Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1875-12-25
THE ROD.
How and In What Manner if May be
Legally used-Relati0ns or Pupils to
TO Their Teachers.

The legal relations of teachers to-
ward their pupils being question of
general interest, we give the opinion
delivered by Justice Baskefte, We'd
Desday. in the Fogg school case
The defendant is arraigned for aa
assault and battery upon the person of
Ralph Trabue. The relation between
the defendant and Ralph is that OF
teacher and pupil. The defendant
then stands an loco pdrsntis. What
would be the parent authority for the
good Of the child would likewise be
that of the teacher, and the law has
very properly guarded the rights Of
both parties. The authority of the
parent over the child does not permit
him to exercise that authority in a
cruel wanton manner so the authority
of the teacher over that of the pupil
must not be exercised wantonly and
without cause, but in moderation and
with discretion.
Under the law, tho teacher, ike the
parent, has the same right TO enforce
obedience to the rules of the school, as
the parent has to enforce obedience TO
the rules of his household, but this
right must be exercised with discre-
ton and moderation, beyond this
neither has any right to go. Theright
of a parent to chastise a refractory
and disobedient child is so necessary
to the good government Of a family,
and good order of society, that no NOR
alist or lawgiyer has ever questioned it,
Tkar. - q ,.o& al "a ,o&,o-. - ,.....,ak
ment. but the excess of punishment.
which will constitute an offense. In
subordination In a family would lead
to disastrous results II not checked by
parental authority. Whatever author
ity ia necessary TO enforce obedience
may be exercised BY the parent, so IL
is exercised in moderation and reason.
The teacher, standing N the place os
the parent. has the right to enforce
obedience from refractory and disobe-
dent pupil, and even to use the rod
when necessary. InsuboTdination and
disobedience on the part Of a pupil
could not be tolerated in n school
without producing endless mischief,
hence the law clothes the teacher-he
standing in the place of the parent
with power and authority to enforce
obedience. The scholar, like thechild,
being helpless and in the power of the
teacher, he will not be allowed wan,
tonly to exercise his authority, and
abuse with impunity, by taking ven
geance into his own hands.
The Supreme Court in the case Of
the State vs.. Anderson, Sd Head, say
that government should be patriarchal
rather than despotic. The relation is
that of superior and inferior; hence
il is the duty of the pupil to obey. and
he has no right to disobey the rules of
the school. If be does, the teacher
has the power vested in him to correct
/ for the disobedience in moderate and
reasons bic way, and it is as much his
duty to enforce obedience as it is the
duty of the pupil to yield obedience.
The relation between the defendant
and the party alleged to have been as
saulted being that Of teacher sndpapil,
the chastisement g presumed to have
been proper, and the State must show
that the chastiserlent was excessive.
Now, applying the law TO the facts
in this case the prisoner will be dis
charged.-NashUik american.