NOTE OF THANKS TO MY PATRONS.

And the despotic treatment his patients receive under his government, is only the natural result of one of the fundamental laws of human nature, in its present undeveloped state; which is, that the history of our race for six thousand years demonstrates the fact, that absolute, unlimited power always tends towards despotism—or an usurpation and abuse of other’s rights. Dr. McFarland has, in apracticalsense, a sovereignty delegated to him, by the insane laws, almost as absolute as the marital power, which the law delegates to the husband. All of the inalienable rights of his patients are as completely subject to his single will, in the practical operation of these laws, as are the rights of a married woman to the will of her husband. And these despotic superintendents and husbands in the exercise of this power, are no more guilty, in my opinion, than that power is which licenses this deleterious element. No Republican government ought to permit an absolute monarchy to be established under its jurisdiction. And when it is found to exist, it ought to be destroyed, forthwith. And where this licensed power is known to have culminated into a despotism, which is crushing humanity, really and practically, that government is guilty in this matter, so long as it tolerates this usurpation.

Therefore, while the superintendents are guilty in abusing their power, I say that government which sustains oppression by its laws, is the first transgressor. Undoubtedly our insane asylums were originally designed and established, as humane institutions, and for a very humane and benevolent purpose; but, on their present basis, they really cover and shield many wrongs, which ought to be exposed and redressed. It is theevilswhich cluster about these institutions, and these alone, which I am intent on bringing into public view, for the purpose of having them destroyed. All the good which inheres in these institutions and officers is just as precious as if not mixed with the alloy; therefore, in destroying the alloy, great care should be used not to tarnish or destroy the fine gold with it. As my case demonstrates, they are now sometimes used for inquisitional purposes, which certainly is a great perversion of their original intent.

Sixth Report.

“Mrs. Packard’s statements are incredible. And she uses such strong language in giving them expression, as demonstrates her still to be an insane woman.”

I acknowledge the fact, that truthisstranger than fiction; and I also assert, that it is my candid opinion, that strong language is the only appropriate drapery some truths can be clothed in. For example, the only appropriate drapery to clothe a lie in, is the strong language oflieorliar, not misrepresentation, a mistake, a slip of the tongue, a deception, an unintentional error, and so forth. And for unreasonable, and inhuman, and criminal acts, the appropriate drapery is, insane acts; and an usurpation of human rights and an abuse of power over the defenceless, is appropriately clothed by the term, Despotism. And one who defends his creed or party by improper and abusive means, is a Bigot. One who is impatient and unwilling to endure, and will not hear the utterance of opinions in conflict with his own, without persecution of his opponent, is Intolerant towards him; and this is an appropriate word to use in describing such manifestations.

And here I will add, I do not write books merely to tickle the fancy, and lull the guilty conscience into a treacherous sleep, whose waking is death. Nor do I write to secure notoriety or popularity. But I do write to defend the cause of human rights; and these rights can never be vindicated, without these usurpations be exposed to public view, so that an appeal can be made to the public conscience, on the firm basis of unchangeable truth—the truth of facts as they do actually exist. I know there is a class, but I fondly hope they are the minority, who will resist this solid basis even—who would not believe the truth should Christ himself be its medium of utterance and defence. But shall I on this account withhold the truth, lest such cavilers reject it, and trample it under foot, and then turn and rend me with the stigma of insanity, because I told them the simple truth? By no means. For truth is not insanity; and though it may for a time be crushed to the earth, it shall rise again with renovated strength and power. Neither is strong and appropriate language insanity. But on the contrary, I maintain that strong language is the only suitable and appropriate drapery for a reformer to clothe his thoughts in, notwithstanding the very unsuitable and inappropriatestigma of Insanity which has always been the reformer’s lot to bear for so doing in all past ages, as well as the present age.

Even Christ himself bore this badge of a Reformer, simply because he uttered truths which conflicted with the established religion of the church of his day. And shall I repine because I am called insane for the same reason? It was the spirit of bigotry which led the intolerant Jews to stigmatize Christ as a madman, because he expressed opinions differing from their own. And it is this same spirit of bigotry which has been thus intolerant towards me. And it is my opinion that bigotry is the most implacable, unreasonable, unmerciful feeling that can possess the human soul. And it is my fervent prayer that the eyes of this government may be opened to see, that the laws do not now protect or shield any married woman from this same extreme manifestation of it, such as it has been my sad lot to endure, as the result of this legalized persecution.

I deem it appropriate in this connection, to express the gratitude I feel for the kind, practical sympathy, and liberal patronage, which has been extended to me by the public, through the sale of my books. Had it not been for your generous patronage, my kind patrons, I, and the noble cause I represent, would have been crushed to the earth, so far as my influence was concerned. For with no law to shield me, and with no “greenbacks” to defend myself with, what could I have done to escape another imprisonment, either in some asylum or poorhouse?

It has been, and still is, the verdict of public sentiment, which the circulation of these books has developed, that has hitherto shielded me from a second kidnapping. And this protection you have kindly secured to me by buying my books. I would willingly have given my books a gratuitous circulation to obtain this protection, if I could possibly have done so. But where could the $3000.00 I have paid out for the expense of printing and circulating these books have been obtained? No one could advance me money safely, so long as I was Mr. Packard’s lawful wife, and I could not even get a divorce, without the means for prosecuting the suit. Indeed, it was your patronage alone, which could effectually help me on to a self-reliant platform—the platform of “greenback independence.”

