The Schoolmaster s BircJi. ought not to be possible in any free country." To which the present writer heartily assents. As to what constitutes moderate and rea sonable chastisement we find several signifi cant recent decisions. In Whitley v. State (33 Tex. Cr. Rep. 172), the court deemed sixty-three blows excessive, although even then the obstinate young rascal refused to give in. And in Boycl v. State (88 Ala. 169; 1 6 Am. St. Rep. 3 1 ), where the teacher got mad, declared he " could whip any man in China Grove beat," and after the offend ing pupil had apologized for his improper language, and left the schoolhouse, followed him into the yard, struck him on the head with a stick and hit him three " licks " in the face with his fist, closing one of his eyes for several days, and declared he " would con quer or kill him," it was held immoderate and a conviction was affirmed. This out break cost master $25, besides his lawyer's fees. In State v. Mizner (50 Iowa, 145; 30 Am. Rep. 128), it was held that the scholar had a right to know for what offence she was whipped. Here the scholar was a girl a little above twenty-one years of age, and she was flogged with a " hickory," four feet long, the master " rising on his toes" and giving a dozen blows producing marks that lasted two months, all for " sass." In Fertich r. Michener ( 11 1 Ind. 472; 60 Am. Rep. 709), it was hpld unreasonable to lock the doors and keep a child out in the cold, at eighteen degrees below zero, for fifteen min utes during the opening religious exercises, whereby her feet were frozen. What a satire on the Godly parade going on inside! But the teacher was absolved because it was not shown that he acted wantonly or maliciously. In the case of Anderson v. State (3 Head. 455; 75 Am. Dec. 744), a small boy, at tending school for the first day in his life, said in a low tone of voice, " four and one make five." The teacher asked who spoke, and the small boy owned up, said he spoke before he thought, would not do so any more, and began to cry. Teacher told him no ex
253
cuse would do, and ordered him to pull off his coat, and " hit him about a dozen licks with a switch about as large as his thumb or finger, and two or three feet long." The witness thought " the little boy had never heard the rules of the school." The poor little fellow was assaulted for declaring a mathematical axiom. The court said, " his apology, repentance, and promise to do so no more ought to have saved him from the lash." They pronounced the chastisement cruel and unauthorized, and very wisely ob served that such things "are calculated to produce the deeds of violen ce against teachers which so often occur on the part of the par ents and brothers of students." But what constitutes excessive punishment should not be left to the judgment of "all hands," as was charged in Patterson v. Nut ter (78 Maine, 509; 57 Am. Rep. 818). "The general judgment of reasonable men" is the criterion, as was held in Lamler r. Seaver (supra). The opinion of "the stupid and the ignorant, as well as the rational and intelligent," is not a proper test. One of the best things that have ever been accomplished in the conduct of our public schools is the disuse of corporal punishment. It has been abolished in the Army as a pun ishment for crime, in the Navy, in many of the prisons, and it is utterly indefensible in the schools. It is degrading to him who ad ministers, as well as to him who suffers it. The father who would whip his child when ever and because he was flogged at school, as an old-fashioned father did, would deserve to be run through a threshing-machine. Our cheeks still burn with indignation as we pe ruse Charles Lamb's denunciation of his flog ging master, and it is curious to read Holmes' s account in " Elsie Venner " of the physical triumph of the young master over the riotous young bully. Neither morals nor manners nor learning can be beaten into any reasonable human being. It is a foul imputation on Nature that one can never see or hear of one of her most beautiful trees
