Part 5

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 had occurred, _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 her _insane_, 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 pronounced _sane_. 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 was _insane_! 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 her _insane_. Before the case is decided by the jury, he starts for parts unknown. Was there ever such a case of heartlessness? If Mr. Packard _believed_ his wife to be hopelessly _insane_, 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, _insane_ wife, as _he_ calls 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 Kankakee _Gazette_ as 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 what _he_ calls 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 their real 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 an _oath_ that his wife was an _insane_ woman!

"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 actually _kidnapped_ all 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 be the 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 are _nothing and nobody_ in 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 fully demonstrates. Now I can realize the sad truths so often iterated, reiterated to me by my husband, namely: "You have no _right_ to your home, I have let you live with me twenty-one years in my home as a favor to you. You have no _right_ to 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 no _right_ to 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 no _right_ to 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:

"LEGAL KIDNAPPING," OR PROVISION FOR A SANE PERSON'S IMPRISONMENT.

"From the 'Disclosures' of Mrs. Packard's book, it appears a self-evident fact that one State of our Union has an express provision for the imprisonment of married women who are not insane. And this process of legal kidnapping is most strikingly illustrated in the facts developed in Mrs. Packard's own experience, as delineated in her book entitled 'The Great Drama.'

"The following is a copy of the Law, as it now stands on the Illinois Statute Book:--

"AMENDATORY ACT."

"Session Laws 15, 1851. Page 96."

"SEC. 10. Married women and infants who, in the judgment of the Medical Superintendent, [meaning the Superintendent of the 'Illinois State Hospital' for the insane] are evidently insane or distracted, may be entered or detained in the Hospital on the request of the husband, or the woman or guardian of the infants, _without_ the evidence of insanity required in other cases."

"Hon. S. S. Jones of St. Charles, Illinois, thus remarks upon this Act:--

"Thus we see a corrupt husband, with money enough to corrupt a Superintendent, can get rid of a wife as effectually as was ever done in a more barbarous age. The Superintendent may be corrupted either with money or influence, that he thinks will give him position, place, or emoluments. Is not this a pretty statute to be incorporated into our laws no more than thirteen years ago? Why not confine the husband at the instance of the wife, as well as the wife at the instance of the husband? The wife evidently had no voice in making the law.

"Who, being a man, and seeing this section in the Statute Book of Illinois, under the general head of 'Charities,' does not blush and hang his head for very shame at legislative perversion of so holy a term? I have no doubt, if the truth of the matter were known, this act was passed at the special instance of the Superintendent. A desire for power. I do not know why it has not been noted by me and others before."

"And we would also venture to inquire, what is the married woman's protection under such a Statute law? Is she not allowed counter testimony from a physician of her own choice, or can she not demand a trial of some kind, to show whether the charge of insanity brought against her is true or false? Nay, verily. The Statute expressly states that the judgment of the medical Superintendent, to whom the husband's request is made, is _all_ that is required for him to incarcerate his wife for any indefinite period of time. Neither she, her children, nor her relatives have any voice at all in the matter. Her imprisonment may be life-long, for anything she or her friends can do for her to prevent it. If the husband has money or influence enough to corrupt the officials, he can carry out his single wishes concerning his wife's life-destiny.

"Are not the 'Divorce Laws' of Illinois made a necessity, to meet the demands of the wife, as her only refuge from this exposure to a 'false imprisonment' for life in an Insane Asylum?

"We hope our readers will be able to read Mrs. Packard's book for themselves; especially her 'Self-defence from the charge of Insanity,' wherein the barbarities of this statute are made to appear in their true light, as being merely a provision for 'Legal Kidnapping.'"

BOSTON, Feb. 24, 1865.