I have never made any appeal to the charities of the public, neither can I do so, from principle. For so long as I retain as good health as it is my blessed privilege still to enjoy, I feel conscientiously bound to work for my living, instead of living on the toil of other. My strong and vigorous health is the only capital that I can call my own. All my other natural, inalienable rights, are entirely in the hands of my persecutor, and subject to his control. But while this capital holds good, I am not a suitable object of charity. I am prosecuting business on business principles, and I am subject to the same laws of success or failure as other business persons are. I intend, and hope to make my business lucrative and profitable, as well as philanthropic and benevolent.

I maintain that I have no claims upon the charities of the public, while at the same time I maintain that I have a claim upon the sympathies of our government. It is our government, the man government of America, who have placed me in my deplorable condition; for I am just where their own laws place me, and render all other married womenliableto be placed in the same position. It is the “Common Law” which our government took from English laws which makes a nonentity of a married woman, whose existence is wholly subject to another, and whose identity is only recognized through another. In short, the wife is dead, while her husband lives, as to any legal existence. And where the Common Law is not modified, or set aside by the Statute Laws, this worst form of English despotism is copied as a model law for our American people!

Yes, I feel that I have a just claim upon the sympathies of our government. Therefore, in selling my books, I have almost entirely confined my application to the men, not the women, for the men alone constitute the American government. And my patrons have responded to my claims upon their sympathy, in a most generous, and praiseworthy manner. Yea, so almost universally have I met with the sympathy of those gentlemen that I have freely conversed with on this subject, that I cherish the firm conviction, that our whole enlightened government would “en masse,” espouse the principles I defend, and grant all, and even more than I ask for married woman, could they but see the subject in the light those now do, whom I have conversed with on this subject. I am fully satisfied that all that our manly government needs to induce them to change this “Common Law” in relation to woman is, only to know what this law is, andhow cruelly it subjects the women in its practical application. For man is made, and constituted by God himself, to be the protector of woman. And when he is true to this his God given nature, he is her protector. And all true men who have not perverted or depraved their God-like natures, will, and do, as instinctively protect their own wives, as they do themselves. And the wives of such men do not need any other law, than this law of manliness, to protect them or their interests.

But taking the human race as they now are, we find some exceptions to this general rule. And it is for these exceptions that the law is needed, and not for the great masses. Just as the laws against crimes are made for the criminals, not for the masses of society, for they do not need them; they are a law unto themselves, having their own consciences for their Judges and Jurors. I see no candid, just reason why usurpation, and injustice, and oppression, should not be legislated against, in this form, as well as any other. Developed, refined, sensitive woman, is as capable of feeling wrongs as any other human being. And why should she not be legally protected from them as well as a man? My confidence in this God-like principle of manliness is almost unbounded. Therefore I feel that a hint is all that is needed, to arouse this latent principle of our government into prompt and efficient action, that of extending legal protection to subjected married woman.

There is one word I will here say to my patrons, who have the first installment of my “Great Drama” in their possession, that you have doubtless found many things in that book which you cannot now understand, and are therefore liable to misinterpret and misapprehend my real meaning. I therefore beg of you not to judge me harshly at present, but please suspend your judgment until this allegory is published entire, and then you will be better prepared to pass judgment upon it. Supposing Bunyan’s allegory of his Christian pilgrim had isolated parts of it published, separate from the whole, and we knew nothing about the rest, should we not be liable to misinterpret his real meaning?

Another thing, I ask you to bear in mind, this book was written when my mind was at its culminating point of spiritual or mental torture, as it were, and this may serve in your mind as an excuse, for what may seem to you, as extravagant expressions; while to me, they were only the simple truth as I experienced it. No one can judge of these feelings correctly, until they have been in my exact placeand position; and since this is an impossibility, you have a noble opportunity for the exercise of that charity towards me which you would like to have extended to yourselves in exchange of situations.

A person under extreme physical torture, gives utterance to strong expressions, indicating extreme anguish. Have we, on this account, any reason or right to call him insane? So a person in extreme spiritual or mental agony, has a right to express his feelings in language corresponding to his condition, and we have no right to call him insane for doing so.

Upon a calm and candid review of these scenes, from my present standpoint, I do maintain that the indignant feelings which I still cherish towards Mr. Packard, and did cherish towards Dr. McFarland, for their treatment of me, were not only natural, sane feelings, but also were Christian feelings. For Christ taught us, both by his teachings and example, that we ought to be angry at sin, and even hate it, with as marked a feeling as we loved good. “I, the Lord, hate evil.” And so should we. But at the same time we should not sin, by carrying this feeling so far, as to desire to revenge the wrong-doer, or punish him ourselves, for then we go too far to exercise the feeling of forgiveness towards him, even if he should repent. We are not then following Christ’s directions, “Be ye angry and sin not.” Now I am not conscious of ever cherishing one revengeful feeling towards my persecutors; while, at the same time, I have prayed to God, most fervently, that he would inflict a just punishment upon them for their sins against me, if they could not be brought to repent without. For my heart has ever yearned to forgive them, from the first to the last, on this gospel condition.

