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.