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

/
In Sherman y. Charlestown, $, Gushing
100, the plaintiff was expelled from school
on account of licentieus and immoral char
acter, though not manifested by auy acts
within the school. The action was found
ed on a statute of Mass, emitting a party
TO recover damage for being uulawfully
excluded from public school instruction.
In that case there was no prescribed rule
! on the subject, either of requirement or
penalty. Ch. ]. Shaw, in the course of an
opinion which would be instructive and
salutary 10 all 10 read and ponder, says
at seems 10 be admitted, If not it could
hardly be questioned, that for misconduct
in school, for disobedience 10 its reasona-
BILE regulations, pupil may be excluded.
Why sof There is no express provision
| in the law las il then was) authorizing such
exclusion 1t results by necessary lmpli-
cation from the provisions Of law requir-
| ing good discipline. 1t proves that Me
right 10 attend is not absolute, but one 10 be
enjoyed by al on reasonable conditions"
Again "But the court are of opinion .
that power is vested in the general school
committee, or the master with their appro-
baton and direction, TO exclude a pupil
- fer good and sufficient cause" Ste
phenson y. Hall & al, IA Barb. IN. " 222,
was an action against the defendants for
| expelling, as trustees, the daughter of the
| plaintiff from a public school. She had
been excluded by the teacher, for alleged
misconduct, with the concurrence of the
defendants. On appeal to the Superintend-
-, l. 0n1
the school on certain conditions of prom
ise as TO future conduct, with a confession
that she had done wrong. She refused to
comply with the conditions. Allen j., in
the course OF the opinion, says, "it is un-
doubtedly true that trustees have the pow
er, and it is their duty, TO dismiss, or ex-
clude pupil from their school, when, in
their Judgment, it is necessary for the good
order and proper government of the school
80 20 do"
We have carefully studied the Iowa case
of Morrow y. Wood, before cited, and not
only find nothing in conflict with the other
cases decided, but that the ideas expressed
by Julge Cole are in harmony with the
other cases. In that case the teacher re-
quired boy TO study Geography. His ia
ther, for good reasons, wanted him to de-
vote himself 10 other studies, requiring all
his time and strength without Geography.
The boy, in obedience TO his fathers direc-
tion, refused to study Geography, and the
teacher whipped him. Hence the suit. 1t
appears that Geography was one of the
studies required by law to be taught; but
there was no law requiring any scholar, or
particular description Of scholars, TO study
| 1t. There was no rule of the school, be-
sides the arbitrary requirement of The
teacher, which would make it tine duty OF
the boy TO pursue that study.
Judge Cole says-"The statute gives the
school board power to make all need.ul
rules and regulations for the organization,
| graduation and government of the school,
and power 10 suspend any pupil from the
privileges of the school for non-conpli-
ance with the rules established by them,
or by the teacher with their consent"
1t does not appear, nor is it inlerable, that
the school board had made a rule requir-
ing the boy to study Geography, or had
given their consent 10 the requirement of
the teacher.
The question then was, whether the
teacher had justiiable cause for whipping
the boy. The court held, that she had not,
and in the discussion, held that, on tho
facts in the case, the father had the right to
direct as to the study of Geography by his
son. We see no occasion for differing
with that court in that case. In tho course
of the opinion it is said, sit is not proposed
to throw any obstacle in the way of the
performance of their duties" by The school
board. Again, tive do not propose to lay
down any rule which will Interfere with
any reasonable regulation adopted for the
management and government of the public
schools, or which will operate against their
efficiency and usefulness. Certain studies
are required 10 be taught in the public
schools by statute. The rights of one pu-
pill must be so exercised undoubtedly as
not to prejudice the equal rights of others.
But the parent has the right to make rea-
sonable selection from the prescribed stud
les for his child 10 pursue, and this cannot
possibly conflict with the equal rights OF
other pupils. In the present case the par
ent did not insist that his child should take
any study outside of the prescribed course"
"And how it can result disastrously to the
proper discipline, efficiency and well-being
of the common schools to concede the para
mount right to make a reasonable choice
from the studies in the prescribed course
which his child shall pursue, is PROPOSE
tion we cannot understand" And this, as
we'll as all that was said by the judge, is to
be taken as said in a case where there was
no rule as TO the study of Geography by
the boy, except The personal arbitrary COM
mand upon him of the teacher. How this
court would decide in case involving the
question Of superiority of authority be-
tween the parent and the school board, as
to the pursuit of a study required by the
established rule of that board, we have
now no occasion to announce or intimate.
Nor had that court any such question be-
fore 1t.
In this connection it is interesting to refer
to the case OF Spiller .. Woburn II, Allen
127, in which girl by direction OF her ia.
ther, refused to bow her head during pray.
er at the opening of the school, and where
the father refused to request that she nigh
not be required to, the rule on that subject
providing that scholars would not be re-
quired TO, whose parents should reques
that they might not be so required. Ch
]. Blgelow delivered the opinion OF The
court, which held that it was lawful for The
committee to expel her from the school fol
such disobedienee to the rule. And fur
ther in the same connection, the case o
Spear y. Cummings % Pick, 224 is worthy
of attention, in which Ch. ]. Shaw says