Year: 1873

| lHiS ptTpleAluS qutsllOu "do utlOIc TUE
Teachers Institute. and was argued pro
snd con, resulting in the non-settlemen'
of the question ITSELF The Supreme
Court of Vermont says as follows


Though school master has, in general
no right to punish pupil for miscon-
duct committed after the dismissal OF
school for tie day, and tn e return of his
pupil to his home, yet he may, on the
pupils return to school, punish him for
any misbehavior, though committed out
of school, which has direct and imme.
date tendency TO iDjure the school and to
subyert the masters authority"


The above decision was given by the
Court in the case of pupil using con-
tenptuous language an hour and IL half
after the school was dismissed and after
the boy had returned home and while he
was engaged in his fathers service, and in
the hearing of his teacher and some of
his fellow pupils. When the boy return
ed To school the next day the teacher pun
lshed him for his contemptuous language,
this brought on a litigation, which ended
in the Supreme Court of the State.


Our State Superintendent says; at is
conceded that the teachers right to punish
extends to schooflaws, and there seems
to be no reasonable doubt that the superl
vision and control of the master over the
scholar extends from the time he leaves
home to go to school till he returns home
from school. Most parents would expect
and desire that teachers should take care
that their children. in going to and return
ing from school, should not loiter, or seek
evil company, or frequent vicious places
of resort. But when the child has return
ed home or To his parents control, then
The parents authority is resumed and the
control OF the teacher ceases. and then for
all ordinary acts of m sbehavior the par
ent alone has power to punish. But in the
case cited, "the boy while in the presence
of other pupils of the same school, used,
towards the master in his hearing con
tcxc.rezs language. with a design 20 in
sun him and which had direct and imme-
date tendency to injure the school, to sub
vert the masters authority, and to bege
disorder and INSTRUMENTATION. When the
offence has a direct and immediate tcnden-
cy to injure the school. and bring the mas
ter's authority into contempt, when done
in the presence of other scholars and of
the master, and with design to insult him,
we think he has the right to punish the
scholar for such acts if he comes again to
school. The question as it presents itself
is. S.how far teachers should pay attention to
the conduct Of the pupils out of school and
especially at the time when they resort to
it or return home? The road. leading to
school is truly Il part of il, ii we may so
speak. as well as the play ground, conse-
quently any disorders committed by the
pupils on it ought to be suppressed by the
teacher He ought especially to watch
over them at their play, for the sake of
discipline, as well as for that of education
in general. The conduct of pupils, when
under the paternal root. and everywhere
but in school or the road leading to it, es-
cape all the means of discipline; but the
teacher ought not to he indifferent to that
conduct, especially in the country, he
should carefully inquire concerning it for
the sake o f moral education.


For the same reason he will have to
watch over his own conduct out of school,
and avoid whatever might tend to diminish
that respect his pupils owe him, and which
is the Chief condition of the success of his
mission ~


If teacher commences teaching with
out valid license, he can not recover pay
for such services. If he should commence