I think our government has been called to exercise the same kind of indignation towards those conspirators who have done all they can do to overthrow it; and yet, they stand ready to forgive them, and restore them to their confidence, on the condition of practical repentance. And I say further, that it would have been wrong and sinful for our government to have witheld this expression of their resentment towards them, and let them crush it out of existence, without trying to defend itself. I say it did right in defending itself with a resistance corresponding to the attack. So I, in trying to defend myself against this conspiracy against my personal liberty, have only acted on the self-defensive principle. Neither have I ever aggressed on the rights of others in my self-defence. I have simply defended my own rights.

In my opinion, it would be no more unreasonable to accuse the inmates of “Libby Prison” with insanity, because they expressed their resentment of the wrongs they were enduring in strong language, than it is to accuse me of insanity for doing the same thing while in my prison. For prison life is terrible under any circumstances. But to be confined amongst raving maniacs, for years in succession, is horrible in the extreme. For myself, I should not hesitate one moment which to choose, between a confinement in an insane asylum, as I was, or being burned at the stake. Death, under the most aggravated forms of torture, would now be instantly chosen by me, rather than life in an insane asylum. And whoever is disposed to call this “strong language,” I say, let them try it for themselves as I did, andthenlet them say whether the expression is any stronger than the case justifies. For until they have tried it, they can never imagine the horrors of the maniac’s ward in Jacksonville Insane Asylum.

In this connection it may be gratifying to my patrons and readers both, to tell them how I came to writesucha book, instead of an ordinary book in the common style of language. It was because such a kind of book was presented to my mind, and no other was. It was under these circumstances that this kind of inspiration came upon me.

The day after my interview with the Trustees, the Doctor came to my room to see what was to be done. His first salutation was, “Well, Mrs. Packard, the Trustees seemed to think that you hit your mark with your gun.”

“Did they?” said I. “And was it that, which caused such roars and roars of laughter from the Trustees’ room after I left?”

“Yes. Your document amused them highly. Now, Mrs. Packard, I want you to give me a copy of that document, for what is worth hearing once is worth hearing twice.”

“Very well,” said I, “I will. And I should like to give the Trustees a copy, and send my father one, and some others of the Calvinistic clergy. But it is so tedious for me to copy anything, how would it do to get a few handbills or tracts printed, and send them where we please?”

“You may,” was his reply, “and I will pay the printer.”

“Shall I add anything to it; that is, what I said to the Trustees, and so forth?”

“Yes, tell the whole! Write what you please!”

With this most unexpected license of unrestricted liberty, I commenced re-writing and preparing a tract for the press. But before twenty-four hours had elapsed since this liberty license was granted to my hitherto prison-bound intellect, the vision of a big book began to dawn upon my mind, accompanied with the most delightful feelings of satisfaction with my undertaking. And the next time the Doctor called, I told him that it seemed to me that I must write a book—abig book—and “that is the worst of it,” said I, “I don’t want a large book, but I don’t see how I can cut it down, and do it justice. I want to lay two train of cars,” said I, “across this continent—the Christian and the Calvinistic. Then I want to sort out all the good and evil found in our family institutions, our Church and State institutions, and our laws, and all other departments of trades and professions, &c., and then come on with my two train of cars, and gather up this scattered freight, putting the evil into the Calvinistic train, and the good into the Christian train, and then engineer them both on to their respective terminus. These thoughts are all new and original with me, having never thought of such a thing, until this sort of mental vision came before my mind. What shall I do, Doctor?”

“Write it out just as you see it.”

He then furnished me with paper and gave directions to the attendants to let no one disturb me, and let me do just as I pleased. And I commenced writing out this mental vision; and in six week’s time I penciled the substance of “The Great Drama,” which, when written out for the press, covers two thousand five hundred pages! Can I not truly say my train of thought was engineered by the “Lightning Express?” This was the kind of inspiration under which my book was thought out and written. I had no books to aid me, but Webster’s large Dictionary and the Bible. It came wholly through my own reason and intellect, quickened into unusual activity by some spiritual influence, as it seemed to me. The production is a remarkable one, as well as the inditing of it a very singular phenomenon.

The estimation in which the book is held by that class in that Asylum who are “spirit mediums,” and whose only knowledge of its contents they wholly derive from their clairvoyant powers of reading it, without the aid of their natural vision, it may amuse a class of my readers to know. It was a fact the attendants told me of, that my book and its contents, was made a very common topic of remark inalmost every ward in the house; while all this time, I was closeted alone in my room writing it, and they never saw me or my book. I would often be greatly amused by the remarks they made about it, as they were reported to me by witnesses who heard them. Such as these: “I have read Mrs. Packard’s book through, and it is the most amusing thing I ever read.” “Calvinism is dead—dead as a herring.” “Mrs. Packard drives her own team, and she drives it beautifully, too.” “The Packard books are all over the world, Norway is full of them. They perfectly devour the Packard books in Norway.” “Mrs. Packard finds a great deal of fault with the Laws and the Government, and she has reason to.” “She defends a higher and better law than our government has, and she’ll be in Congress one of these days, helping to make new laws!”

