New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-04-30
Housese,f,OeS Exc6onSe.

rudest child you've got. amt sher, said ehe Her
idea was simply the narT9 SdfGshiohed 0oun,
girl should be quiet and 'Iadylike-" To her my
oytering delight in the farm ana
her words TO and took her side she gave me
to nd that o hs thought SsW Knew hen
/ know now, that 1 was perfectly right and both
ing but play. and not one Of my actions would
have caused even passing con rI tbst thew sat in
Judgment on me for activity during every waking
that side Of #. that she did not take my part
against outsider and give the woman to under
stand that she hqG presumed 6asrR IN me-
Now, as 10 the 'barbarous practice" OF spank
ing itself II any corporal punishment at all IL
to be administered. 1t should be by spanking, be-
without causing the slightest physical injury. II
is the careless cuff on the side OF the head that
is physically dangerous. But should a child ever
be struck? Has any human being mora! right
to strike child any more than an t aauT! Inc ne
trend OF the last century has undoubtedly t peeh
against the right of one person 70 strike ahotntI
was formerly permitted and honestly considered
Unsuitable The whipping post has been aoanII
pUnSbmdnt no In schools. The only left in
doubt are children in the hands OF their own par
parcnts have right TO strike their children under
any circumstances whatever Ihey 90 HoS Sert t
They strike the little ones because they cam But
10 reach the rights OF the matter. it seems to
We have got to go down to bottom principles i
BY consequences. Each act brings It's own result
ana aq b ,T ettH 70 behave themselves The only
logical and enlightened way to bring up children
actions to let them suffer the consequences OF
their own acts. But children cannot suffer these
A parent could not let child ride dangerous
horse. for example merely 10 lei Mn MN lsIn ,, inc
his being manned for NE 1t would be the parent 5
a a9ry TO Who w not work If he be wage
who neglects his business II a man OF pTopeEty
comes in time to rags and hunger. Pp h can
not let their children GO RACED ane ~ e
the child is and must he. protected from the
natural results OF his own actions; The child Is
protected from serious results, until he reaches
the time when he has sense enough to Judge Tor
substitute ARTIFICIAL results. by which the child 1
suffer certain punishment?
Furthermore. children have no foresight. jqdg-
Judge the consequences OF their own acts. For
instance suppose gIT caTfaS b be prnsbed fer
It by natural consequences. When she Is eighteen
her chance to learn the piano and missed beauti-
full accomplishment which che . might have as h f6
drudgery of 1t and the loss OF playtirne. IF ar
gang b eG Wiling TO Dractse has or has not the
mother a right to compel the child to obedience?
say for myself that / would thank my mother
to-day If she had compelled me. even by whipping,
to practise my music lessons; for love music, ana
there is no reason why should not have learned
the piano. except chds natural Prefere1Ge 1r ToI
cannot see the effect their actions are going to
have on them in mature llfe and II tihey wlii nor
obey without II, have not parents right 10 COM
pei obedience2 -
Again. what are the rights of parents7 The
duties of parents to children are undoubtedy Tar
greater than those OF children 70 parents. AS one
OF your correspondents has remarked, the children
did not come into the world of their voliton.
The parents are responsible for them and II Is
their duty to give their lives If necessary for
those children. When parents have given children
a good bringing up. good education and good
In life, they have done no more than their
duty, and children do not owe them any particular
thanks for It. But while the parents are doing
him home, care and education, carrying all the
burdens OF life for him. while the child Is as yet
doing nothing for his own support, while he Is a
burden on the parents. and while he has not the
Judgment or sense OF an adult. as he knows very
well has not the parent n right TO demand obedi-
ence? In the case OF parents who throw Off all
duties the child nothing. But II the parent
is performing the duties OF a parent. does not the
child owe obedience? And has not the parent a
right to exact ObedienCe2 l think this question
brings 1t down to the basic principle OF right or
wrong I DO not presume TO answer IL. leave IL
TO some Of your correspondents to say II tho
parent has an intrinsic right to spank pr pot TO
spank. DAUGHTEH-