attending the same, as such a course will be in the highest degree detrimental to the best educational interests of the same. (D 4294)

So in Minn. the authority of the trustees over the interior management of the schools is entirely advisory in its character. The responsibility for the correct government and discipline of the school, as well as the adoption of such methods of teaching as seem best calculated to promote the advancement of the scholars in their several branches of study, rests solely with the teacher. Of course there ought to be and always will be a mutual interchange of views, and a cordial co-operation between teachers and trustees in all these matters, whenever a regard is had to the important interests intrusted to their charge.

In the school-room the teacher has exclusive control and supervision of his pupils, subject only to such regulations and directions as may be prescribed or given by the trustees.

Upon this

The schoolhouse is the schoolmaster's castle. point the following forcible statement is fully warranted: "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 schoolhouse; 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 it necessary to eject them. And if he find that he is unable to put them out himself, he may call on others to assist him, and if no more force is employed than is actually necessary to remove the intruder, the law will justify the

teacher's acts and the acts of those who assisted him." See Wharton's Am. Criminal Law, 1256.

(5 Barb 608, 1 City Hall R 55, 27 Me 266, 2 Metcalf 23, 59 Pa St 266, 2 Selk 641, 8 T L R 78, 299)

The teacher's best defence against querulous or insulting visits of parents to the school-room was found in that provision formerly a part of the New York statute, which read thus:

Any person who shall wilfully disturb, interrupt, or disquiet any district school * * * shall forfeit $25 for the benefit

of the school district.

It shall be the duty of the trustees of the district, or the teacher of the school, and he shall have the power to enter a complaint against such offender before any justice of the peace of the county. *** The magistrate *** shall thereupon *** cause the person to be arrested and brought before him for trial.

This provision was omitted from the consolidated laws of 1894 and 1909, but is perhaps covered by Sec. 1470 of the Penal law (88:1909):

A person who wlthout authority of law wilfully disturbs any assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Even when a private school or a singing school is taught in the district schoolhouse, a person can be punished for disturbing it. The same is true of a singing school. (35 Me 195, 26 Conn 607)

The R. I. law reminds the teacher that while the law holds him responsible for his acts in the school-room, it also protects him while therein employed from all external or unofficial interference. No private person has any right, in any circumstances, to enter a school-room in school hours to make any complaint or to disturb the school in any way. The statute law provides a specific penalty for such an offence.

In Cal. and Wash. any parent, guardian, or any other person who shall insult or abuse any teacher in the presence of the school is guilty of a misdemeanor, and liable to a fine of not less than $10 nor exceeding $100 Ariz. makes the limits $50 and $100, with an alternative of imprisonment for 3 months.

In Wy. any person who uses insulting and abusive language toward any teacher in or about any public schoolhouse, or who wilfully disturbs any public school or district meeting, is deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction, must be fined in any sum not less than $5, and not exceeding $100. Nearly every other state has a similar provision in the school law.

Yet it must never be forgotten that in regard to the general regulations, the course of study, the adoption of text-books, and the expulsion of pupils, the action of the teacher has no legal force until formally endorsed by the trustees. (35 Wis 59, 45 Wis 150)

However unbounded the confidence placed in him, a wise teacher will secure the sanction of the trustees before he announces his own course as to these questions.

These topics will be considered in separate chap

ters.

But we must first consider how far the authority of the trustee and of the teacher extends.

CHAPTER XII

Trustees: Extent of Authority

The conduct of the pupils upon any part of the premises connected with the schoolhouse or in the immediate vicinity of it (the pupils being thus virtually under the care and oversight of the teacher), as on the playground whether within the regular school hours or before or after them, is properly cognizable by the teacher. Any disturbance made by them within this range, injuriously affecting in any way the interests of the school, may clearly be the subject of rules by the trustees, and of reproof and correction by the teacher.

Commissioner Draper has held that pupils may leave the grounds during noon recess by consent of their parents. (D 3698)

In regard to what transpires by the way in going to and returning from school, the authority of the teacher is in most states except New York regarded as concurrent with that of the parent. (30 Ia 429, 31 Ia 562, 66 Mo 286, 85 Mo 485, 116 N W 232, 4 S W 122, 23 Tex 386, 32 Vt 120)

There is abundant authority that the trustees or the teacher may make rules to govern the conduct of pupils after school hours, and punish a violation thereof by suspension. (116 N W 235, citing 55 Am Rep 387, 59 Am Rep 776, 129 Ia 441, 3 L RAN. S. 496, 62 L R A 160, 7 L RA N. S. 352, 132 Mich 13, 85 Mo 485, 92 N W 495, 105 N W 686, 86 Pac 642, 5S W 122, 23 Tex Ap 386, 43 Wash 441)

So far as offences are concerned for which the pupils committing them would be answerable to the laws, such as larceny, trespasses, etc., which come particularly within the category of crimes against the state, it is the wisest course generally for the teacher (whatever be his legal power*), to let the offender pass into the hands of judicial or parental authority, and thus avoid being involved in controversies with parents and others, and exposing himself to the liability of being harassed by prosecution at law.

But as to any misdemeanors of which the pupils are guilty in passing from the schoolhouse to their homes, which directly and injuriously affect the good order and government of the school, and the right training of scholars, such as truancy, wilful tardiness, quarrelling with other children, the use of indecent and profane language, etc., there can be no doubt that these come within the jurisdiction of the teacher, and are properly matters for discipline in the school.

A famous decision of the supreme court of Vermont (32 Vt 114) illustrates and fully accords with the foregoing positions. The courts decided that such misdemeanors have a direct and immediate tendency to injure the school by subverting the teacher's authority, and begetting disorder and insubordination among the pupils. The same doctrine is substantially recognized by the supreme court in some other states. The governing principle in all cases like the Vermont case is, that whatever in the misconduct of pupils under like circumstances, as to time and place, etc., has a direct tendency to injure the school in its important interests, is properly a subject of discipline in the school.

It is sometimes objected to the foregoing views that the responsibilities of teachers are in this way enlarged to an improper extent; that if their authority extends beyond the schoolhouse limits and the school hours, their responsibilities must be increased in a corresponding ratio. But to this it may be answered, that the matter is to have a reasonable construction; that it cannot be expected that a teacher will *The teacher cannot punish a pupil for refusing to confess a crime for which he might be punished at law.—Public School Acts of Rhode Island, 1857, p.53)