District] Different Views in Different States 219

its own mode of public worship". Enforced attendance upon religious services is forbidden by the constitution, and pupils in a public school cannot be required either to attend such services, or to join in them. A teacher in a public school being vested during school hours with a general authority over his pupils, his requests are practically commands. It is immaterial whether the objection of a parent to his children attending and participating in a religious service conducted by a teacher in the schoolroom during school hours is reasonable or unreasonable. The right to be unreasonable in such matters is guaranteed by the constitution. The law does not forbid the use of the Bible in the public schools; it is not proscribed either by the constitution or the statutes; and the courts have no right to declare its use to be unlawful because it is possible or probable that those who are privileged to use it will misuse the privilege by attempting to propagate their own peculiar theological or ecclesiastical views and opinions. The point where the courts may rightfully interfere to prevent the use of the Bible in the public school is where legitimate use has degenerated into abuse,-where a teacher employed to give secular instruction has violated the constitution by becoming a sectarian propagandist. Whether it is prudent or politic to permit Bible reading in the public school is a question for the school authorities, but whether the practice of Bible reading has taken the form of sectarian instruction is a question for the courts to determine upon evidence. It will not be presumed in any case that the law has been violated. Every alleged violation must be established by competent proof. (93 N W 169)

It was held in Ohio in 1900 that an injunction will not lie to restrain a teacher from reading the Bible in the school contrary to a resolution of the board of education, the remedy of the board being either to discharge the teacher or to rescind the rule.

Religious services in the schoolhouse may be permitted in New York by the trustees, where there is no opposition in the district, but must be forbidden

when they would cause dissension (D 3577, 3651, 3707, 4021, 461, 4164, 4419). See page 173.

(42 Ill 441, 93 Ill 61, 9 Ind 458, 35 Ia 194, 50 Ia 11, 24 Vt 528)

So in Ark. N J. Utah, W. Va.

they are forbidden.

But in some states

(27 Conn 499, 15 Kan 259, 10 Mo 560 67 Mo 301, 16 Wis 316)

CHAPTER XIX

Trustees: Corporal Punishment

The right to make rules implies the power to enforce them, and the infraction of all reasonable rules may be punished. (116 N W 232)

If the court upholds the rule under which expulsion was made it will not review the board's finding that the pupil violated the rule.

(56 Ia 476, 97 Ia 526, 100 Ia 317, 129 Ia 997, 66 N W 765, 69 N W 544)

It is only when the rule is unreasonable or beyond the exercise of discretion that the courts will say the board was unauthorized.

(116 Ind 11, 30 Ia 429, 56 Ia 476, 63 Ill 353, 17 I.1 A 386, 111 Ind 472, 486, 116 Ind 11, 93 Minn 332)

But the presumption is in favor of the board.

(31 Ia 562, 42 Ia 522 95 Ill 263, 157 Mass 561)

There are two final resorts in case of disobedience, corporal punishment and expulsion.

(1 City Hall Rec 55, 2 Dev & Bat 365, 4 F & F 202, 3 Head 455, 45 Ia 248 84 Ill A 270, 2 Ired 50, 19 N C 365, 68 N C 322, 71 N H 619, 2 Pa L JR 78. 19 Vt 102, 29 Vt 102, 32 Vt 114, 45 Wis 150)

A legal right to enforce discipline by means of corporal punishment exists in all schools where it has not been expressly forbidden by statute or by regulation. This is conferred by usage and confirmed by legal decision. Blackstone's Commentaries, i. 453.

The state of New Jersey, and some cities like New York and Syracuse, forbid corporal punishment.

The master is in loco parentis, in the place of the parent, and has such portion of the powers of the parent committed to his charge, viz.: that of restraint and coercion, as may be necessary to answer the purposes for which he is employed.-Blackstone's Commentaries, i. 453; Bishop's Common Law, 7th ed., 882; Schouler's Domestic Relations, 4th ed., Sec. 244; Addison on Torts, Wood's ed., Sec. 840.

(88 Ala 169, 3 Am St 645, 16 Am St 31, 4 Gray 36 5 Pa L JR 78, 45 Wis. 150)

In one point the teacher's rights are greater than those of the parent. The teacher could no doubt expel a pupil for an offence which would not justify the parent in turning a son out of doors.-Williams, p. 274.

The schoolmaster has a right to give moderate corporal correction to his pupils for disobedience to his lawful commands, for negligence, or for insolent conduct. A schoolmaster, in his own right, and not by delegation, possesses this authority.-Reeves's Domestic Relations, p. 534.

The law relating to public and private schools is the same as far as relates to the discipline of the school (49 NH 473).

In case of a private school, the parent may withdraw the child at any time, and thus terminate the teacher's delegated right. (23 Q B 305, 24 Q B 283)

If a person over 21 years old voluntarily attends school, he is subject to the same discipline as children of school age (45 Ia 248, 27 Me 266, 35 Wis 59). A man teacher has been sustained for whipping a woman pupil 21 years old (4 Ia 248).

In New York the right to inflict corporal punishment is affirmed by statute.

To use or attempt, or offer to use, force or violence upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful

when committed by any guardian, master or teacher in the exercise of a lawful authority to restrain or correct his child or scholar, and the force or violence used is reasonable in manner and moderate in degree. (88: 1909)

So in English act for Prevention of cruelty to children, 1899: "Nothing in this act is to be construed to take away the right of any parent, teacher, or other person having the lawful control of the child, to administer punishment."

But even here the teacher is subject to the rules established by the trustees. When the trustees have made a rule forbidding corporal punishment, the teacher may not inflict it. (D 4355) ̧

On the other hand the education department ruled April 4, 1901 that when the trustees of any school district authorize or direct corporal punishment to be administered, it is the teacher, not the trustees, that administers the punishment and the trustees have no authority to direct the kind of punishment to be used or the extent of punishment.

The principal may of course punish for offences committed in other departments of the school.

A school teacher while in the school-room is responsible for maintaining good order, and he must be the judge to some extent of the degrees and nature of the punishment required when his authority is set at defiance; and although he will be held amenable to the law for any abuse of this discretion, still he will not be held liable on the ground of excessive punishment unless the punishment is clearly excessive, and would be held so in the judgment of reasonable men. The