OVER THE PUPIL AT HOME 177 a rule established by the teacher. He held that a boy had a right to go where he chose during the noon recess, provided that it was with his parents' knowledge and consent (D. 3698). once. On the other hand, in 1882 a Buffalo principal saw two of his school-boys after school fighting outside the school premises, and sent a messenger commanding them to desist, and come to him at They refused, and the next day when they came to school he punished them. He was arrested for assault and battery, and brought before Justice King, who discharged him, ruling that one of the most important duties of teachers is to train and qualify their pupils to become useful and law-abiding members of society; this duty cannot be effectively performed without ability to command obedience, and reform bad habits; to enable the teacher to exercise this salutary sway, he is armed with the power of the parent, that is, he stands in loco parentis, and is entitled in law and in reason to employ the means necessary to answer the purpose for which he is employed; and, finally, that the teacher has jurisdiction over the acts of pupils coming to, and going from school, if those acts tend to subvert the best interests, or the character, of the school, all of which is well settled by common sense and law.-S. B. viii. 136. In Nev. (22) it is made a misdemeanor for any person or persons to detain, beat, whip or otherwise interfere with any pupil or pupils attending any public school, in the State of Nevada on his, her, or their way to or from such school, against the will of such pupil or pupils. d. After the pupil reaches home, the rules of the school have no authority over him1. Mo. (14). A pupil cannot be punished in school for not having done lessons at home, when forbidden by the parent to do so. 'Ordin arily, an important part of a child's education is the study at home, but here the child has been punished for disobedience to an order which the master had no right to make1." Nor can a pupil be expelled for attending a social party contrary to the rules of the school2, or for reflecting on the trustee in a newspaper article3. So the officers of a university may not refuse admission to or exclude students because they are members of a secret college society, or will not pledge themselves not to become so 4. In Mass., however, it was held that Charlotte A. Sherman was rightly expelled for acts of immorality and licentiousness committed out of school5. e. Recess belongs to the pupil, especially the noon intermission. A pupil was denied the privileges of the school because he persisted in leaving the school-grounds during the noon recess. Held, an insufficient cause. That the teacher has no claim upon the pupil's time during the recess (D. 3698). No pupil shall be detained in school during the intermission at noon, and a pupil detained at any recess shall be permitted to go out immediately thereafter. All pupils, except those detained for punishment, shall be required to pass out of the school-rooms at recess, unless it would occasion an exposure of health. Ariz. (44). Ariz. (47) provides that no pupil shall be permitted to leave school at recess, or at any other time before the regular hour for closing school, except in case of sickness or on written request of parent or guardian, but this evidently does not apply to the noon intermission. f. Detention after school.-It has usually been held that teachers may, at their discretion, detain scholars a reasonable time after the regular school hours, for reasons connected with the discipline, order, or instruction of the school. 3 107. 4 11, 12, 43, 46, 49, 76 a, 202, 253. DETENTION AFTER SCHOOL 179 This practice has been sanctioned by general usage, and by the authority of school boards, expressed or implied. There is in most States no law defining precisely school hours, as they are termed, or the hours within which schools are to be kept. This is regulated by usage, or by the directions of school boards, varying in different localities, and also in different seasons of the year. The practice under consideration, of occasionally detaining pupils after the regular school hours for objects connected with the school arrangements, rests upon precisely the same authority. It is questionable, however, whether under the restrictions placed in New York upon the teacher's authority (see page 176), this custom is legal. If the teacher's authority is limited to the schoolgrounds, it would seem to be limited by the school hours. Ia. (38) forbids the teacher to detain the pupil after school against the wish of the parent. g. Punishment must be inflicted only on school premises, even where permitted for offences out of school. CHAPTER X CORPORAL PUNISHMENT A legal right to enforce discipline by means of corporal punishment exists in all schools where it has not been expressly forbidden by statute or by regulation. This is conferred by usage and confirmed by legal decision1.-Blackstone's Commentaries, i. 453. The schoolmaster has a right to give moderate corporal correction to his pupils for disobedience to his lawful commands, for negligence, or for insolent conduct. A schoolmaster, in his own right, and not by delegation, possesses this authority.—Reeves's Domestic Relations, p. 534. Ala. (165–172) treats this subject at length, and all States recognize this principle, except N. J. (26), which forbids corporal punishment. Fla. (60), Pa. (137), Wis. (44), etc. The law applying to public and private schools is the same so far as relates to the discipline of the school2. If a person over 21 years old voluntarily attends school, he is subject to the same discipline as children of school age3. A man teacher has been sustained for whipping a woman pupil 21 years old4. The principal may of course punish for offences comitted in other departments of the school. From an address by Prof. James S. Pertle, of the law department of the University of Louisville, we quote: 1 112, 320, 323, 326, 328, 358, 379, 396 a, 403, 409, 436, 450. 3 112, 149, 432. 4 100 a. 2 258. GENERAL PRINCIPLES * 181 * The teacher is often spoken of as standing to the pupil in the place of a parent, in loco parentis, while the relation continues, and it is said that the teacher has therefore the same power over the pupil that the parent has, and may use the same means of enforcing obedience that a parent may under the law. * Blackstone and Reeves state this view as the proper doctrine, with a limitation that a teacher has the power of restraint and corrections to such an extent as may be necessary to answer the purpose for which the teacher is employed. * * It seems evident that there must be a difference between the power which the teacher has over the child and that which the parent has. The teacher has the welfare of his pupil in view, and is actuated, in enforcing discipline in his school, only by the highest motives; his affection for his pupils is a restraint upon his passions, and his humanity is an additional safe-guard against undue harshness to the children under his charge. Yet the teacher, however kind, however just, however self-controlled, has not the same or equal motive for consideration for the pupil that a judicious and kind parent has. * That which will be excused in a parent would not be permitted in a teacher. All parents are not kind and judicious, and yet, unless the treatment of a child by its parents amounts to cruelty, the law does not interfere. So that the teacher must keep himself under greater restraint in his management of his pupil than the parent of the same pupil is required to preserve. The supreme court of Vermont stated the law, on the occasion of a controversy between a teacher and a pupil growing out of a punishment inflicted upon the latter by the former, in these words: The parent unquestionably is answerable only for malice or wicked motives or an evil heart in punishing his child. This great, and, to some extent, irresponsible power of control and correction is invested in the parent by nature and necessity. It springs from the natural relation of parent and child. It is felt rather as a duty than a power. ** * This power is little liable to abuse, for it is continually restrained by natural affection, the tenderness which a parent feels for his offspring, an affection ever on the alert and acting rather by instinct than by reasoning. The school-master has no such natural restraint. Hence he may not be trusted with all a parent's authority, for he does not act from the instinct of paternal affection. He should be guided and restrained by judgment and wise discretion, and hence is responsible for their reasonable exercisc, |