If this prophetess had said thatwoman’s influencewould be felt in Congress, giving character to the laws, I might have said I believed she had uttered a true prophecy.

One very intelligent patient, who was a companion of mine, and had read portions of my book, came to my room one morning with some verses which she had penciled the night previous, by moonlight, on the fly-leaf of her Bible, which she requested me to read, and judge if they were not appropriate to the character of my book. She said she had been so impressed with the thought that she must get up and write something, that she could not compose herself to sleep until she had done so; when she wrote these verses, but could not tell a word she had written the next morning, except the first line. I here give her opinions of the book in her own poetic language, as she presented them to me.

LINES SUGGESTED BY THE PERUSAL OF THE GREAT DRAMA.

Affectionately presented to the “World’s Friend”—Mrs. E. P. W. Packard—by her friend, Mrs. Sophia N. B. Olsen.

Go, little book, go seek the world;With banner new, with flag unfurled;Go, teach mankind aspirings high,Byhumanimmortality!Thou canst not blush; thine open pageWill all our higher powers engage;Thy name on every soul shall be,Defender of humanity!The poor, the sad, the sorrowing heart,Shall joy to see thy book impartSolace, to every tear-dimmed eye,That’s wept, till all its tears are dry.The palid sufferer on the bedOf sickness, shall erect the headAnd cry, “Life yet hath charms for meWhen Packard’s books shall scattered be.”Each prison victim of despairShall, in thy book, see written thereAnother gospel to thy race,Of sweet “Requiescat in pace.”The time-worn wigs, with error gray,Their dusty locks with pale dismay,Shall shake in vain in wild despair,To see their prostrate castles, where?No mourner’s tear shall weep their doom,No bard shall linger o’er their tomb,No poet sing, but howl a strainFarewell, thou doom’d, live not again.Yes, oh, poor Ichabod must lay,Deep buried in Aceldema!His lost Consuelo shall riseNo more, to cheer his death-sealed eyes.Then speed thy book, oh, sister, speed,The waiting world thy works must read;Bless’d be the man who cries, “Go on,”“Hinder it not, it shall be gone.”Go, little book, thy destinyExcelsior shall ever be;A fadeless wreath shall crown thy brow,O writer of that book! e’en now.The wise shall laugh—the foolish cry—Both wise and foolish virgins, why?Because the first will wiser grow,The foolish ones some wisdom show.The midnight cry is coming soon,The midnight lamp will shine at noon;I fear for some, who snoring lie,Then rise, ye dead, to judgment fly.The stars shall fade away—the sunHimself grow dim with age when doneShining upon our frigid earth;But Packard’s book shall yet have birth,But never death, on this our earth.

Jacksonville Lunatic Asylum, Jan. 27, 1863.

So much for the opinions of those whom this age call crazy, but who are, in my opinion, no more insane than all that numerous class of our day, who are called “spirit mediums;” and to imprison them as insane, simply because they possess these spiritual gifts or powers, is a barbarity, which coming generations will look upon with the same class of emotions, as we now look upon the barbarities attending Salem Witchcraft. It is not only barbarous and cruel to deprive them of their personal liberty, but it is also a crime against humanity, for which our government must be held responsible at God’s bar of justice.

I will now give some of the opinions of a few who know something of the character of my book, whom the world recognize as sane. Dr. McFarland used to sometimes say, “Who knows but you were sent here to write an allegory for the present age, as Bunyan was sent to Bedford Jail to write his allegory?” Dr. Tenny, the assistant physician, once said to me as he was pocketing a piece of my waste manuscript, “I think your book may yet become so popular, and acquire so great notoriety, that it will be considered an honor to have a bit of the paper on which it was written!”

I replied, “Dr. Tenny, you must not flatter me.”

Said he, “I am not flattering, I am only uttering my honest opinions.”

Said another honorable gentleman who thought he understood the character of the book, “Mrs. Packard, I believe your book will yet be read in our Legislative Halls and in Congress, as a specimen of the highest form of law ever sent to our world, and coming millions will read your history, and bless you as one who was afflicted for humanity’s sake.” It must be acknowledged that this intelligent gentleman had some solid basis on which he could defend thisextravagant opinion, namely: that God does sometimes employ “the weak things of the world to confound the mighty.”

These expressions must all be received as mere human opinions, and nothing more. The book must stand just where its own intrinsic merits place it. If it is ever published, it, like all other mere human productions, will find its own proper level, and no opinions can change its real intrinsic character. The great question with me is, how can I soonest earn the $2,500.00 necessary to print it with? Should I ever be so fortunate as to gain that amount by the sale of this pamphlet, I should feel that my great life-work was done, so that I might feel at full liberty to rest from my labors. But until then, I cheerfully labor and toil to accomplish it.

NOTE OF THANKS TO THE PRESS.

