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 by
nothing higher.
The first certificate presented is signed by Deacon A. H. Dole, and
Sibyl T. Dole, who are the sister and brother-in-law of Mr. Packard,
and, as the trial shows, his _co-conspirators_; J. B. Smith, another
of his deacons, who was a willing tool in the transaction; and Miss
Sarah Rumsey, another member of his Church, who went to live with Mr.
Packard when Mrs. Packard was first kidnapped. Let Jeff. Davis be put
on trial, and then take the certificates of Mrs. Surratt, Payne,
Azteroth, Arnold, Dr. Mudd and George N. Saunders, and I am led to
believe they would make out Jeff. to be a "Christian President," whom
the barbarous North were trying to murder. Their further certificate
"that the disorderly demonstrations by the furious populace, filling
the Court House while we were present at the said trial, were well
calculated to prevent a fair trial," is simply bosh, but is on a par
with the whole certificate. It is a reflection upon the purity of our
judicial system, and upon our Circuit Court, that they would not make
at home. And I can only account for its being made on the supposition
that it would not be read in Illinois. "The furious populace"
consisted of about two hundred ladies of our city who visited the
trial until it was completed, because they felt a sympathy for one of
their own 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 her SANE.
The second certificate is from Samuel Packard. It is a sufficient
answer to this to say that he is the son of Mr. Packard, and entirely
under his father's control, and that it is apparent upon the 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 then _fourteen_. She then acted like a
good daughter, who loved her mother dearly, and her size and age
never entered into the consideration of the audience of ladies whose
hearts were touched and feelings stirred, till the fountain of their
tears was broken, by the kind and natural emotions which were then
exhibited by the mother and daughter. When Mrs. Packard was put in
the hospital Lizzie was about ten years old, and a thinking public
will determine what judgment she could then form about her mother's
"religious notions" and her "insanity," "to the great sorrow of all
our family."
One word further upon the certificate of Thomas P. Bonfield, and I
will close. He says that the trial commenced very soon after the writ
of habeas corpus was served on Mr. Packard, and therefore he could
not obtain his evidence, and was prevented from obtaining the
attendance of Dr. McFarland, Superintendent of the Insane Hospital of
Illinois. Dr. McFarland was the only witness whose attendance Mr.
Packard's counsel expressed a desire for that was not present. They
had his certificate that Mrs. Packard was insane, which they used as
evidence, and which went to the jury. The defence had no opportunity
for cross-examination, while Mr. Packard thus got the benefit of
McFarland's evidence that she was insane, with no possibility of a
contradiction. What more could he have had if the witness had been
present?
The certificate further states that "a large portion of the community
were more intent on giving Presbyterianism a blow than on
investigating, or leaving the law to investigate, the question of
Mrs. Packard's insanity." Well, what did the "feelings" of the
community have to do with the court and jury? You selected the jury.
You said they were good men. If not good, you could have rejected
them. The presiding judge is a member of the Congregational Church,
which is nearly allied to the Presbyterian. Five of the twelve
jurymen were regular attendants of the Presbyterian Church. No
complaint was then made that you could not have a fair trial. If
Packard believed he could not, the statute of Illinois provides for a
change of venue, which petition for a change of venue you had Mr.
Packard sign, but which you concluded not to present, because you
thought it would _not_ be granted. If you thought it would not be
granted, it was because you did not have a case that the venue could
be changed, because when the proper affidavit is made for a change of
venue, the Court has no power to refuse the application. The trial
was conducted as all trials are conducted in Boston or in Illinois,
and the verdict of the jury 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.