New-York tribune., 1867-08-02
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF INSTRUCTION
THIRTY-EIGHTH ANNUAL MEETING.

From Our Special correspondent '.''
BosToS, Wednesday July 81, 1861
The session Of the Thirty eighth Annual
Meeting of lie American Institute of Instruction
commenced ia the fremont Temple at 81 o'clock
to-day. Wn. e. Sheldon Of this city, President, in
the Chair. rhe exercises were opened with prayer
by the Rev. = II. lockwood of the american Tract
Society.
The Presidnt introduced Dr. John A. Lamson,who
in brief address, welcomed the Institute 10 tins clty
in behalf Ofthe School Committee and the citizens
of Boston. The President responded IN an appro-
pirate manner, somewhat eulogistic OF Boston, III
which he alnded to the foundation of the Institute
in this city,and to the great benefits which nave
already beenderived from its labors.
The President in opening the business or the meet-
ing said tina he trusted all teachers and friends Oh
education woIld freely take part III the deliberations
and not, as N some other occasions, allow 1t 10 De
said on gOin; away, that they had not spoken what
they really fought on the important subjects before
the Institute
A report or an amendment to the Constitution sub,
mitted by th President, was accepted and referred
to a commtte, providing that 81 annually shall be
paid by members who arc TO receive bound volume
of the transactions, and in default of payment shall
cease TO DO MEMBERS.
School Dseipline-its objects and methods, was
announced IS the subject for discussion, and Mr.
Lincoln, Master of tho Lyman School
Boston, read a paper on the subject; In elGei-
dation of the subject he contended for the
necessity of ,hysical force as method of discipline in
public schools. He thought that many persons IN
favor of the dsuse of force if called to teach, would
change their minds on tne kuDJcCl, anu III
stauced Charles Sumner as a notable instance OF
change in th of force bv governments as shown
by his action during the War, in contrast with hls
former FouIh of July OratiOns IL the advocates
of the abolition of force in schools could abolish
tho necessit of tho use Of force they would
receive the hanks of theteachers or the country
Reference was made TO various eXpedents as suDsti-
tutes for coporal punishment, such as expulsion
from schoosand the establishment OF Botany bay
schools for refractory pupils to all when ooJeclon5
were made md an argument for force was derived
from the acton of the Government IN the recent war;
DIR. John Ordway of Boston, continued the dlscns.
sion 1t wa his belief that CORPORA nsad ths
BOwditch ScioOl in this city an important instance
in which thee had been no punishments during the
past year willie in the previous year not less IMAM
from 100 to 90 eases occurred The difference was IN
the teachers, one believing IN whipping whie the
other did not
A letter wa read from DR.. Shipper, Superintendent
of Schools Philadelphia showing the opposition OF
that gentleman to corporal punishment ~ ,,.,.L,.
