« 上一頁繼續 »
CONTRARY TO NATURE. True transmutation of species is unknown in nature. By careful culture, varieties, differing greatly from the primary, of animals and vegetables may be produced ; but these invariably degenerate and disappear, or return to the original stock. If man, by stress of peculiar circumstances, has been developed from the ape, then, as soon as the restraint is removed, he should revert to his former condition. But he does not. From time immemorial, the savages of Borneo have trained orangs to throw down the cocoa-nuts from the trees, being themselves unable to procure them. It is natural to suppose that these savages anxiously desire to possess the long arms of the ape and the power of climbing trees, whereby they would be freed from the labor of training obstinate brutes. The Development theory leads us to believe that these desires would incite them to strong efforts, and that such efforts would eventually cause the production of the new organs and powers. Nevertheless, no such organs have yet appeared ; and that, too, notwithstanding the fact (according to the Development theory) that, to obtain them, they require only to obey the laws of nature and return to their original conformation. In like manner, we may discuss the
DEVELOPMENT OF INTELLIGENCE. Mr. Lubbock, in his “Pre-historic Times,” holds that, as the chimpanzee now uses stones for cracking nuts, it may easily see that one stone will break another, and so learn to make flint weapons. In making these, sparks will be produced, and thus the secret of procaring fire would be obtained. If all nature possesses an inherent tendency to progress, this result would be natural ; but, unfortunately, all nature does not possess this tendency, and the breach comes where we would least expect to find it. Man, the most highly developed of all created things, appears most obstinately determined to retrograde. Surely, the defenders of the theory do not pretend that man is the acme of development. True, he is now superior to all; but so was the ape at one time. Be that as it may, man's energies seem most doggedly bent upon retrogression ; so that, unless upheld by some artificial agency, such as the Bible of the Christian, the Shastas of the Hindoo, or the Koran of the Turk, his inevitable tendency is decay. And even these can not always maintain their influence. The inhabitants of Arabia and the Nile country, though devoted to the Koran, are now degraded races ; while, among the nations of Northern Ethiopia, where Christianity once prevailed, fetichism has, in great measure, regained its power.
THE FACIAL ANGLE. When Camper offered his method of determining intellectual power by the facial angle, he, with some other enthusiastic naturalists of the materialistic school, conceived that they had the means of proving a gradual transition from the quadrumana to the bimana. This opinion appeared to be well grounded, for some measurements of apes gave an angle of 65o. Professor Owen, however, has overthrown the argument, by showing that these measurements were made upon young orangs, whose foreheads are more prominent than those of the adults. That the reader may compare them for himself, we give the skull of a chimpanzee, an ape much resembling man, and that of a negro from the Gold Coast, a member of one
SKULL OF CHIMPANZEE, T. niger, Geoff.
Negro, from Gold Coast. of the most degraded races in Africa. As may be seen, the gap is very great. The facial angle of the adult ape of the highest order (measured by two lines, one drawn from the opening of the ear to the base of the nose, the other touching the prominent centre of the forehead and falling upon the most advanced portion of the upper jaw) seldom exceeds 35°, while that of the negro varies from 70° to 75°, and that of the European from 80° to 85o. From the dog to the monkey the gradation is perfect, but between the latter and man the interval is absolute. Nothing yet known fills the gap or takes an intermediate position.
What may yet be discovered in behalf of the Development theory, of course, we can not even conjecture; but, at present, it is a mere hypothesis, explains few phenomena of nature, and is, in great measure, unsupported by facts.
READERS may be divided into four classes. The first may be compared to an hour-glass, their reading being as the sand : it runs in and runs out, and leaves not a vestige behind. The second class resemble a sponge, which imbibes every thing, and returns it nearly in the same state, only a little dirtier. The third class is like a jelly-bag, which allows every thing that is pure to pass away, and retains only the refuse and dregs. The fourth class may be compared to the slave in the diamond mines of Golconda, who, casting aside all that is worthless, preserves only pure gems.
1. The schoolmaster and the king.-In school, where the mind is first placed under care to be fitted for the grand purposes of life, the child should be taught to consider his instructor, in many respects, superior to the parent in point of authority. The infant mind early apprehends and distinguishes with a surprising sagacity, and is always more influenced by example than precept. When a parent, therefore, enters the school, and by respectful deportment, acknowledges the teacher's authority, the pupil's obedience and love for the master are strengthened ; and the principle of subordination is naturally engrafted in the child, and in the most agreeable and effectual manner possible—that is, by the influence of example. It is by this happy conspiracy between the teacher and parent, that a new power -a genial influence over the infant mind-is acquired, which is of infinite importance to the welfare and happiness of society. To aim a blow at this power would be to strike at the very basis of magisterial authority. It was to support this important element of good government that the learned and judicious schoolmaster said to Charles II., in the plenitude of his power :
“Sire, pull off thy hat in my school ; for if my scholars discover that the king is above me in authority here, they will soon cease to respect me." (Morris' Case, 1 City Hall Rec., 55.)
2. Every man's house is his castle.—This old maxim of English law (5 Rep., 92) is as applicable to the schoolmaster as to any other person who is in the lawful possession of a house. It is true, that the school officers, as such, have certain rights in the school-house ; but the law will not allow even them to interfere with the teacher while he keeps strictly within the line of his duty. Having been legally put in possession, he can hold it for the purposes and the time agreed upon ; and no parent, not even the governor of the State, nor the President of the United States, has any right to enter it and disturb him in the lawful performance of his duties. If persons do so enter, he should order them out, and if they do not go on being requested to do so, he may use such force as is necessary to eject them. And if he finds that he is unable to put them out himself, he may call on others to assist him ; and if no more force than is actually necessary to remove the intruders is employed, the law will justify the teacher's act and the acts of those who assisted him. (Stevens v. Fassett, 27 Maine, 266 ; 1 City Hall Rec., 55; 2 Met., 23 ; 6 Barb., 608 ; 8 T. R., 299 ; 2 Ro. Abr., 548 ; 2 Selk., 641; 1 C. & P., 6; 8 T. R., 78 ; Wharton's Am. Crim. Law, 1256.)
