Library Collections: Document: Full Text

Hon. S. A. Sewall and Mr. Wendell Phillips both made a plea in its behalf before this committee, who kindly allowed me a hearing of several hours time in all, besides allowing me to present the two following bills of which they afterwards requested a copy in writing.

The three Superintendents, Dr. Walker, Dr. Jarvis, and Dr. Tyler, represented the opposition. And my reply to Dr. Walker constituted the preamble to my bills.

GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMITTEE:

I feel it my duty to say one word in defense of the petitioners, in reply to Dr. Walker's statement, that:

"In my opinion, nineteen-twentieths of the petitioners did not know nor care what they petitioned for, and that they signed it out of compliment to the lady."

I differ from Dr. Walker in opinion on this point, for this reason. I obtained these names by my own individual appeals, except from most of the members of the "Common Council," who signed it during an evening session, by its being passed around for their names. I witnessed their signing, and saw them read it, carefully, before signing it. And I think they signed it intelligently, and from a desire for safer legislation. The others I know signed intelligently, and for this reason. And I could easily have got one thousand more names, had it been necessary, for, in selling my books, I have conversed with many thousand men on this subject, and among them all, have only found one man who defends the present mode of commitment -- that of leaving it all to the physicians.

I spent a day in the Custom House, and a day and a half in the Navy Yard, and these men, like all others, defend our movement.

I have sold one hundred and thirty-nine books in the Navy Yard within the last day and a half, by conversing personally with gentlemen in their counting-rooms on this subject, and they are carefully watching your decision on this question.

Now, from this stand-point of extensive observation, added to my own personal experience, I feel fully confident these two bills are needed to meet the public demand at this crisis.

BILL NO. 1.

No person shall be regarded or treated as an Insane person or a Monomaniac, simply for the expression of opinions, no matter now absurd these opinions may appear to others.

My Brief in Defense of the bill.

1st. This law is needed for the personal safety of Reformers. We are living in a Progressive Age. Everything is in a state of transformation, and as our laws now are, the Reformer, the Pioneer, the Originator of any new idea is liable to be treated as a Monomaniac with imprisonment.

2d. It is a Crime against human progress to, allow Reformers to be treated as Monomaniacs; for who will dare to be true to the inspirations of the divinity within them, if the Pioneers of truth are thus liable to lose their personal liberty for life by so doing?

3d. It is Treason against the principles of our Government to treat opinions as Insanity, and to imprison for it, as our present laws allow.

4th. There always are those in every age who are opposed to everything new, and if allowed, will persecute Reformers with the stigma of Insanity. This has been the fate of all Reformers, from the days of Christ -- the Great Reformer -- until the present age.

5th. Our Government, of all others, ought especially to guard, by legislation, the vital principle on which it is based, namely: individuality, which guarantees an individual right of opinion to all persons.

Therefore, gentlemen, Protect your Thinkers! by a law against the charge of Monomania, and posterity shall bless our Government, as a Model Government, and Massachusetts as the Pioneer State, in thus protecting individuality as the vital principle on which the highest development of humanity rests.

BILL No. 2.

No person shall be imprisoned and treated as an insane person except for irregularities of conduct, such as indicate that the individual is so lost to reason as to render him an unaccountable moral agent.

My Brief in Defense of the Bill.

Multitudes are now imprisoned without the least evidence that reason is dethroned, as indicated by this test. And I am a representative of this class of prisoners; for when Dr. McFarland was driven to give his reasons for regarding me as insane, on this basis, the only reason which he could name, after closely inspecting my conduct for three years, was that I once "fell down stairs!"

I do insist upon it, gentlemen, that no person should be imprisoned without a just cause; for personal liberty is the most blessed boon of our existence, and ought therefore to be reasonably guarded as an inalienable right. But it is not reasonably protected under our present legislation, while it allows the simple opinion of two doctors to imprison a person for life, without one proof in the conduct of the accused, that he is an unaccountable moral agent. We do not hang a person on the simple opinion that he is a murderer, but proof is required from the accused's own actions, that he is guilty of the charge which forfeits his life. So the charge which forfeits our personal liberty ought to be proved from the individual's own conduct, before imprisonment.