The new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1876-1904, 1891-08-29
New Buildings.

given to the action OF the liver and
bowels by its use.
New Buildings.
Work on DIR. Hartigan's new resi-
dence is being pushed and it will be
ready for occupancy about October
1st. William Simpson is the contrac-
tor. This will be among the best
residences in town.
James N. Davis has the founda
ton for his new residence at the
corner of Main and Wiley streets
about completed. This will be a
tasty house and will add great
deal to the corner upon which the
little two story frame building has
stood so long.
On the rear of the same lot adjoin-
ing Miss Arab Evans, +. j. Protz-
man is building neat two story
house for residence.
f. A. Hennen is building a big
three story addition to his furniture
establishment on Front street. 1t
will be chiefly for ware house and
sales room, and will be so feet long.
The block of dwellings, on Pleas
ants street between the M. <. Church
and Mis-. Sarah Woods is up to the
third story. The whole will be un-
der roof within a few weeks.
The neat dwelling erected by Mrs.
Boughner North of her home on
University Avenue is receiving the
finishing touches and will be com
pleted within week.
The big grain elevator Of the
Victor Elevator Co. is nearing COM
pletion and will be ready within a
very Few days to receive grain. Its
capacity is thirty thousand bushels.
A Sensation at the Teachers Institute.
To the Editor of the New DOMINION: \
The discussion by Prof Wiley of
the subject of Corporal punishment
made decided break in the monoto-
nyjof the Teachers Institute and was
somewhat of sensation.
am not prepared to indorse Prof.
Willey's position entirely, nor is it
my purpose to try to refute it. But
/ have suggestion to make. l
think the discussion of the subject
was of very special interest to all,
but nothing has impressed me more
since rejecting on it, than the simple
and frank statement of the teacher
who got up and said that he had at
tended many Institutes, yet IL aDas
the first time he had ever heard the
arguments against corporal punish
ment presented in an Institute. He
was opposed to Prof. Willey's view,
yet he was glad to hear the other
side of the case.
This declaration of teacher has
struck me not only as true but very
suggestive. We have been dealing
as teachers with the matter of COR
poral punishment as though there
were but one side to it, and as if it
were an essential feature in the
machinery Of our public schools.
Neither teachers nor institutes have
been asking if it is right, or expe-
dent, or the best thing to do. They
have taken it for granted, and as
was said in the Institute the other
day, the arguments against it are
never heard, much less considered.
!, for one, was glad to hear Prof.
Wiley, though differing with him at
the time. Because l think there
are two sides to the question, and 1
am not at all satisfied that the posi-
ton of Prof. Wiley can be satisfac-
torily answered. If it can it ought
to be. 1t was all right for conduc-
tor Snider to say to the Institute
after the address of Prof. Wiley
that they must take a different
view and that corporal punishment
was right and should be used. He
was the conductor and had right
to declare the rule, and there is no
doubt but that a majority of the
teachers agreed with conductor
Snider. Nevertheless he did not
answer the arguments Of Prof. Will
ley
Prof Willey's position was that
the basic idea of education is to lead,
not to drive, as shown by the primary
meaning of the word, which is de-
rived form duce, to lead. And that
not only in theory, but in actual re-
suits when teacher substitutes the
rod and attempts TO drive, when he
ought to use kindness and attempt
only to lead, he develops mule in
stead of brain. In many cases he
does worse than that, but in all cases
he is certainly ignoring the funda-
mental principles which enter into
the processes of education. He is
going contrary to the divine law of
education as exemplified by God
himself in dealing with men.
Conductor Snider maintained
that mental punishment imposed
upon the pupil was even more severe
than corporal punishment, and if a
teacher had a right to impose men
tai penalties there ought to be nc
objection to his INJECTING the lighter
penalty of corporal punishment.
Yet this does not go to the root oil
the matter. We are not prepared tc
take issue with conductor Snider in
his conclusion but we repeat thai
his logic-leaves Prof. Willey's posi-
ton unanswered. A pupil may bt
punished mentally by kindness, ane
even by persuasion which is thu
very essence of the true educationa
process. But when you strike hin
with the rod, that is compulsiol
and only compulsion. Moreover i
is an indignity. 1t is impossible
that any man should be struck D,
another and not feel it to be an in
dignity. His natural feeling is re
sentiment. Does any body suppos
that child does not have the sam
feeling of indignity, or that the rot
does not develop in it feeling o
resentment, rather that the tracta
BILE, receptive mood which prepare
it for the process of education?
The writer does not desire t.
take dogmatic position on eitbe
| A. ~..~.<,1. uranta q