Year: 1875

whipping was over. That this whip
ping left distinct, discolored marks on
the boys person which remained some
10 or IL days.


The Defendants witnesses show the
same state of facts in the main, but
touches are added which give a differ.
cnt color to Harvey's actions


| The testimony on this side shows, il
believed, that Harvey was misbehavng
on Wednesday when he was taken
away from his former seat, and assign.
cd one on the other side, a vacant seat,
with the injunction that he should re-
tain ituntil he had received permission
to go back to the other. That for
three days he persistantly disobeyed
this injunction by returning to his old
seat again and again--after recess and
and adjournment-and was repeatedly
ordered back again to the new seat.
That he said once when so ordered
back, "you may sit there yourself I'm
lgoing home" That on Friday morn
ing having taken his old seat without
permission, the Defendant told him to
60 to the other, and went on TO hear n
spelling class for half an hour After
which he went to him and again order
ed him over He refused TO go, saying
''tbis is my seat Pap said | should
sit here" II won't 90 unless the rest
of the boys go over" That Defendant
waited for him to go two or three
minutes, and then took hold Of him
and whipped him That the teacher
was not excited or angry, that he
stopped to ask the boy whether he
would obey and 20 over TO his scat, to
which he replied u don't know
when one more blow with the ruler
was given, and the boy said 81 guess !
will, and went over. That at recess
he went home and did not come back +;
that he was marked, but not hurt, and
was next day able to sit and walk out
without trouble.


The only comment | think it noces-
sary to make on the evidence Is this .


If Mr.. Rebuck was dissatisfied with
the conduct of the schoomaster in re-
quiring his son TO sit on the girls side
Of the room, he had two courses to
pursue, either Of which would have
been proper


To keep his son at home, until he
should have complained to the School
Directors and asked redress of them,
or to have himself gone to see this De
fcndantand conferred with him about it.


But il was wrong in my opinion,
for him to send his son TO school with
a message such as he says he sent. II
was an attempt TO interfere with the
conduct and discipline of the school,
by one outside Of il, and on the state
ments ofoneside onlyto the controversy.


And il tended oimpair the authority
of the teacher in his school in the eyes
of the young lad who carried the mes
sage, and of every boy and girl who
heard il delivered.


An error on Mr.. Rebuck's part in
this respect would not, however, justify
an immoderate whipping. But the
teacher was not bound to regard the
message. Tho boy might have been
kept at homo but when sent to school
the fathers directions were nugatory.
It was for the teacher to govern his
own school.


We must take care not tn impair the
efficiency Of our common school sys-
TEN, than which there is nothing
which concerns simply mundane in
terests that is moro important. And
we shall impair it equally by deteriing
teachers from exercising a salutary
discipline in their schools, and, on the
other hand, by encouraging them to
become petty tyrants in their little
realms, inHicting punishment beyond
the bounds of moderation