Library Collections: Document: Full Text

My husband then ordered two of his church members to take me up in their arms and carry me to the wagon, and thence to the cars, in spite of my lady-like protests, and regardless of all my entreaties for some sort of trial before commitment.

I made no physical resistance to this order, but told my husband I should not go voluntarily into an asylum, and leave my six children, and my precious babe, without some kind of trial.

He replied, "I am doing as the laws of Illinois allow me to do. You have no protection in law but myself, and I am protecting you now! It is for your good I am doing this; I want to save your soul! You don't believe in total depravity, and I want to make you right."

"Husband, have I not a right to my opinion?"

"Yes; you have a right to your opinions if you think right."

"But does not the Constitution defend the right of private judgment to all American citizens?"

"Yes, to all citizens it does defend this right. But you are not a citizen; while a married woman, you are a legal nonentity, without even a soul in law. In short, you are dead as to any legal existence, while a married woman, and therefore have no legal protection as a married woman."

I could not then credit this statement, but now know it to be too sadly true, for the statute of Illinois expressly states that a man may put his wife into an insane asylum without evidence of insanity. The law now stands on 96th page, section 10, of Illinois statute -- book, under the general head of "Charities!" It was passed Feb. 15th, 1851, and reads thus:

"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 of the woman or the guardian of the infant, 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 a 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 her 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 'false imprisonment' for life in an insane asylum?"

This statute law thus coinciding with the nonentity principle of the common law, demonstrates the truth of Mr. Packard's statement.

Thus I learned my first lesson in that chapter of common law, which denies to married women a legal right to her own identity or individuality.

The scenes transpiring at the parsonage, were circulated like wild-fire throughout the village of Manteno, and crowds of men and boys were rapidly congregating at the depot, about one hundred rods distant from our house, not only to witness the scene, but fully determined to stand by their pledge to my son Isaac, that his mother should never leave Manteno depot for an insane asylum.

The long two-horse lumber wagon in which I was conveyed from my house to the depot, was filled with strong men as my body guard, including Mr. Packard, his deacons, and Sheriff Burgess, of Kankakee city, among their number. When our team arrived at the depot, Mr. Packard said to me:

"Now, wife, you will get out of the wagon yourself, won't you? You won't compel us to lift you out before such a large crowd, will you?"