The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-08-12


the recent decision of Hon. IIoyt H. Wheel
er, given in the case of James Ferriter and
others VS.. James NJ. Tyler and others, in
| Brattleboro:
From the bill and answers so considered,
| it appears in substance that the orators,
some twenty eight in number, are all mem
bers of the Roman Catholic churches by
the usages and modes of worship of which
the day called Corpus Christi day is re-
garded and set apart as a holy day on which
it is the custom of all good Catholics to at
tend and to have their children attend d.
vine service that they are each parents of
| children who have been accustomed to at
tend the common schools of the defendant
school district, of which the other defend
ants are the prudential committee that this
committee and their predecessors in office
have, for the purpose of securing punctual
and regular attendance of scholars at school,
for long time had and enforced uniform
rule Of school that any scholar who should
be absent from school without permission
of the teacher or of the committee should
be suspended from further attendance du-
ring that term that children of the orators
scholars of the schools of this district, were
by direction of the orators and of the priest
of their church, absent from school on Cor
pus Christi day of this year, without per-
mission of either their teachers or of the
prudential committee, for the purpose of
| attending divine service according to the
! mode of worship of the orators; and that
| for that absence these scholars have been
suspended from the schools by the defend
ants for the remainder of the term. The
orators seek an injunction to restrain fur
Their suspension for that cause.
/
The public schools Of this state are pro-
vided for by laws enacted by the legisla-
ture at various times according to Il pro-
vision in Sec. 4 Of the constitution where
in it is declared that ga competent number
of schools ought TO be maintained in each
town for the convenient instruction of
youth. There could not well be a school
| for convenient instruction without some au-
thority to control the sessions of the school
and attendance of the scholars resting
somewhere besides in each parent severally.
In providing for the schools the legislature
has provided for this necessity by making
| it the duty of the prudential committee,
| 500, and of the town superintendent, $40,
| Chap. %, Gen. Stats, ''to adopt all re-
qusie measures for the inspection, exam
| ination and regulation of the schools and
for the improvement of the scholars in
learning and by making the measures of
the town superintendent paramount in cases
of disagreement or difference between
them. Laws of 1872, 50. Under these
provisions of the laws, the schools main
tanned are such as the committee and SUI
perintendent make them by the measures
they adopt pursuant to the authority given
them by the same power that created the
schools As they are regulated they are for
t1,sah aVN all lan nt thn
maintaining them proper to attend school
who comply with the regulations. These
laws have conferred upon the parents of all
such children the privilege of sending their
children to the schools upon compliance
with all the measures lawfully adopted, but
not an absolute right to send them without
regard to the regulations.
In delegatng to committees and super
intendents the authority to adopt all requi-
site measures for regulating the schools,
the legislature conferred upon them a trust
very important to scholars and parents as
they are con lected with the welfare OF the
schools In determining what measures to
adopt and how to enforce them, the COM
mttee and superintendent act in n capacity
that is in its nature judicial. So long as
they act within the scope of their authority,
and not in violation of any law of the state
their decisions in respect to these matters
subject to the superiority of the superin-
tendcnt over the committee, are final. The
right OF parent to send his child to schoo
and the right of the scholar to attend schoo
are each subordinate to this authority o
the committee and superintendent. This i,
apparent from the decision made in Guern
sew VS.. Pitkin, 80 VT. 224, where it wa.
; held that the committee might lawfully OK
10 l,p1, t,np spl,p .,
write English compositions when required
, Also from Spiler VS.. Woburn, -, Allen
= 127, in which it was decided that the com
4 mittee could properly exclude scholar
+ from school for refusing to bow her hea,
during prayer at the opening of the schoo
in the morning, according to IA regulation
made by the committee. Likewise from
Donahoe pro. ami VS.. Richards ct ais. 81
Maine $40, where the power of the com
5 mittee to require all scholars to read from
e the common version of the Bible and t
: expel the plaintiff from school for refusing
4, to comply with the requirement was full,
! sustained 1t is said in argument for tn
= orators that although the committee ma,
D have this authority as to scholars whe
e they are actually at school, it does not ex
tend so far as to give them any power t
Z. expel a scholar for anything done ava
= from school or for not attending school
But in Sherman VS.. Charlestown, Cusll
lG0 it was decided that the committee coul
lawfully exclude child from school whor
they deemed to be of II licentious minors
character was not manifested by any act
of RIGHTEOUSNESS or immortality within tn
school. Further, hardness and irregularit
in attendance disturb the operations an
hinder the usefulness of any school whel
th,,, ax,iet .,N1 th.r "a
y and regularity are essential to the well bC
ing of the schools as well in respect {
scholars who would not as to those VIII
would be tardy or irregular. The prevent
ion of tardiness or absence and the prone
ton of punctuality and regularity would ia
, vorably affect the school itself and tn
scholars actually there, and regulatio
that would accomplish or advance thos
things would be a requisite measure for tn
Improvement of the scholars in learning
As to the authority OF the committe
to exclude scholars, Allen j. in Stevenso
VS.. Hall, IA Barb. 222, said, speakin
of trustees who are similar officers 9Th
trustees have the power and it is their dut
. to dismiss or exclude pupil from III
school when in their judgment it is nece
sary for the good order and proper govern
ment of the schools SO to do" And Sha
Oh. j. in Spear VS. Cummings, 23 Picl
1877, said ,"but it is asked what is the rem
edy of parents and guardians whose chile
rem are refused the benefit of schools do
signed for the instruction OF all. We thin
il child of proper age and qualifications
rejected by the master the proper cours
y for the parent is to appeal to the committe,
If so, on their requisition the master shou
refuse to accent the pupil, they would ha,
= ample means to enforce their authority |
IN means of their contract with the master.
TO they shall approve and confirm the act
y the master we are TO believe that there
good and sufficient cause for the rejectiC
:, of the pupil. The law will not presun
is that the committee who are invested wi
10 the power of superintendence and manag
IS. ment will act arbitrarily and unjustly in
lie matter submitted to their Judgement"
'e 1t is also urged in argument that the G
fnrcempnt of this rulp fnr tho raosons &