Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1879-05-22

7
pend a pupil from the privileges Of
his school, unless he has been de-
prived of the power by the affirma.
tive action of the proper board.
In the present case we think that
the acts of misconduct alleged
against the REALTORS son in the return
to the alternative writ were of
character which justified the defend.
ant in suspending him temporarily
without the previous order of the
board of education. Although, for
the purposes of this appeal, the spec.
ifications of misconduct contained in
the return are admitted by the de
murrer, we abstain from setting them
out here because it might be unjust
to the relator and his son TO spread
those specifications upon our records
before there has been an opportunity
to controvert them.
II is believed that the conclusions
we have reached in this case are in
accord with the uniform rulings OF
the department of public instruction
on kindred questions. The decisions
by that department of questions with
in its jurisdiction are entitled to
great weight, and should never be
overruled by the courts unless clear
ly contrary to law.
Certain special grounds of demur-
rer are assigned, but We do not deem
it necessary to pass upon them. IF
any OF them are well assigned leave
should have been given to amend the
return in the particulars wherein it is
defective. Such leave would have
been given, doubtless, had the ruling
of the Circuit Court been based upon
the special grounds assigned.
1t follows from the foregoing
views that the Circuit Court erred in
sustaining the demurrer to the return.
We have grave doubts whether
the writ OF mandamus can issue in
any case to the teacher 10 charge OF
a public school to compel him to re-
instate suspended pupil, but have
concluded to leave that question uH-
determined on this appeal. We,how.
ever, suggest to counsel for the rela-
tor, the questions whether, in case
the averment in the return is true
that the board of education has rati-
fed and confirmed the act complained
of, the whole matter has not passed
beyond the control of the defendant
and whether the writ can now 90 to
any person or body other than the
board.
We may be permitted to add, in
conclusion, that our system of public
schools necessarily involves the most
delicate relations between parents
and children on one side, and the
school authorities on the other, and
controversies must frequently arise
growing out of the enforcement of
school discipline. These controver.
sizes, relating as they usually do to the
control, management and correction
OF pupils, are apt to have their origin
in wounded. paternal feelings, and
are frequently prosecuted with much
bitterness. 1t is cause for congratu-
lation that so few of these controver
sizes appear in the courts. Most of
them are determined by the superin
tendent of public instruction, whose
decisions are almost invariably ac-
guessed in. The result is due TO the
ability and good Judgment of the
gentlemen who have severally filed
that high Office for a long series of
years, aided as we doubt not many
Of them have been, by the valuable
couDsels of the present learned and
able assistant superintendent, who
has long served in that position
greatly to the benefit of the State.
We regret that this unfortunate con-
troversy could not have been adjust.
ed in the same manner.
The order of the Circuit Court is
reversed and the cause remanded for
further proceedings according to law.
Some of the points appended by
the editor of the Law Register, taken
from other decisions, are in sub.
stance as IOlloWS:
The authority Of the teacher with respect
to the correction of his pupils is analogous to
that which belongs to parents, and is regarded
as delegation of at least portion Of the
parental authority, and the presumptions are
in favor of the correctness of his action.
Blackstone says: "The master is IN loco
parents, and has such portion of the powers
of the parent committed TO his charge, viz:
that of restraint and correction, as NAV be
necessary to answer the purposes for which
he is employed"
He may not safely be trusted with all
parents authority. for he does not act from
the instinct of parental affection. He should
be guided and restrained by judgment and
wise discretion, and hence is responsible for
theil reasonable exercise.
II was held that the teacher was not au.
thorized to inflict corporal punishment upon
the child for the purpose of compelling il to
pursue study forbidden by the father. Nei-
Their has the teacher, under the orders of the
directors, power to expel pupil from the
school under such circumstances for declin-
ing to pursue a certain study forbidden by
the parent.
The authorities all concede the power Of
the teacher, under proper circumstances, to |
infiict reasonable corporal punishment up
on the pupil.
The reasonable rule was laid down, tina.
teacher in the exercise of the power of cor
poral punishment, must not make such power
a pretext for cruelty and oppression; but |
the cause must be sufficient; the instrument
suitable, and the manner and extent of the |
correction, the part of the person to which |
it is applied, and the temper in which It is |
inflicted, should be distinguished with the |
kindness, prudence and propriety which be- |
comes the station.
The welfare of the child is the main pur-
pose for which pain is permitted to be in
flcted. Any punishment therefore, which |
may seriously endanger life, limb or health, or |
shall disfgure the child, or cause any other |
permanent injury, may be pronounced in it.
srf immoiera,e,as not only being unnecessary |
for, but inconsistent with, the purpose for !
which correction is authorized. But any |
correction, however severe, which produces |
temporary pain only, and no permanent i'll, |
cannot be so pronounced, since it may have |
been necessary for the reformation of the
child, and does not injuriously affect its fu-
ture welfare.
He cannot be made penalty responsible for
error Of judgment, but only for wickedness |
of purpose.
The supervision and control of the master
over the pupil extends from the time he
leaves home to go to school till he returns
home from school.
No right to punish pupil for
misconduct committed after the dismissal of
school for the day and the return of the pu-
pill to his home, yet he may, on the pupils
return IN schooi punish him for any rnisbe- |