San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1896-04-27

patrick.
Mr.. Pinn alleges that Kilpat-
rick has committed brutal assault
upon his, Pinn's, 1l-year.old child,
and that he is a brute unfit to pre-
side over a school.
II tho facts are as stated by Mr..
Pinn, his petition should be grant
ed without hesitation by the city
council or school board.
The whipping post has been
abolished all over the civilized
world. 1t was once thought neces-
ssry to whip in the army and navy
to preserve discipline but our gov
eminent did away with it.
Whipping in our schools is a
crime every one who thinks about
it must feel>outraged that it is toll
Grated or permitted. The whip
ping of a child is an aggravated
assault, a cowardly, brutal out
rage; especially when committed
in the presence Of other children.
II the same assault were COM
mitted upon child the
street the police would hurry to
the scene'and arrest the offender
against the law. But committed
within the walls OF one of the pub
lie schools, the assault is consid-
cred justifiable. In other words
our public schools are made the
scene of brutal outrages upon help
less children, and the thing is toll
Grated by the city authorities.
What can be more brutal, more
shameful, than big school teacher
trashing a puney little boy who
has happened to anger his mai
esty, throwing the little victim
to the floor and placing his foot on
him while he plies the lash, and
this in the presence OF half humid
red girls and boys? The man who
could be guilty Of such an outrage
is unfit for the association Of other
men; he must keep his eyes upon
the ground, for fear il he glanced
upward the eye of an avenging
God would be upon him.
Some years ago a similar case
occurred. A young lady teacher
punished little boy rather
severely. She was arrested for as
sault; the school superintendent
and school board promptly sus-
pended the teacher. They were
ready to throw all the blame on
the teacher, because there was a
good deal Of public indignation.
The writer of Short Stops was on
the city council at that time. An in
vestigation of the case proved that
the school superintendent had in
structed the teachers not to whip
except when necessary, but when
they did whip to make it hurt.
The teacher had only obeyed
orders.
The question of whipping was
fully discussed over the case above
cited. The young lady was re-
stored to her place, because II she
had to be dismissed, the superin-
tendent had to go also, and whip
ping was abolished.
But it seems that this brutal
practice has been permitted to be
reinstated in our public schools.
1t is done under the guise Of per-
mission from parents. The result
is that it is the poor people whose
children are whipped. The poor
widow, anxious to educate her boy,
receives a note from the principal
that the boy is very bad and will
have to be punished or expelled.
The consent is given and the luck
less boy is made the victim Of
brutality. Or there are parents
who want their children whipped,
on the old idea that the seat of the
pants is the seat of intellect, and
they want them to learn, and they
turn the job over to the public
school teacher, as in old slavery
times, the "nigger" to be whipped
was turned over to the constable.
What do we pay our school prin-
cipals for il it is not to do the
whipping post act, that the old
slave owner would not soil his
hands with?