The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1896-12-02
A PUPIL PROPERLY GAINED.
PRINCIPAL EDWARDS ACQUITTED
BT JUSTICE HARRIMLN.

The Bey Deserved the unishment He Got
for Persistcauy Throwing s%pitbniis tn
tho Glass Room - Went Back TO HE
Glass smii'nE-Diseipiine sndtho Rattan.
Police Justice Hartman of the Gates Avenue
Court In Brooklyn has ismissed the complaint
Against Principal George w. Edwards of Public
School 40. who was accused of having punished
Joseph walford, one of the pupils. with I'M
necessary severity. There was a great clamor
raised over the matter, and Principal Edwards
was bitterly denounced in tho sensational news
papers. Tho District Attorneys office and
the Children's Society were enlisted In lhe
prosecution. which. according to Justice Harri-
man's opinion, was entirely uncalled for. In
the opinion he delivered he thus describes tho
punishment which the boy received for per-
aistently throwing spitballs in the class room:
NJ Edwards punished tho boy by INJECTING
several blows across the lower limbs and thighs
Of the boy with a rattan. The stick WAS pro-
ducod In court and was 32 inches In length by
one-fourth of an inch In thickness. As the
blows were struck tho boy naturally exclaimed
Oh but did not DRY or make any other de-
monstration, and he returned to his class laugh
Ing and smiling"
Justice Hartman adds:
"Discipline and good order must be observed
in our public schools or they are worse than use
less. II one boy may persist in throwing split
balls or doing any other prohibited thing. which
the GLASS may do so. and in such a case neither
good order nor efficient study would or could DO
maintained. This statement. is. too clear aud
apparent to need argument. Had .Walford been
ment Of come kind. Mr.. Edwards might as we'll
have dismissed his class and closed his school.
for any person who knows the nature OF mis-
chievons boys knows that chaos would have
roigned In that school. The rules of tho Board
OF Education give the principals power to intict
reasonable corporal punishment In certain cases,
and add OF the necessity for which they shall
in every case be tho Judge"
In closing Justice Hartman quotes the deci-
sion given in the case of Lander va. Seavcr, AZ
follows:
"a schoolmaster has the right to infict rea-
tsonable corporal punishment. In
what is reasonable punishment various consid-
offence. tho apparent motive and disposition of
the offender. the influence of his example and
conduct upon others, and the sex, age. size. and
strength OF the pupil to be punished. Much diff
cerDing this; and on account of this difference
OF opinion and the difficulty which exists in de-
termining what Is reasonable punishment
and. the advantages which the master has
onmstances, the manner, look. tone. dis
position, and language of the offender.
which are not ALWAYS easily described. and
thus to form a correct opinion as 10 the necessi-
allowance should be made to the teacher by way
of protecting him in the exercise of his ciscre-
ton; especially should he have this indulgence
when he appears to have acted from good mo-
teacher is not to be held liable on the ground of
the excess of punishment unless the punish
ment In clearly excessive and would be held SO
In the general Judgment of reasonable men. II
there be any reasonable doubt whether the
punishment was excessive. the master should
have the benefit Of the doubt"
Principal Edwards has received many con-
Eratulations on the result of the trial.