In this connection, I deem it right and proper that I should acknowledge the aid I have received from the public Press—those newspapers whose manliness has prompted them to espouse the cause of woman, by using their columns to help me on in myarduousenterprise. My object can only be achieved, by enlightening the public mind into the need and necessities of the case. The people do not make laws until they see the need of them. Now, when one case is presented showing the need of a law to meet it, and this is found to be a representative case, that is, a case fairly representing an important class, then, and only till then, is the public mind prepared to act efficiently in reference to it. And as the Press is the People’s great engine of power in getting up an agitation on any subject of public interest, it is always a great and desirable object to secure its patronage in helping it forward. This help it has been my good fortune to secure, both in Illinois and Massachusetts.

And my most grateful acknowledgments are especially due the Journal of Commerce of Chicago, also the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Times, the Post, the New Covenant, and the North Western Christian Advocate. All these Chicago Journals aided me more or less in getting up an agitation in Illinois, besides a multitude of other papers throughout that State too numerous to mention.

Some of the papers in Massachusetts, to whom my acknowledgments are due, are the Boston Journal, the Transcript, the Traveller, the Daily Advertiser, the Courier, the Post, the Recorder, theCommonwealth, the Investigator, the Nation, the Universalist, the Christian Register, the Congregationalist, the Banner of Light, and the Liberator. All these Boston Journals have aided me, more or less, in getting up an excitement in Massachusetts, and bringing the subject before the Massachusett’s Legislature. Many other papers throughout the State have noticed my cause with grateful interest.

As the public came to apprehend the merits of my case, and look upon it as a mirror, wherein the laws in relation to married women are reflected, they will doubtless join with me in thanks to these Journals who have been used as means of bringing this light before them.

Although my cause, being based in eternal truth, does not depend upon certificates and testimonials to sustain it, and stands therefore in no need of them; yet, as they are sometimes called for, as a confirmation of my statements, I have asked for just such testimonials as the following gentlemen felt self-moved to give me. I needed no testimonials while prosecuting my business in Illinois, for the facts of the case were so well known there, by the papers reporting my trial so generally. I needed no other passport to the confidence of the public.

But when I came to Boston to commence my business in Massachusetts, being an entire stranger there, I found the need of some credentials or testimonials in confirmation of my strange and novel statements. And it was right and proper, under such circumstances, that I should have them. I therefore wrote to Judge Boardman and Hon. S. S. Jones, my personal friends, in Illinois, and told them the difficulty I found in getting my story believed, and asked them to send me anything in the form of a certificate, that they in their judgment felt disposed to send me, that might help me in surmounting this obstacle. Very promptly did these gentlemen respond to my request, and sent me the following testimonials, which were soon printed in several of the Boston papers, with such editorials accompanying them, as gave them additional weight and influence in securing to me the confidence of the public.

Judge Boardman is an old and distinguished Judge in Illinois, receiving, as he justly merits, the highest esteem and confidence of hiscotemporaries, as a distinguished scholar, an eminent Judge, and a practical Christian.

Mr. Jones is a middle aged man, of the same stamp as the Judge, receiving proof of the esteem in which he is held by his cotemporaries, in being sent to Congress by vote of Illinois’ citizens, and by having been for successive years a member of the Legislature of that State. He was in that position when he sent me his certificate.

Judge Boardman’s Letter.

To all persons who would desire to give sympathy and encouragement to a most worthy but persecuted woman!

The undersigned, formerly from the State of Vermont, now an old resident of the State of Illinois, would most respectfully and fraternally certify and represent: That he has been formerly and for many years, associated with the legal profession in Illinois, and is well known in the north-eastern part of said State. That in the duties of his profession and in the offices he has filled, he has frequently investigated, judicially, and otherwise, cases of insanity. That he has given considerable attention to medical jurisprudence, and studied some of the best authors on the subject of insanity; has paid great attention to the principles and philosophy of mind, and therefore would say, with all due modesty, that he verily believes himself qualified to give an opinion entitled to respectful consideration, on the question of the sanity or insanity of any person with whom he may be acquainted. That he is acquainted with Mrs. E. P. W. Packard, and verily believes her not only sane, but that she is a person of very superior endowments of mind and understanding, naturally possessing an exceedingly well balanced organization, which, no doubt, prevented her from becoming insane, under the persecution, incarceration, and treatment she has received. That Mrs. Packard has been the victim ofreligious bigotry, purely so, without a single circumstance to alleviate the darkness of the transaction! A case worthy of the palmiest days of the inquisition!!

The question may be asked, how this could happen, especially in Northern Illinois? To which I answer that the common law prevails here, the same as in other States, where this law has not been modified or set aside by the statute laws, which gives the legal custody of the wife’s person, into the hands of the husband, and therefore, a wife can only be released from oppression, or even fromimprisonment by her husband, by the legal complaint of herself, or some one in her behalf, before the proper judicial authorities, and a hearing and decision in the case; as was finally had in Mrs. Packard’s case, she having been in the first place, taken by force, by her husband, and sent to the Insane Hospital, without any opportunity to make complaint, or without any hearing or investigation.

