own money.” “That is of no consequence—you can hold nothing, as you arenothing and nobodyin law! You have a moral right to your own things, and your own children, but no legal right at all; therefore you, a married woman, cannot replevy, although any one else could under like circumstances.” “Is this so? Has a married woman no identity in Statute Book of Illinois?” “It is so. Her interests are all lost in those of her husband, and he has the absolute control of her home, her property, her children, and her personal liberty.”
Yes, all this is but too true, as my own sad experience fullydemonstrates. Now I can realize the sad truths so often iterated, reiterated to me by my husband, namely: “You have norightto your home, I have let you live with me twenty-one years in my home as a favor to you. You have norightto your children. I let you train them, as far as I think it is proper to trust your judgment—this privilege of training and educating your own children is a favor bestowed upon you by me, which I can withhold or grant at my own option. You have norightto your money patrimony after you intrusted it to my care, and I gave you a note for it on interest which I can either pay you or not at my own option. You have norightto your personal liberty if I feel disposed to christen your opinions insane opinions, for I can then treat you as an insane person or not, just at my own option.” Yes, Mr. Packard has only treated me as he said the laws of Illinois allowed him to do, and how can he be blamed then? Did not “wise men” make the laws, as he often used to assert they did? And can one be prosecuted for doing a legal act? Nay—verily—no law can reach him; even his kidnapping me as he did is legalized in Illinois Statute Book, as the following article which was published in several Boston papers in the winter of 1865, demonstrates, namely: