Library Collections: Document: Full Text

My defense of the bill led the committee to look at the subject from an entirely different standpoint from what Dr. Ranney, Superintendent of Mount Pleasant Asylum, had presented. Previous to the committee's recommendation to indefinitely postpone the bill, Dr. Ranney had been notified of the character of the bill, and his request to be heard in reference to it had been cheerfully granted, by allowing him a patient hearing of one hour and a half. Upon which, the committee unanimously decided to give the subject no further attention.

From one who heard him, I was told that the chief point he made against the bill was, that if the inmates were allowed to write to their friends it would render the task of "subduing his patients" more difficult, and perhaps a hopeless one.

"Subduing his Patients!" They were not placed under his care to be subdued, like criminals -- but to be treated as unfortunates, with kindness and suitable medical treatment.

Thus I used the Doctor's argument against the bill as the most potent one in its defense -- viz.:

If he does treat them as criminals, as he thus acknowledges, there is all the more need of some mode of self-defense on the part of his patients -- and this bill affords just the kind of protection they need.

In short, my argument led the committee to reverse the decision Dr. Ranney's argument had led them to make, and now unanimously recommended that the bill be passed.

They advised me to lobby for the bill with the members until a vote of the House should be taken upon the subject.

The bill was ordered to be printed and laid upon the table of each member, and I commenced lobbying for it. Nearly three weeks of indefatigable labor I spent with the members at the legislative hall, and at their boarding places.

So very constant and unremitted were my efforts during this time -- not allowing even a single day, however stormy, to pass, without filling my seat among the lobbyists at the State-House, that the remark was sometimes elicited from the members:

"Well, Mrs. Packard, you are faithful to your constituents."

"Yes, gentlemen, I am like the importunate widow, who was determined she would not be put off with the denial of her request. Now, gentlemen, when you pass my bill you can get rid of me, but not before!"

My first effort in the lobbying department commenced on the evening of my arrival at the Pacific House, where I met about twenty members in the reception room, to whom the kind-hearted landlord introduced me at my request. For about one hour I held their attention to the object of my mission, hoping by this elucidation of the subject to secure their intelligent co-operation. And as they left one by one remarking:

"Mrs. Packard, you may rely upon me as a helper,"

I felt that I had made a propitious beginning in the unique business of female lobbying.

At my first call at the Savery House as a lobbyist, I asked for an introduction to the "hardest case" they could produce, for me to convert into a defender of my bill. Hon. Mr. Claussen of the Senate, was then introduced to me in the public parlor, as "just the man," where we conversed for about one hour.

This Mr. Claussen was a most avowed anti-Woman's Right man, and it was mainly through his influence that the bill for woman's right to the ballot in Iowa had been "killed" in the Senate, the day after my arrival. So fearlessly and powerfully did he carry his magnetic force against the bill in a long speech he made in the Senate, that he was ever afterwards regarded as woman's greatest foe, by those who claim for her the right to the ballot.

Ignorant of these facts of his thus avowed committal against woman's cause, in my usual way, I dauntlessly defended her as the partner of her husband, who needed to be protected, as such. He patiently and silently listened until his manliness became so quickened into action as led him to exclaim:

"Well, Mrs. Packard, you have aroused a feeling of pity for woman. I do think you have been the victim of great injustice. What can I do to help prevent another such outrage against woman?"

"To please defend the merits of this bill, in the manner your own good judgment dictates; for you see we women are entirely dependent on your manliness for the enactment of laws for our protection."

"Yes, Mrs. Packard, I will gladly do so, for I never felt so much sympathy for woman's cause before. Have you any books on this subject?"

"Yes, Mr. Claussen, here is a history of my persecution, written by myself."

And handing him my book he took it, and paid me for it, saying:

"I shall read this book with the greatest pleasure."

From this date, I found in Mr. Claussen not only a firm friend, but also an able and efficient co-worker and advocate of my cause. Through his influence other members called for my books, and thus their silent influence was at work in connection with my own personal efforts in defense of our cause.

But the most unpropitious prospect I had to encounter in this line of lobbying business was presented on the evening of the day I changed my boarding place for one nearer the State-House, where I found two Senators and two House members hoarding. These members, like many others, I found had been "bored," as they termed it, by the female "Woman Rights" lobbyists, with their lectures on the subject of "Woman's Rights" so long and so persistently, that the subject had become a hackneyed one; and now to have a new recruit arrive, just as they had supposed they had finished their woman campaign for that season, by the death of the Woman Rights Bill the previous day, they could not but feel too great a degree of impatience and indignation at this prospect another attack, to prevent its manifestation in a hasty and premature condemnation of my cause!