Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1876-03-03


education but It is only our province TO
interpret aud give application and effect TO
The constitution and laws as they exist.
The court does not make the law, either
constitutional or statutory, but OUly ad-
ministers it in cases as they are presented
for consideration aud decision. The part
of the opinion in Donahue y. Richards, SS
Maine Rep. $40, and the cases cited, which
bear on this ground OF the present case, are
worthy OF attention by all who may be in
terested in the subject.
Pursuing no fufther the discussion of this
ground and aspect OF tho case, 1t iS proper
here to remark, tliat the note of the priest 10
The committee did not state any ground for
asking for the exemption from attending
school on the particular day in question,
nor was the application limited TO that day,
nor did 1t name that lay at all; but it was an
application for dispensation, as matter of
favor on the part Of the committee, from at
tendance "on all holy days" with nothing
indicating claim Of right made upon the
committee; and so, no cause, reasonable or
otherwise, was presented, in view OF which
the committee could be put in position OF
official fault by not giving leave OF absence
on that day.
Then, az to the condition, on which only
they would let the absenting scholars re-
turn TO their schools SIN that they assert
ed their right TO enforce the rule Of exclu-
sion for the residue of the term. So far as
rights of conscience under the constitution
are involved, they were not precluded Of
Al. -. ,l,.a Il. 81 ,,,t
render invalid the law under which the
committee claim authority 10 make and on
force that rule, nor the rule itself, as wo
have already shown.
1t remains now 10 be considered whether
the bill can be maintained ON the other
ground, namely: the prerogative OF pa
rents 10 control their children as scholars,
as against the prerogaliye of the committee
TO make and enforce the rule in question.
This does not involve any right, or ques-
lion of conscience under the constitution,
but only the matter OF legal right under the
statutes as 10 public schools. In this case
it Is not question of discipline or punish
ment OF the scholar, as 1t was in Lander y.
Seaver, 80 Vermont l4I, or as it was involv-
ed in the case of Morrow y. Wood Uowa)
Law Register, Nov. 1874, page 692. By our
statutes the committee are charged with the
duty Of "adopting all requisite measures
&c, as before recited. The graded school
in Brattleboroush is organized and acts in
pursuance OF the statutes in that behalf.
The committee are chosen and charged with
their duties under the same statutes. They
adopted rules for the regulation Of the
schools, and for the improvement OF tho
scholars in learning. The rule in question
is for the purpose of inducing and enGorc-
ing constancy in attendance. That such
cops,ancy is essential 10 such improve
ment is not debaiable. That such attend
auce Is requisite, as matter of regulation, in
order to the necessary classification OF the
scholars in reference 10 age, capacity, stud
les and proficiency, is not debatable.
Those who attend constantly cannot be re-
quired 10 linger. in order thst the incon-
slant may keep along with them nor can
such inconstant scholars keep equal pace
with those who attend constantly. Thu
rule, then, is such as is contemplated by the
statute, So far as the purpose Of il is con-
cerned. That purpose is Indispensable to
the attainment Of the object and end pro-
posed by the statutes, both as TO the indi-
vidual scholar, and as to all others who
may be affected by his attendance and ab-
sence. The answer states, as before recited,
that the rule had been in operation for more
than ten years. The children of the ora
tors were subjected 10 its operation in the
present instance. Was that unlawful2
If the orators had the right 10 control
the attendance octheir children as against
that rule, then the committee had not the
right to maintain aud enforce such rule.
We are not prepared 10 sanction view OF
the subject that would subordinate the au-
thority of the committee, in the matter OF
the attendance Of registered scholars, TO the
will OF parents. On the other hand, we do
not hesitate TO hold and declare az matter of
law, that, in this respect, the citizen is in
subordination TO the lawful rules for the
regulation of schools and the improvement
of scholars in learning; aud this is for the
81 me fundamental reason that lie is in sub
ordination to the statutes themselves, on
that, or any other subject and it is no
more his right TO defy or disregard those
rules, than it is to defy and disregard any
statute that affects him as a citizen in re-
| spect to schools, or any other subject in
volving the common veal, as 1t is 10 be pro-
vided for under the constitution by the leg
islation OF the Slate. The occasion does
not require u repetition of the trite max
inns as to the surrender Of natural rights as
q condition of citizenship under the gov
| Ia hxyt hn rop,opk
that If the citizen, either on the score OF
conscience, or of parental prerogative, or in
any other respect, finds himself unduly
curbed and restricted in what he regards
his personal rights, natural or otherwise, by
the constitution and the constitutional laws
of the State, there is available TO him the
beheticent declaration of Article XIX.
1t suffices to recur TO some of the leading
cases that have been before the courts, some
OF them involving the prerogative ofteach'
ers and committees Immediately over schol-
ars, where parents have not interposed
some of them involving that prerogativein 10
respect 10 scholars where, as in this case,
parents have interposed. or the former
kind is Guernsey U. Pitkin, 81 Vermont,
224, where, by the concurrence of commit
tee and teacher, the plaintiff was virtually
excluded from the school, because he would
not comply with the requirement upon all
scholars in grammar, to write compositions
In that case there was no prescribed penal
ty constituting part of the rule of require
ment, but the ponalty was extemporized tc
meet the exigency. The prerogative OF the
committee and teacher, both as to require
ment and penalty, was maintained. In
Landers y. Seaver, SO Vermont, ia, the