Satisfied as I was that there was no legal redress for me in the laws, and no hope in appealing to Mr. Packard's mercy or manliness, I determined to do what I could to obtain a self-reliant position, by securing if possible the protection of greenbacks, confident that this kind of protection is better than none at all. I concluded, therefore, to publish the first installment of "The Great Drama," an allegorical book I wrote while in the Asylum, consisting of twelve parts. But how could this be done in my penniless condition? was the great question to be practically settled. I accordingly borrowed ten dollars of Mr. Z. Hanford, of Manteno, a noble, kind hearted man, who offered me a home at his house after the trial, and went to Chicago to consult the printers in reference to the expense of printing one thousand copies of this book, and get it stereotyped. I found it would cost me five hundred dollars. I then procured a few thousand tickets on which was printed--"The bearer is entitled to the first volume of Mrs. Packard's book, entitled the Great Drama. None are genuine without my signature. Mrs. E. P. W. Packard." And commenced canvassing for my unborn book, by selling these tickets for fifty cents each, assuring the purchaser I would redeem the ticket in three month's time, by giving them a book worth fifty cents. When I had sold about eight or nine hundred tickets, I went to Chicago to set my printers and stereotypers, engravers and binders, at work on my book. But I now met with a new and unlooked for difficulty, in the sudden inflation of prices in labor and material. My book could not now be printed for less than seven hundred dollars; so that my first edition would not pay for itself into two hundred dollars. As the case now was, instead of paying for my book by selling one thousand tickets, I must sell fourteen hundred, besides superintending the various workmen on the different departments of my book. Nothing daunted by this reverse, instead of raising the price of my tickets to seventy-five cents to meet this unfortunate turn in my finances, I found I must fall back upon the only sure guarantee of success, namely: patient perseverance. By the practical use of this great backbone of success, perseverance, I did finally succeed in printing my book, and paying the whole seven hundred dollars for it in three months' time, by selling four hundred tickets in advance on another edition. I sold and printed, and then printed and sold, and so on, until I have printed and sold in all, twelve thousand books in fifteen months' time. Included in this twelve thousand are several editions of smaller pamphlets, varying in price from five to twenty-five cents each.

INTERVIEW WITH MAYOR SHERMAN.

At this stage of my Narrative it may not be inappropriate to narrate my interview with Mayor Sherman, of Chicago, since it not only discloses one of the dangers and the difficulties I had to encounter, in prosecuting my enterprise, but also serves as another exemplification of that marital power which is legally guaranteed to the husband, leaving the wife utterly helpless, and legally defenceless.

I called upon him at his office in the court house, and was received with respectful, manly courtesy. After introducing myself as the Mrs. Packard whose case had recently acquired so much notoriety through the Chicago press, and after briefly recapitulating the main facts of the persecution, I said to him:

"Now, Mr. Sherman, as the Mayor of this city, I appeal to you for protection, while printing my book in your city. Will you protect me here?"

"Why, Mrs. Packard, what protection do you need? What dangers do you apprehend?"

"Sir, I am a married woman, and my husband is my persecutor, therefore I have no legal protection. The husband is, you probably know, the wife's only protector in the law, therefore, what I want now, Sir, is protection against my protector!"

"Is he in this city?"

"No, Sir; but his agents are, and he can delegate his power to them, and authorize them what to do."

"What do you fear he will do?"

"I fear he may intercept the publication of my book; for you probably know, Sir, he can come either himself, or by proxy, and, with his Sheriff, can demand my manuscript of my printer, and the printer, nor you, Sir, have no legal power to defend it. He can demand it, and burn it, and I am helpless in legal self-defense. For, Sir, my identity was legally lost in his, when I married him, leaving me nothing and nobody in law; and besides, all I have is his in law, and of course no one can prosecute him for taking his own things--my manuscript is his, and entirely at his disposal. I have no right in law even to my own thoughts, either spoken or written--he has even claimed the right to superintend my written thoughts as well as post office rights. I can not claim these rights--they are mine only as he grants me them as his gifts to me."

"What does your printer say about it?"

"He says if the Sheriff comes to him for the book he shall tell him he must get the book where he can find it; _I_ shall not find it for him. I then said to my printer, supposing he should come with money, and offer to buy the manuscript, what then?" "I say, it will take more money than there is in Chicago to buy that manuscript of us," replied my printer.

"I think that sounds like protection, Mrs. Packard. I think you have nothing to fear."

"No, Mr. Sherman, I have nothing to fear from the manliness of my printer, for this is my sole and only protection--but as one man to whom I trusted even myself, has proved a traitor to his manliness, is there not a possibility another may. I should not object to a double guard, since the single guard of manliness has not even protected me from imprisonment."

"Well, Mrs. Packard, you shall have my protection; and I can also assure you the protection of my counsel, also. If you get into trouble, apply to us, and we will give you all the help the laws will allow."

"I beg you to consider, Sir; the laws do not allow you to interfere in such a matter. Are you authorized to stop a man from doing a _legal_ act?"

"No, Mrs. Packard, I am not. I see you are without any legal protection. Still I think you are safe in Chicago."

"I hope it may so prove, Sir. But one thing more I wish your advice about; how can I keep the money I get for my book from Mr. Packard, the legal owner of it?"