3. The vulgar impression that parents have a legal right to dictate to teachers, is entirely erroneous.-As it would be manifestly improper for the teacher to undertake to dictate to the parents in their own house, so it would be improper for the parents to dictate to him in his, the school-house. Nor does it matter whether the parents own their house, or whether, like the teacher, they only have possession of it for a certain time specified and on certain conditions, and perhaps for certain purposes named in the lease. In either case, the lawful possession is enough. It may be very proper, under certain circumstances, for the teacher to go to the house of the parents for an explanation, or to receive or give advice ; and it may be equally proper for parents, under certain circumstances, to go to the school-house for an explanation, or to receive or give advice, provided that, in both cases, it is done in the right spirit. For it must be borne in mind that the schoolmaster has no right whatever to exercise authority over parents out of the school-house, and that parents, as such, have no right whatever to exercise authority over the master. When the interests of parents and teachers are properly understood, there will be complete harmony and unity of action ; but until that happy day comes, it is well enough for all to know that the teacher's position does not require him to please any parent, but to do his duty, even though he displease them all. The impression that parents have a right to go to the school and dictate to, or insult the teacher, is entirely contrary to the spirit and letter of the law establishing the common or public schools throughout the country. In private schools, the case is somewhat different ; for the parents there, in legal effect, are the employers of the teacher, and consequently his masters; but in the common and public schools they are neither bis employers nor his masters, and it is entirely out of place for them to attempt to give him orders; for “there is no privity of contract between the parents of pupils to be sent to school and the schoolmaster. The latter is employed and paid by the town, and to them only is he responsible on his contract.” (Spear v. Cummings, 23 Pick., 224.)
4. The statutory law as to disturbing schools. In some of the States it is made a criminal offence to willfully interrupt or disturb any public, private, or select school. (28 Conn., 232.) The New York statue says, “No person shall willfully disturb, or disquiet, any assemblage of persons met at any school district for the purpose of receiving instruction in any of the branches of education usually taught in the common-schools of this State, or in the science of music.” (Session Laws of 1845, ch. 228.) This statute seems to apply equally to day or evening, and public or private schools. The penalty for its violation is not to exceed twenty-five dollars for each offence, and there is no clause in it favoring parents ; consequently, if they disturb or disquiet the school they are subject to the same penalty as others. It is the policy of the States generally to encourage education ; and many of them having established free-schools, have thought proper to make provisions to protect their schools from indiscreet interference. Consequently, all well-conducted schools may now, in a certain sense, be regarded as the wards of the State. It will not allow any of them to be disturbed, disquieted, or interrupted with impunity ; and the same policy that protects the day schools, protects evening schools also. Hence in Maine it has been decided that a person may be punished, under the statute, for willfully disturbing a private school kept in a district school-house for instruction in the art of writing. (The State v. Leighton, 35 Maine, 185.)
5. Parents have no remedy as against the teacher.- As a general thing, the only persons who have a legal right to give orders to the teacher, are his employers-namely, the committee in some States, and in others the directors or trustees. If his conduct is approved of by his employers, the parents have no remedy as against him or them.; for the law will not presome that the committee, etc., who are invested with the powers of superintendence and management will act arbitrarily and unjustly in a matter submitted to their judgment. (23 Pick., 227.) The following decision on this same point is later, and to the same effect. The board of trustees in the city of New York are vested with the power to conduct and manage the schools in their respective wards ; and in this conduct and management the discipline of the schools is exclusively under their control. To their direction, consequently and necessarily, is confided the power to decide questions relating to the violation of discipline, and their judgment is conclusive. (18 Abbotts' Pr., 165.) If a child of proper age and qualifications is rejected by the master, the proper course for the parent is to appeal to the committee, trustees, or directors, as the case may be. If, on their requisition, the master should refuse to accept the pupil, they would have ample, means to enforce their authority, by means of their contract with the master. But if they approve of and confirm the act of the master, we are to believe that there is good and sufficient cause for the rejection of the pupil. (23 Pick., 227.) The trustees may always expel a scholar when, in their judgment, the good order and proper government of thu school requires it. (14 Barb., 225; 38 Maine, 376; 8 Cush., 164.) And if they err in the discharge of their duty in good faith, they are not liable to an action therefor. (32 Vermont, 224.) Consequently, the master ought to consult the trustees before he expels a pupil (23 Pick., 227); and if they give their consent, the parent has no remedy, and there is nothing to fear. In no case can a parent sustain an action for an injury to his child, unless some actual loss has accrued to him, or he has been subjected to the violation of some right, from which a possibility of damage to him may arise. (14 Barb., 225 ; 38 Maine, 376.) A parent of a child expelled from a public school can not maintain an action against the school committee by whose order it was done. (16.) Nor is the teacher of a town school liable to an action by a parent for refusing to instruct his children. (23 Pick., 224.)
6. How and when— Composition- Reading the Bible-- TruancyVaccination. The teacher has the right to direct how and when each pupil shall attend to his appropriate duties, and the manner in which pupils