Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1879-05-22
Can Teacher Suspend a Scholar
Relation OF Teacher tc Scholar
Control, Punishment. etc

well as other people sometimes think
OF the welfare of the people. The
document is probably the best one
extant on the subject of the control a
teacher has over his pupils, in the
State OF Wisconsin. 1t is a decision
by the Supreme Court, with profuse
notes by the editor of the American
Law Register, in which publication
it appears. The case in court was
that in December, 1877, the principal
of the GAINESVILLE High School sus-
pended and expelled from said
school a sixteen year old boy, nam.
ed George Burpee, for "continued
misconduct, persisted in by him af.
ter patient, kind and friendly advice
by his teachers to abstain therefrom,
to the injury and decentralization OF
his class and other pupils in the
school," The suspension was re.
ported to the Board of Education,
which approved and ordered it con.
tinued. The teacher gave notice Of
the suspension and its cause to the
boys father. The father sued out in
Circuit Court writ of mandamus--
to compel the teacher to readmit the
boy to the privileges of the school.
The Circuit Court sustained the wri,
and ordered the teacher to admit the
boy. The teacher appealed to the
Supreme Court, which reversed the
Circuit Courts decision, without dis.
sent, Judge Lyon delivering the
opinion. The following is the opin.
ion in full-the reader will under
stand that the "relator" is the boys
father, and the defendant is the
teacher:
The power of the Board of Educa.
ton to suspend pupil from the priv.
ileges of the school under its charge,
and even to suspend him, for persis-
tent misconduct, is freely conceded
by the learned counsel for the rela.
tor That the acts of misconduct
charged against the REALTORS in the
defendants return to the alternative
writ of mandamus, furnished sufficient
grounds for suspending him, we can.
not doubt. And moreover, if he W as
lawfully suspended, no sufficient
grounds for restoration are stated in
the affidavit for the writ. Indeed
the return shows af'lrmatively that
he has not placed himself in a posi-
ton to entitle him to restoration.
On the argument of the appeal,
counsel informed us that the learned
circuit judge held that the defendant
has no power to suspend the pupil
for any cause, such power being yes
ted by law exclusively in the Board
of Education, and that the demurrer
to the return was sustained on that
ground.
Whether the defendant has such
powers OF suspension, and if SO,
whether it was properly exercised in
the present case, are the controlling
questions to be determined on this
appeal.
While the principal. or teacher in
charge of public school is subordi
rate to the school board of education
of his district or city, and must en-.
force rules and regulations adopted
by the board tor the government of
the school, and execute all its lawful
orders in that behalf, he does not de.
rive all his power and authority in
the school and over his pupils from
the affirmative action of the board.
He stands for the time being in loco
PARENTS to his pupils, and because OF
that relation he must necessarily ex-
ercise authority over them in many
things concerning which the board
may have remained silent. In the
school, as in the family, there exists
on the part OF the pupils the obliga
tons of obedience to lawful com
mands, subordination, civil deport-
ment, respect for the rights of other
pupils and fidelity to duty. These
obligations are inherent 10 any prop
err school system, and constitute, 80
to speak, the common law of the
school. Every pupil is presumed to
know the law and is subject to it,
whether it has or has not been re.en.
acted by the district board in the
form of written rules and regulations.
Indeed it would seem impossible to
frame rules which would cover all
cases of insubordination and all acts
Of vicious tendency which the teach
err is liable to encounter daily and
hourly.
The teacher is responsible for the
discipline of his school, and for the
progress, conduct and department of
his pupils. 1t is his imperative duty
to maintain good order and to re.
quire of his pupils faithful perform.
ance of their duties. If he fails to do
so he is unfit tor his position. To en-.
able him to discharge these duties eff.
fectually, he must necessarily have
the power to enforce prompt obedi-
ence TO his lawful commands. For
this reason the law gives him the
mower in DrODar casas tn inf1iot COR
poral punishment upon refractory pu-
pills. But there are cases of miscon.
duct for which such punishment is
an inadequate remedy. II the often.
der is incorrigible, suspension or ex-
pulsion is the only adequate remedy.
In general, no doubt, the teacher
should report case of that kind to
the proper board for its action in the
first instance, il no delay will neces.
sarily result from that course preju-
dicial to the best interests of the
school. But the conduc. of the re
cusant pupil may be such that his
presence in the school for day or
an hour may be disastrous to the
discipline of the school. and even to
the morals Of the other pupils. In
such case it seems absolutely essen
tial to the welfare of the school that
the teacher should have the power to
suspsnd the offender at once from the
privileges of the school; and he must
necessarily decide for himself wheth-