But how could the Superintendent of the Insane Hospital be a party to so great a wrong? Very easily answered, without necessarily impeaching his honesty, when we consider that her alleged insanity was on religious subjects; her husband a minister of good standing in his denomination, and the Superintendent sympathizing with him, in all probability, in religious doctrine and belief, supposed, of course, that she was insane. She was legally sent to him, by the authority of her husband, as insane; and Mrs. Packard had taught doctrines similar to the Unitarians and Universalists and many radical preachers; and which directly opposed the doctrine her husband taught, and the doctrine of the Church to which he and Mrs. Packard belonged; the argument was, that of course the woman must be crazy!! And as she persisted in her liberal sentiments, the Superintendent persisted in considering that she was insane! However, whether moral blame should attach to the Superintendent and Trustees of the Insane Hospital, or not, in this transaction, other than prejudice, and learned ignorance; it may now be seen, from recent public inquiries and suggestions, that it is quite certain, that the laws, perhaps in all the States in relation to the insane, and their confinement and treatment, have been much abused, by the artful and cunning, who have incarcerated their relatives for the purpose of getting hold of their property; or for difference of opinion as to our state and condition in the future state of existence, or religious belief.

The undersigned would further state: That the published account of Mrs. Packard’s trial on the question of her sanity, is no doubt perfectly reliable and correct. That the Judge before whom she was tried, is a man of learning, and ability, and high standing in the judicial circuit, in which he presides. That Mrs. Packard is a person of strict integrity and truthfulness, whose character is above reproach. That a history of her case after the trial, was published in the daily papers in Chicago, and in the newspapers generally, in the State; arousing at the time, a public feeling of indignation against the author of her persecution, and sympathy for her; that nothing has transpiredsince, to overthrow or set aside the verdict of popular opinion; that it is highly probable that the proceedings in this case, so far as the officers of the State Hospital for the insane are concerned, will undergo a rigid investigation by the Legislature of the State.

The undersigned understands that Mrs. Packard does not ask pecuniary charity, but that sympathy and paternal assistance which may aid her to obtain and make her own living, she having been left by her husband, without any means, or property whatever.

All of which is most fraternally and confidently submitted to your kind consideration.

William A. Boardman.

Waukegan, Ill., Dec. 3, 1864.

Hon. S. S. Jones’ Letter.

“To a kind and sympathizing public:—

This is to certify that I am personally acquainted with Mrs. E. P. W. 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 assign 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 pronounced 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 passed, 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 noble and benevolent institutions—the asylums for the insane—will never become perverted into institutionsof 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.

“Assuming, 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 circumstances 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. Packardisinsane because she rejects Calvinism, thenweare insane, liable to arrest, and to be placed in an insane asylum! We have apersonalinterest 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 wishing 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,canbe 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 Massachusett’s Legislature to change the laws in reference to the modeof 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.

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 publishing such statements, as he would not dare to publish in Illinois;and it was astonishing 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 bynothing 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, hisco-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 sex, 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 herSANE.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 document 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 thenfourteen. 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 allour 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 petition for a change of venue you had Mr. Packard sign, but which you concluded not to present, because you thought it wouldnotbe 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 pronounced 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.

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 bynothing 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, hisco-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 sex, 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 herSANE.

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 document 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 thenfourteen. 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 allour 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 petition for a change of venue you had Mr. Packard sign, but which you concluded not to present, because you thought it wouldnotbe 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 pronounced 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.

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 histestimony, not from personal proof, by my own words and actions, independent of the coloringhehas 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, tocompelthem 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 God himself, and not by her husband—and that this right to command being delegated to her by God himself, as the God given right identified with her maternity, the husband had no right to interfere or usurp this God bestowed right from the wife. But on the contrary, it was the husband’s duty, as the wife’s God 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 God delegated authority, equal in power,in my sphere, to their father’s God delegated authority. And farther, I have taught them, that I had no right to go out ofmy sphereand interfere with their father’s authority in his sphere; neither had their father a right to trespass 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, exceptthrough her; neither hasthe mother a right to countermand the father’s order, except throughhim. 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 God’s government.

But as this is a volume of facts, rather than theories, I will add one fact in vindication of my assertion, 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 disobeysucha 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 God’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 God to settle this question for us,” and down we both kneeled by the sofa, and with my arm around my darling boy, I asked God 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.”

After thinking a moment, the Doctor simply replied, “Your son had arightto visit his mother!”

O, the joy I felt at this announcement! It seemed as if a mountain had been lifted from me, so relieved was I of my burden. With a light heart I sought my sobbing boy, and encircling my arms about his neck, exclaimed, “Cheer up! my dear child, you had arightto visit your mother! so says the Doctor.”

Why was this struggle with our consciences? Was it not that we had trained them to respect paternal authority? Can testimony, however abundant, change this truth into a falsehood?

That principle of self-defence, which depends wholly on certificates and testimonials, instead of the principle of right, truth and justice, is not able to survive the shock which the revelation of truth brings against it. A lie, however strongly fortified by testimonials and certificates, can never be transformed into a truth. Neither can the truth, however single, and isolated, and alone, be its condition, can never be transformed into a lie, nor crushed out of existence. No.The truth will stand alone, and unsupported. Its own weight, simply, gives it firmness to resist all shocks brought against it, to produce its overthrow. Like the house built upon a rock, it needs no props, no certificates, to sustain it. Storms of the bitterest persecution may beat piteously upon it, but they cannot overthrow it, for its foundation is the rock of eternal truth. But lies, are like the house built upon the sand. While it does stand, it needs props or certificates on all sides, to sustain it. And it cannot resist the storm even of a ventilating breeze upon it, for it must and will fall, with all its accumulated props, before one searching investigation; and the more props it has so much the more devastation is caused by its overthrow.

