The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1886-04-15
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.

MIR. EDITOR: In the Teachers Col.
umn two weeks ago there appeared q
letter written BY one J. r. Newton. In
his epistolary discourse, Mr.. Newton
took occasion to censure right vigorously
a composition Of mine, which, at your
option, was published some time since in
the Teachers Column. In that compo-
sition, I expressed myself as being in
favor Of corporal punishment as stimu.
liant TO students of a certain class. My
friend does not agree with me. BE evi-
dently thinks me school teacher. Let
me undeceiye him: I am school boy.
He positively asserts that one of such
hostile demonstrations as myself should
be banished from the civilizing and tran
QUILTING influences of refined society,
and put vigorously at work with the
Sditching shovel or at manling rails.
Whence he arrives at this very sage con-
clusion, he does not fully explain.
Whether the teacher whose lot it was, in
days of yore, to superintend his mental
training, used the stimulant mentioned'
with such diligence as to beget in him an
uncomfortable aversion to it, he forbears
to state; but, evidently, he is opposed to
: it.
Ny: friend illustrates the point he
wishes to make by comparing the boy to
a horse. A sensible horse-master, he
says, does not train his horse by beating
him. No; he does it by kindness.
Since the boy is like horse, lie too must
be trained by kindness.
Adopting his plan, will compare the
boy to mule. Some boys are very
much like mules. That animal not being
noted for his industrious habits and being
very stubborn, when so disposed, the
stimalant have mentioned is used upon
him with telling effect. To the extent
that boys are like mules they must be
! treated as mules. AS long as boys aoiV
be lazy and stubborn and incorrigible,
some means must be used to check this
too great outflow of the animal spirits.
This want is exactly supplied by the
hickory withe.
He says, corporal punishment is con
trary to all principles of human treat.
ment." Corporal punishment has been,
and is, supported, both in theory and
practice, by older and wiser heads than
either my friends or mine. advocate
corporal punishment not because [ be-
lie7e in Its indiseriminate use, but be-
cause do believe in its moderate and
sensible use. There are many other
people who, like Mr.. Newton, are con-
scientiously opposed to it.
The indiscriminate use of the cane in
the school room would produce much
the same evils as using it not at all. The
boy, like other human beings, is a mystic
ricus compound of the spirituel with the
animal. The teacher who would be sue
cessful must work on both. Where the
spiritual predominates and the boy is
actuated by purely conscientious motives,
he may be ruled by kindness but, where
the animal nature holds sway, it must be
held in by the same means used to con-
troll other animals, brute force.
There have been few extremists IN
all ages, with more tongue than wit, who
go heels overhead into everything. 10
these are we indebted for the theory, un'
fortunately much credited, that corporal
punishment should be entirely abandon
doned. The Bible, the righteous arbiter
in all questions of debate, repeatedly
exhorts us to use corporal punishment,
as q means of securing obedience and
promoting Christianity.
He lis wise who goes to extremes in
nothing, but in all things chooses the