Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 12.pdf/278

 The Schoolmaster s Birch. had none or refused to pay, the child would suffer in his person " for not having done what he had no power to do." All of which is sensible and humane. The same doctrine is declared in Holman v. Trustees (77 Mich. 605; 6 L. R. A. s 34), where a boy of ten was expelled for carelessly breaking a pane of glass. In that case the court remarked that it would have been cheaper for the father to mend the window, " but he saw fit to stand upon his rights, as he was privileged to do." An amusing question arose in State v. Board of Education (63 Wis. 234; 53 Am. Rep. 282). There was a rule that every scholar on returning from recess should bring in a log of wood for the 'fire. One boy re fused to become like Fornando, in The Tempest, a " patient log-man," and he was suspended. On mandamus he was restored. The court held that this rule was not " need ful for the government of the school," any more than a requirement to saw and split wood, clean the sidewalk or wash the win dows. So the lad " made it hot " for the teacher without lugging in the wood. An other impatient log-man was Eddy Patrick, sixteen years old, in Vanvactor v. State (113 Ind. 276; 3 Am. St. Rep. 645). He was required by the teacher to bring in wood and put it in the stove, and while complying made "antic demonstrations" behind Vanvactor, which created a laugh. Vanvactor then made him stand up by the stove a consider able time. When school closed, Eddy claim ing that he was in a sweat not only put on his own overcoat, but the teacher's over that, and started for home. Teacher sent a boy after him to demand his coat, but Eddy re fused to surrender it and wore it home, and teacher had to go home overcoatless and cold. For this trick he whipped Eddy next day, with a green switch three feet long, forked near the middle, forming two limber prongs. By agreement the whipping was after school hours and in private. A con viction of assault was reversed, on the ground

that Eddy got less than he deserved because the punishment was private, and in a way consented to by the sufferer, v An interesting inquiry is, how long is the schoolmaster's birch? There is a very severe class of cases in which the master is held justified in chastising the pupil out of school hours, on his way to or from school, and even while engaged in his father's service. The leading case, Lamler v. Seaver (supra), goes to the last length. The offending boy, an hour and a half after the close of school, after his return home was driving his father's cow past the master's house, and in presence of some fellow-pupils and of the master, called the latter " Old Jack Seaver." For this old Jack wallopped him with a rawhide next morning at school. And the court said, "served him right," because this conduct "had a direct and immediate tendency to bring the authority of the master over his pupils into contempt," etc. This is carrying the contempt doctrine very far, and much be yond what would be tolerated in regard to judicial contempt. We think it a foolish decision. Followed to its logical conclusion, it would justify the master in beating a little boy for hugging and kissing a little girl, member of the same school, at a frolic or a husking bee, especially if he should say, "Dam master! " — for this would be con duct tending to bring the teacher's authority into contempt. By the same reasoning a judge would' have a right to adjudge a dis gruntled lawyer in contempt for swearing at "old straps " at the tavern and ridiculing his adverse decision between drinks. Another decision of this sort was in Deskins v. Gose (85 Mo. 485; 55 Am. Rep. 387), where the teacher was upheld in whipping a boy for quarreling and profanity on his way home from school. The court seemed to deem it the duty of the teacher to deliver the lad at home in good moral order. This doctrine prevails also in Texas as to fighting out of the schoolhouse and out of school hours. ( Hutton ï'. State, 23 Tex. Ct. App. 386; 59 Am. Rep.