The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1884-08-16
EDUCATIONAL.
The Question OF Corporal Punish.
mcnt in Our Public
Schools.
Professor Eliot on the Import
ancc Of Liberal
Education.
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOLS.

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOLS.
Charles l.. Dana in recent article
in the JOurHai Of EduC0ttOH says, the
important influence is the resort that
has been had by offended parents to
the law, thus bringing the matter be-
fore the courts to settle the power and
authority of the teacher in this respect.
These cases thus settled are numerous,
and all seem to agree that this author
ity is much the same as that of the
parent over the child, only in a less de-
gree; it being maintained that rs the
parent is restrained in the intliction of
punishment by a natural parental af-
lection, the teacher having no such re-
straint, is more likely to be unnecessa-
rily severe, and is hence, liable to be
arraigned in cases where the parent
would not be liable. An interesting
case between master and pupil came
up before Vermont court twenty-five
years ago, in which Hon. G.. L. Ed
munds. now senator from that State,
was counsel for the defendant. The
teacher was returning home after
school, and while passing the house of
pupil, the latter insulted him. On
the opening of school the next morn
ing the teacher administered sound
fogging. The parent brought an &C
ton for damages, but lost his case in
the lower court. The decision, howcv-
er, was reversed in the higher court,
thereby granting new trial Tho
case involved the question of excessive
punishment, which is certainly diff
cult point To determine, as the opin-
ions rendered by different judges indi-
cate. The judge in this case declared
that punishment, which should break
one OF the pupils limbs, or permanent
~ injure his health, to be excessive in
the eye of the law; anu upon that point
all decisions are unanimous. He furth-
er more declared that the amount of
the punishment should be regulated
according to the offence, the age, and
size of the pupil. From this and other
eases we also learn that the punish
ment must be for the good of the
school, aud not to crafty personal
malice. And the same punishment, If
for the good of the school, might not
be subject to a fine, which, il shown To
be afflicted in a malicious spirit, would
be liable. All agree that the question
of excessive punishment is a difficult
one to settle, and that the benefit of
the doubt should always be on the
side OF the master. Indeed, in most
of the cases that have come before
courts, where the teacher has not gross
ly superseded his authority, he seems
to be the favored party. In one case
decided in North Carolina, nearly fifty
years ago, the judge was especially
lenient toward the teachers. In clos
ing his remarks he said: Although
these rules (Which he had just cited)
leave it in their (Ihc teachers power
to commit acts of indiscreet severity
with legal impunitv. these indiScretions
will probably find their check and cor
rection in parental affection and in
public opinion; and. If they should not,
they must be tolerated as part of
those imperfections and inconvenience
which no human law can wholly re-
move or redress.
So much for the legal phase of tho
question. But in the tender age of so
large proportion of the pupils in our
schools, in the dullnessnes of some
minds, and in the influences which sur
round them in the home, We can see