And here I wish to add, that it was not because Mr. Packard was a minister, that bigotry had power thus to triumph over his manliness, but because he was a man, liable to be led astray from the paths of rectitude as other human beings are. The ministerial office does not insure men against the commission of sins of the darkest hue, for the ministry is composed of men, who are subject to like frailties and passions as other men are; and ministers, like all other men, must stand just where their own actions will place them, not where their position ought always to find them. They ought to be men whose characters should be unimpeached. But they are not all so. Neither are all other men what they should be in their position. It is as much the duty of the minister to be true to himself—true to the instincts of his God-like nature, as it is other men. And any deviation from the path of rectitude which would not be tolerated in any other man, ought not to be tolerated in a minister. In short, ministers must stand on a common level with the rest of the human race in judgment. That is, they, like others, must stand just where their own conduct and actions place them. If their conduct entitles them to respect, we should respect them. But if their conduct makes them unworthy of our respect and confidence, it is a sin to bestow it upon them; for this very respect which we give themundersuch circumstances, only countenances their sins, and encourages them in iniquity, and thus puts their own souls in jeopardy, as well as reflects guilt on those who thus helped them work out their own destruction, when they ought to have helped them work out their own repentance for evil doing.

As my case now stands delineated by the foregoing narrative, all the States on this continent can see just where the common law places all married women. And no one can help saying, that any law that can be used in support of such a persecution, is a disgrace to any government—Christian or heathen. It is not only a disgrace, a blot on such a government, but it is a crime, against God and humanity, to let confiding, trusting woman, be so unprotected in law, from such outrageous abuses.

Mr. Packard has never impeached myconductin a single instance, that I know of; neither has he ever charged me guilty of one insaneact—except that of teaching my children doctrines which I believed, and he did not! This is all he ever alleges against me. He himself confirms the testimony of all my friends, that I always did discharge my household duties in a very orderly, systematic, kind, and faithful manner. In short, they maintain that I, during all my married life, have been a very self-sacrificing wife and mother, as well as an active and exemplary co-worker with him in his ministerial duties.

Now I have mentioned these facts, not for self-glorification, but for this reason, that it may be seen thatgood conduct, even the best and most praiseworthy, does not protect a married woman from the most flagrant wrongs, and wrongs, too, for which she has no redress in the present laws. If a man had suffered a tithe of the wrongs which I have suffered, the laws stand ready to give him redress, and thus shield him from a repetition of them. But not so with me. I must suffer not only this tithe, with no chance of redress, but ten times this amount, and no redress then. I even now stand exposed to a life-long imprisonment, so long as my husband lives, while I not only have never committed any crime, but on the contrary, have ever lived a life of self-sacrificing benevolence, ever toiling for the best interests of humanity.

Think again. After this life of faithful service for others, I am thrown adrift, at fifty years of age, upon the cold world, with no place on earth I can call home, and not a penny to supply my wants with, except what my own exertion secures to me. Why is this? Because he who should have been my protector, has been my robber, and has stolen all my life-long earnings. And yet the law does not call this stealing, because the husband is legally authorized to stealfrom the wife without leave or license from her! Now, I say it is a poor rule that don’t work both ways. Why can’t the wife steal all the husband has? I am sure she can’t support herself as well as he can, and the right of justice seems to be on our side, in our view.

But this is not what we want; we don’t wish to rob our husbands, we only want they should be stopped from robbing us. We just ask for the reasonable right to use our own property as if it were our own, that is, just as we please, just according to the dictates of our own judgment. And when we insist upon this right, wedon’twant our husbands to have power to imprison us for so doing, as my husband did me. It was in this manner that I insisted upon my right to my property, with this fatal issue resulting from it.

While the discussions in our Bible-class were at the culminating point of interest, Mr. Packard came to my room one day and made me the following proposition: “Wife,” said he, “how would you like to go to your brother’s in Batavia, and make a visit?”

Said I, “I should like it very well, since my influenza has in some degree prostrated my strength, so that I need a season of rest; and besides, I should like an excuse for retiring from this Bible-class excitement, since the burden of these discussions lies so heavily upon me, and if it is not running from my post of duty, I should like to throw off this mental burden also, and rest for a season at least.”

He replied, “You have not only a perfect right to go, but I think it is your duty to go and get recruited.”

“Very well,” said I, “then I will go, and go, too, with the greatest pleasure. But how long do you think I had better make my visit?”

“Three months.”

“Three months!” said I, “Can you get along without me three months? and what will the children do for their summer clothes without me to make them?”

“I will see to that matter; you must stay three months, or not go at all.”

“Well, I am sure I can stand it to rest that length of time, if you can stand it without my services. So I will go. But I must take my baby and daughter with me, as they have not fully recovered from their influenzas, and I should not dare to trust them away from me.”

