The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1869-01-15

the Dement'S OF the ScnOOi, from II 10f q
week as well as for day; yea, for
month, or even for whole term, and
this too because of the unwiilingness or
inability of the parent TO write an ex-
cuse, and not through any fault of the
child.
The State has a deep interest in the ed
ucation of her children. Her welfare
her very existence, may depend upon the
intelligence of her citizens-an intelli-
gence which che seeks to secure to them
through the instrumentality of her COM
mon schools i; nor viii she stand by and
tamely submit to an invasion of her
rights, in this particular, IN a single in
stance. She will look With jealous
eye upon every police regulation of her
common schools that tend to deprive
though for but a day. Cogent must be
the reason, and great the necessity for
such a regulation ere she would sane
ton it.
Great latitude of discretionary pow
er is claimed for The teacher by reason
of the loco PARENTS relation he bears to
the pupil. This doctrine of loco paren-
tiS, as applied to teachers has in days
past been like the cloak of charity. COW
ering multitude of sins, in the school
room; but thanks to the progressive
spirit of the age in which we live, Sc
we're fiagellation, knocking the head
with heavy ruler, blistering the hand
with the cruel ferule, the Ounce stool,
paper cap and leather spectacles, are
now justly looked upon as the relics of
country teachers of our common schools
have ever been held in restraint by the
law. But granting that the teacher is
armed with loco parental authority,
when does it attach to him? We an
swer, during schookhours, through the
recess, and possibly whilst the pupil is
coming to and returning from school !;
it can extend no further than this. The
moment the child arrives at home the
teachers power over it ends and the par
amount authority of the parent prevails.
Such bodies as our district school
boards are unknown to the common
law. They are altogether creatures OF
municipal law their powers and duties
are such as are prescribed by statute
hence it will hardly be contended that
loco parents towards the children at
tending the common schools.
The defendants claim to derive theiI
authority in the premises from the pro-
visions of section II of our school law,
which reads as follows: "The district
schools established under the provisions
of this act shall, at all times, be equally
free and accessible to all the children
resident therein over five and under the
age of twenty-one years, subject to such
regulations as the district board in eacK
may prescribe"
Power to regulate a thing does no.
imply power to destroy it; nor does
| the power to regulate the admission O.
children into our schools, their attend
unce and conduct in the same, imply {
! power to prohibit them from any of the
advantages which the State designs
/ them to receive from this source. Thu
| various provisions of tire school Law
supply ample means and occasion fol
the exercise of all this power granted il
section II, without resorting to a regu
lation of such doubtful .propriety as til,
one i'll question.
The regulations mentioned in thi
/ section obviously are those which affec
/ the school as an organized body-sucl
as establishing different departments an,
determining what description of pupil
what branches taught; the hour of com
mencing and closing each day the du
ration of recess, etc., etc. In providin:
suitable police regulations for TIL
/ school, the board must confine its &C
tons to the school and those composin,
it; the law gives it no authority what
ever over parents and guardians; j
would be better perhaps if it were 9th
! erwise we would feel no reluctance il
administering law that would impos
heavy penalty upon the parent VIII
unnecessarily keeps his child out O
school. The question, however, is no
what the law SHOULD be, but what it Is
! Whilst we are free to concede to til
[, school board of district No. the mos
laudable motives i'll adopting the regu
lation under consideration yet, wit
due Difference to their Judgment, we sin
cercly doubt its expediency. 1t present
to the boy who is disposed to be roguisl
a strong temptation to forge an excuse
and thus play truant with impunity
again there would probably in a major
ity of cases be a compliance with tn
letter of the rule whilst its spirit woul,
be violated; almost every kind hearte,
mother would be induced to write al
excuse for her truant boy, thus defeat
ing the object of the rule.
Are children any less the object of tn
/ laws protection than adults May thos
great principles of natural justice whicl
! men claim for their protection be disre
garded in our treatment of children
The smallest child that attends our pub
| lie schools is as quick to perceive
wrong inflicted upon it, and keenly feel
| the outrage as men do any invasion o
| their rights. Whilst we are bestowin;
so much thought upon the rights o
I men, the rights Of women and even TIL
| rights of rebels, it would be we'll t,
! give some attention to the rights O
children. These remarks will appea
more pertinent when taken in consider
alton with what we say in conclusion
| From the view we have taken of thi
I case we are constrained to hold the reg
/ lation in question unreasable.
l. Because neither teacher nor school