DR.. VIM. NJ. Cornell recently OF Phladelphlai,
made some Teuarks relative to the management Oh
the Public Sehlols in Philadelphia, saying that cor,
poral punishment had not been abolished IN all OF
| the schools He believed that Solomon saw enough
| in his fathers family TO convince NM that spailnS
The REV. Mr. Hammond of Monsop, called atten-
tion to the point of ISSUE which he c0nsldered was
compulsory toIce, whether by corporal punishment
or the use of sharper punishment by the tongue In
! place of no cOGcon. lie was satisfied that corpoIai
punishment w.s sometimes necessary, anu ne ooun III
| not assent to bat policy which wOuld ueStroy an
| power Of COeTdOn over children :, -
| Mr. Hil of Lynn said he had been called n non
resistant in stloOl discipline and gave some Oh ils
| experience years since as master OF the nigh
| School i'm Dangers After taking the sense oil l9e
scholars as to Gleir conduct, which was unNersiuS
assented to- hei0und almost lmmedatsiy ,n;li sne3
went contraryto tlcir professions, and pnnlShme5e
was admmistoeG, the parties subsequently ackhO"i
| cdping the beA,its of it,
| Mr' Crnttenien of New-York said he conf
menced teaching in Now-Yors in 1885, on the princi-
| pies of moral suasion in school where the boys
graduated tbs teacher instead OF tle teacheI So 10
| uatiup the pupas After teaching Six weeks as ne
supposed with the best effect, he was assured Dy
the father of DE of the boys that there hau 0teh
formed conspiracy to eXpel hlm nom nc sEhool .o
next daV and was warned to prepare himself accord,
| inglv lie was surprised, but deteruned 20 lhWaVt
the Conspiracy and the next day called mp the BOYS
and punished iAen when discip!he was s%.JIoS % toi
| tLe future Afho began life in the belief that S0io
mon was afo0, he was now convlnceu tub' tno fools
were nj the othu end of the rule. ie was sorry ia
see sentiment attributed p fToi Agassz, that !,
puni,hInent. Ie referred TO further experience by
hun IN teaching and denounced the practice ol turn
"lullIcu tito the street. % OF ini'ictlng Greater
mischief tnai '''''"nhe corporal punishment. a"
| citizen he had duty To perform tO the community
| i'm preventing children from becoming criminals
| Mr. Strong OF ofConnocticut offered resolution ex
pressing the thinks OF the Institute 10 Mr. Lincoln
fur his paper and adopting It's sentiments as those o
! Dr.. ordway said nc was confident he was in mi
be was drsiTols or OHuIins his protest against its
| adoption, bofon leaving the Convention As ply
scian. lac had IN many cases known OF injuries IN
hiced for life ~ punishment and read letter rom
Thomas Huntoc Mas er of School No y, New-lOrk.
! ~ evidence tlat good discipline conld be secured
| " hout resort1g TO corporal punishment. His as
sOcaie on the school Committee had spoken OF the
| majority Of the Committee being opposed To his
! views. but he would assure him that the time would
| come when he would find himself in a minority.
Mr.. Allen of Newton said, that IL he offended
against ply ysRa law the punishuient was OF phys
| ical character. and OF moral or intellectual IN
fringement Of avs. the punishment was of charac-
| tor in md IL been
| treated ia the spirit which Horace Mann would
treat it, nor dill ii meet the practical question which
was involved, which was how should the teacher en-
deayor 10 get abng with less and less punishment
! Mr. Haear Principal Of the Normal School, Salem,
| said II was important that the views ot teachers on
this subject shoIld be fully and plainly made known
for their success in teaching must rest mainly ON the
prevailing pubic sentiment, He ndoTsed from first
TO last the sen tmonts Of the paper OF Mr. Lincoln
Mr.. Hagar resuming. said If anything was true IT
il was that God does inlict physical punishment for
moral wrong in cases Of debauchegy OF various de-
scriptions. In regard to Horace Mann it was but
lust to say, that if he protested against the use OF
| corporal punishment no man could more bitterly
| castgate Ia NDTGs :!:@I be. ....-t
! Some conversation occurred relative to the views
! of Horace Nam on corporal punishment Mr., Allen
insisting that In residence OF one year in hs family
| before removal to Ohio. his whole influence was
| against such punishment. Mr. Lincoln read from
lectures of MI Mann TO shCw that he did favor cor
pOIal punishment IN reality and mot as a show,
| citing Language unequivOcally in its favor.
Mr. BatchelGer of Lynn said he frequently had
conversations with Mr. Mann on the subject and
while it was tine tlat he was opposed TO corporal
punishment in 1895 subsequently in the delivery OF
the lectures in question. he had changed his views,
and wished 10 have those views stand as those by
which he wished 20 be remembered.
Committees were announced on the nominations Of
candidates foi oicers-Ehe President declining re-
election-and on other objects.
The further discussion of Discipline and lts uses,
was assigned 10 Thursday morning, when tho meeting
adjourned TO evening, to hear lecture 10y o: q.
Thompson Of Abingdon Mass, substituted for that
OF Prof Scelye OF Amherst College, absent,
COLLEGE COMMENCEMENTS.