“Yes, you may take them.”

“I will then prepare myself and them to go just as soon as you see fit to send us. Another thing, husband,” said I, “I shall want ten dollars of my patrimony money to take with me for spendingmoney.” (This patrimony was a present of $600.00 my father had recently sent me for my especial benefit, and I had put it into Mr. Packard’s hands for safe keeping, taking his note on interest as my only security, except with this note he gave me a written agreement, that I should have not only the interest, but any part of the principal, by simply asking him for it whenever I wanted it. When he absconded he took not only all this my money patrimony with him, but also stole all my notes and private papers likewise.)

“This you can’t have,” said he.

“Why not? I shall need as much as this, to be absent three months with two sick children. I may need to call a Doctor to them, and, besides, my brother is poor, and I am rich comparatively, and I might need some extra food, such as a beef-steak, or something of the kind, and I should not like to ask him for it. And besides, I have your written promise that I may have my own money whenever I want it, and I do want ten dollars of it now; and I think it is no unreasonable amount to take with me.”

“I don’t think it is best to let you have it. I shan’t trust you with money.”

“Shan’t trust me with money! Why not? Have I ever abused this trust? Do not I always give you an exact account of every cent I spend? And I will this time do so; and besides, if you cannot trust it with me, I will put it into brother’s hands as soon as I get there, and not spend a cent but by his permission.”

“No, I shall not consent to that.”

“One thing more I will suggest. You know Batavia people owe you twelve dollars for preaching one Sabbath, and you can’t get your pay. Now, supposing brother ‘dun’ and get it, may I not use this money if I should chance to need it in an emergency; and if I should not need any, I won’t use a cent of it? Or, I will write home to you and ask permission ofyoubefore spending a dollar of it.”

“No. You shall neither have any money, nor have the control of any, for I can’t trust you with any.”

“Well, husband, if I can’t be trusted with ten dollars of my own money under these circumstances, and with all these provisions attached to it, I should not think I was capable of being trusted with two sick children three months away from home wholly dependent on a poor brother’s charities. Indeed, I had rather stay at home and not go at all, rather than go under such circumstances.”

“You shall not go at all;” replied he, in a most excited, angry, tone of voice. “You shall go into an Insane Asylum!”

“Why, husband!” said I; “I did not suspectsuchan alternative. I had rather go to him penniless, and clotheless even, than go into an Asylum!”

“You have lost your last chance. Youshallgo into an Asylum!”

And so it proved. It was my last chance. In a few days I was kidnapped and locked up in my Asylum prison for life, so far ashewas concerned.

Now, I ask any developed man, who holds property which is rightfully his own, and no one’s else, how he would like to exchange places with me, and be treated just as I was treated. Now, I say it is only fair that the law makers should be subject to their own laws. That is, they should not make laws for others, that they would not be willing to submit to themselves in exchange of circumstances. Just put the case to yourselves, and ask how would you like to be imprisoned without any sort of trial, or any chance at self-defence, and then be robbed of all your life earnings, by a law which women made for your good (?) as your God appointed protectors! O, my government—the men of these United States—do bear with me long enough to just make our case your own for one moment, and then let me kindly ask you this question.

Won’t you please stop this robbery of our inalienable right to our own property, by some law, dictated by some of your noble, manly hearts? Do let us have arightto our own home—arightto our own earnings—arightto our own patrimony. A right, I mean, aspartnersin the family firm. We do not ask for a separate interest. We want an identification of interests, and then be allowed a legal right to this common fund as thejunior partnersof this company interest. We most cheerfully allow you the rights of a senior partner; but we do not want you to be senior, junior, and all, leaving us no rights at all, in a common interest.

Again, we true, natural women, want our own children too—we can’t live without them. We had rather die than have them torn from us as your laws allow them to be. Only consider for one moment, what your laws are, in relation to our own flesh and blood. The husband has all the children of the married woman secured to himself, to do with them just as he pleases, regardless of her protests, or wishes, or entreaties to the contrary; while the children of the single women are all given to her as her right by nature! Here thematernal nature of the single woman is respected and protected, as it should be; while the nature of the married woman is ignored and set at naught, and the holiest instinct of woman is trampled in the dust of an utter despotism. In other words, the legitimate offspring of the wife are not protected to her, but given to the husband, while the illegitimate offspring of the unmarried women are protected to her. So that the only way to be sure of having our maternity respected, and our offspring legally protected to us, is to have our children in the single instead of the married state!

With shame I ask the question, does not our government here offer a premium on infidelity? And yet this is a Christian government! Why can’t the inalienable rights of the lawful wife beas muchrespected as those of the open prostitute? I say, why? Is it because a woman has no individuality, after she is joined to a man? Is her conscience, and her reason, and her thoughts, all lost in him? So my case demonstrates thelawto be, when practically tested.

And does not this legalized despotism put our souls in jeopardy, as well as our bodies, and our children? It verily does. It was to secure the interests of my immortal soul, that I have suffered all I have in testing these despotic laws. I would have succumbed long ago, and said I believed what I did not believe, had it not been that I cared more for the safety of my own soul, that I did the temporal welfare of my own dear offspring.

Back to IndexNext