Library Collections: Document: Full Text

SEC. 5. All former laws conflicting with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed, and this act shall take effect on its passage.

Approved February 16,1865.

Two years practice under this law developed its inability to remove the evils it was designed to remedy. This law, having no penalty to enforce it, was found to be violated in many instances, as it was ascertained to be a fact that Dr. McFarland's constantly receiving patients under the old law of 1851, which this law had nominally repealed. For this reason, therefore, the petition was sent to the Legislature of 1867 that "The Personal Liberty Bill" be passed, in order to enforce the wise provisions of this law of 1865.

But knowing the determined hostility of Dr. McFarland to the enforcement of this law, and seeing the arrogant spirit exhibited toward the Legislature who passed this bill, in his biennial report of 1866, I felt it my duty to present him in his own drapery to the scrutiny of the Legislature of 1867, by laying upon the desk of each member my review of this part of his report, which was published in the Chicago Tribune.

Dr. McFarland's Report Opposed to Jury Trials.

In Dr. McFarland's tenth biennial report of 1866, he utters severe criticisms on an act passed by the Legislature of 1865, and complains of the injustice of such legislation as allows persons accused of insanity to have a fair trial before imprisonment.

The act which he thus ignores, provides, as Dr. McFarland says:

"Any person whose condition requires his or her being sent to the hospital, shall be personally present in the court while the examination goes on, being served with notice, stimulated by counsel, invited to cross-examine witnesses, and placed, in all instances, and in every respect as the active defendant in the case. This act is so cruel in its effect upon those for whose interest it must be presumed to have been introduced, that silence is impossible, until attention is called to it. And his voice would be for the summary repeal of the act in question, to protest against the existence of which is the plain duty of this report. What antagonisms of the most painful kind are wantonly engendered; what violations of delicacy, and often of decency, what outrages upon mental and physical suffering must be the result while this enactment exists. And these ore only slight specimens of the "wrongs of which this act will be the prolific stock."

We wish to ask any candid person a few simple, commonplace questions in reference to the above extract:

Which course would be the most likely to engender antagonisms -- the consignment of a relative to an indefinite term of imprisonment, without allowing them any hearing or any chance at self-defense -- or, by allowing them a fair trial and opportunity of self-defense before imprisonment?

Which would be the most probable "prolific stock" of wrongs to humanity -- the imprisonment of an individual on the decision of twelve impartial men, after a fair hearing of both parties -- or, on the decision of one interested man, on the simple testimony of others, without proof?

Is it not more probable that one man may possibly be corrupted by motives of interest and policy to make an unjust decision, than that twelve men could be thus corrupted?

Dr. McFarland asserts that "a wrong under the old law, under which nine-tenths of all the patients have been received, is as nearly a moral impossibility as can well exist."

Is it a moral impossibility to get a sane person into that institution, while a statute exists, which expressly permits a certain class of persons to be there imprisoned without evidence of insanity, and without any trial -- which statute suspends the personal liberty of this class of citizens wholly upon the decision of one fallible man?

And "is it as nearly a moral impossibility as can well exist," that this one man may possibly err in judgment?

It is our candid opinion that there have been some awful stakes in the lawful exercise of this one-man power within the last ten years of its existence; and the public sentiment of Illinois now demands of their Legislature of 1867 to repair the injury done to its citizens by this unjust law, by allowing those now in the asylum who have never had a jury trial either to be discharged from their place of involuntary confinement, or be allowed to have a jury trial, before perpetuating their imprisonment any longer.

Again, Dr. McFarland says:

"From what supposed necessity such an act originated, it is not easy to conceive, for in nearly three thousand admissions here, a question was never seriously raised in a single instance!"

Has the Doctor forgotten that the question has been once at least, seriously raised by the court at Kankakee City, in the case of one whom that court decided had been falsely imprisoned for three years at that Hospital? For, after a full and fair examination of all the evidence in the case, it was decided that Mrs. Packard was sane.