« 上一頁繼續 »
wrought in the depths of the soul, and the duty of obedience to legitimate, beneficent human laws is associated, from early life, with that profound regard which is due from all finite intelligences to the Supreme Governor of the universe.
Once invested with these lofty attributes, the governing power sways its sceptre over willing minds and loyal hearts, whether in the family, the school, or the state. It is regarded not as the grim despot of iron visage and flinty heart, but as a friend, robed with paternal benignity and of genial aspect; the calm but inflexible dispenser of justice and mercy; "the terror of evil-doers," indeed, but also “the praise of those that do well.” Nor is this elevated conception of the nature and duty of obedience an impracticable abstraction. Its essential idea may be imparted to and understood by very young children. Not, indeed, in the form of logical propositions, nor by any labored effort of didactics, but by the more plain and potent teaching of example and experience of its beneficent results in the family and school, seconded by the instincts and intuitions of the moral nature. Right principles may be born in the heart, approved by the conscience, and exercised in the life long before they are or can be compressed to the standard, or cut to the sharp dimensions, of logical formulas and maxims.
How inexpressibly hopeful and promising the manhood and citizenship of those who, in early life, are thus led to see and feel the nobleness and magnanimity of obedience
to just authority; by which the reasonableness and necessity of submission to salutary restraints is cordially admitted; whose judgment and conscience respond to every appeal of truth and duty; whose feelings and sentiments are firm and decided in favor of law and order, and uncompromising in their indignant rebuke of all that is low and base and rebellious. It will thus be seen that the blessings of that obedience which is essential to the welfare of the school do not cease when its immediate ends have been subserved. There are other and higher considerations which look beyond the horizon of the school-room to distant years, when the boy, clothed with the attributes and responsibilities of manhood, shall take his place as a member of the civil community. And thrice happy the state whose sons shall leave the school-room with a profound regard for the majesty of just and righteous law; with true ideas of the relations of the governed to the governing power; with a lofty sense of their obligations as citizens; with warm and filial love for the institutions of their country, and a steadfast purpose ever to maintain and defend them. (Made up from Hon. N. Bateman's Fourth Biennial Report, pp. 107-117.)
PUNISHMENT FOR MISCONDUCT OUT OF SCHOOL.
SEC. 1. When the late Hon. John C. Spencer, a gentleman of such eminent legal ability that he had scarcely a peer at the New-York bar, was Superintendent of Schools for the State of New York, he is said to have given the following opinion: The authority of the teacher to punish his scholars extends to acts done in the school-room or play-ground only; and he has no legal right to punish for improper or disorderly conduct elsewhere. (Randall's Com. School Sys. p. 262.) But the opinion of any one man, whatever may be his position and learning, can not stand against the decision of the courts. We have preferred, therefore, to go back of this opinion, and look at the law for ourselves. Although we must confess that in the outset we expected to find authorities to support the opinion rather than to controvert it, now, however, after long and laborious research, we believe that our preconceived notions were erroneous; for although the courts have rarely been called upon to consider this subject, it has, nevertheless, been before them, and the law upon it has been fully and clearly explained.
Sec. 2. A music-master in trouble. This was an action for an assault, in which the defendant, as musicmaster of the Chichester Cathedral, pleaded a justification of the trespass, as committed by him, in correcting the plaintiff, who was a chorister of the cathedral, and had absented himself from his duty. The cause was tried at the Assizes at Sussex, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff for the sum of £5, it being held that the justification was not sustainable. It appeared that the plaintiff had applied to the master for leave to go and sing at a certain club, but permission was refused. Notwithstanding this refusal the plaintiff went to the club, and on the next day the defendant, as music-master of the cathedral, and consequently having jurisdiction over the choristers, corrected the plaintiff, and committed the assault complained of. At the trial evi. dence was offered of the practice at other cathedrals, but was rejected. Evidence was also proposed to be brought forward in order to show that the chorister's practicing at the clubs disqualified him for singing in the cathedral. The judge at the trial thought the evidence too general, and rejected it. The defendant now moved, on the ground of misdirection, to set aside the verdict, and have a new trial. Mr. Justice Bayley observed, thereupon, that “the boy was under an obligation to attend in the church at certain periods, in order to receive instruction, but that the master had no occasion for his services at the time when his absence was complained of.” And Chief-Justice Abbott said, that, “supposing the boy had bathed and caught cold, that would be injurious to his singing, but would not justify the measures adopted by the defendant." A new trial was therefore refused. (Newman v. Bennett, 2. Chitt. 195.) This decision, it will be observed, does not go so far as to say that the music-master could under no circumstances punish his pupils for misconduct out of school hours; but it would seem that the alleged cause of the punishment was the absence of the pupil from duty; and one of the judges merely decides that “at that time the master had no occasion for the services” of the pupil, and consequently the defense failed. And the chief-justice merely added to this, that, even if the boy did injure his voice singing at the clubs, he did not thereby commit such an offense as would justify the master in correcting him corporally. The court, therefore, seem to have been unwilling to declare that the master could under no circumstances punish his pupil for misconduct out of the hours set apart for instruction, but confined themselves rather to this particular instance, and, without declaring any general principle, decided that the offense was not sufficient to justify the act of the teacher. It must be borne in mind, also, that this is a decision in reference to the authority of a music-teacher only, and that the jurisdiction of other teachers is altogether more extended. Consequently, even if the court had decided that the jurisdiction of music-masters could not in any instance extend to acts done outside of the school, such a decision would in no