report the case to the trustees for review.

Ariz., Id., Ia., Mont., N. D., Ohio, Ore., Va.

This is true of

If the trustees do not sustain the suspension, Ariz., Id., and N. J. permit an appeal to the county superintendent, whose action is final. La. requires the case to be reported to the parish superintendent, whose decision is final.

Id. and Ky. likewise require the teacher to report to the trustees without first taking action.

The teacher when occasion demands may suspend or expel a pupil; the trustees upon such inquiry as their judgment may suggest and approve, may, without notice to the pupil or to the parents, suspend or expel a pupil who is guilty of gross misdemeanor and presistent disobedience; and the welfare of our common school system demands that they be invested with this authority. (110 N W 737)

Judge Vincent ruled that, though the authority to suspend or expel pupils from school is vested in the board of directors, the teacher has the right to exclude a refractory pupil temporarily from school. He said: "We have long held the opinion that the right to exclude a pupil temporarily from school was, in the absence of law to the contrary, inherent in the teacher's office, and that the exercise of this right under some circumstances is a necessity."-Nat. Teacher, July, 1874.

This view is generally held, as in Ia., Neb., R.I., Tenn., W. Va., etc.

If the offender is incorrigible, suspension or expulsion is the only adequate remedy. In general, no doubt, the teacher should report a case of the kind to the proper board for its action in the first instance, if no delay will necessarily result from that course prejudicial to the best interests of the school. But the conduct of the recusant pupil may be such that his presence in the school for a day or an hour may be disastrous to the discipline of the school, and even to the morals of the other pupils. In such a case it seems absolutely essential to the welfare of the school that the teacher should have the power to suspend the offender at once from the privileges of the school; and he must necessarily decide for himself whether the case requires that remedy. (45 Wis 150)

The teacher who suspends or expels a pupil is not liable on an implied contract to teach. There is no implied contract between teacher and pupil in our schools that the former shall teach the latter. The only contract of the teacher is with the board of directors employing him and he is accountable to the board alone for his acts as teacher. (2 Ill App. 458)

The teacher can not expel. Should he assume to do so he would be liable for damages.-Cooley on Torts, 288.

A Vt. decision held that the teacher might expel, and that if he erred in good faith in the discharge of his duty he was not liable to action (32 Vt 224). But in Mass., when the teacher suspended a pupil for refusing to take a whipping, and the trustees had not acted upon the case, the parent could not maintain a suit for damages for expulsion without first applying to the trustees to see if they sustained the teacher, as the child had not been expelled. (133 Mass 103)

In some states power is given to the teacher by statute to suspend for a limited time. N. C makes the limit for the current term; N. D. makes the limit 5 days. Fla. directs teachers to suspend pupils for 10 days for gross immorality, misconduct, or persistent violations. Ia. says the teacher may suspend and fix the time, notice being given to the board. The trustees may expel whenever the harm the gupil does to the school more than counterbalances the good he might be expected to get from it.

(79 Ill 667, 94 Iii 263, 32 Ill A 300, 115 N W 232, 62 S W 872.) This is provided for generally in statute law, as in Ariz., Cal., Col., Ks., Mo., Mont., Neb., N. J., Pa., Tenn., Va., etc. Sufficient cause must be shown to warrant this

action.

Sometimes this is not a matter of discipline.

Infectious disease is of course ample reason for exclusion from the school, not only of pupils already

infected, but of those likely to be infected from living in a house where such disease exists. (D 1687)

For the exclusion of unvaccinated children see page 174.

For the compulsory admission of colored children see page 174.

Incapacity would seldom be a sufficient cause.

(12 Allen 127, 8 Cush 160, 31 Ia 562, 38 Me 376, 23 Pick 224, 48 Vt 444, 473)

In 1899 it was ruled that the trustees could not exclude from the Cleveland normal school pupils on the ground that they give no promise of becoming fit for teaching.

Henry E. Miller entered the San José normal school in 1895 and again Feb. 25, 1899, and Sept. 4, 1900, was refused permission to continue as a pupil and was expelled. The court found that he had made no failures in practice teaching and he was discharged on the assumption that the board could by their arbitrary will decide him to be disqualified to become a teacher. In this the trustees exceeded their power and deprived the student of a right given him by the statute. It is not a question of withholding a diploma if at time of graduation he was found unfitted, but of permitting him to remain to study. It is not within the power of the teachers to acticipate the results of the final examination. The right to be admitted to a normal school is as valuable as to be admitted to a primary grade. (68 Pac 1032)

A pupil may not compel a board to graduate him. (42 Alt 846)

A child was excluded from the school by a teacher, with the trustee's approval, upon the alleged ground that he was idiotic, lacked capacity for education, and was unable to care for himself. Evidence offered before the school commissioner did not sustain the charges, but rather refuted them. I suppose the true rule touching such a case is that the child should be

permitted to attend the school unless his presence is obnoxious to others, and unless he is so weak-minded as to be incapable of caring for himself and receiving the elements of an education. The school ought to help this boy if it can do so without detriment to the interests of other pupils. Not the mere pleasure or convenience of the teacher is to be considered, but the efficiency and success of the school. Although he may be the occasion of some annoyance, and of a little unusual care and attention, he should be permitted to continue in the school unless his presence there will injure it. (D 3891)

New York makes generous provision for all children unfitted by feeble intellect or by deafness or by blindness for public school instruction.

(920)

There are institutions for the feeble-minded at Syracuse and at Newark.

The commissioner of education has charge of the institutions for the deaf and dumb and blind in New York city, Rome, Batavia, and elsewhere. (920)

All deaf and dumb persons resident in this state and upwards of 12 years of age, who shall have been resident in this state for 1 year immediately preceding the application, or, if a minor, whose parent or parents, or, if an orphan, whose nearest friend have been resident in this state for one year immediately preceding the application, are eligible to appointments as state pupils (921)

All blind persons of suitable age and similar qualifications are eligible to appointment to the institutions for the blind. All such appointments, with the exception of those to the institution for the blind in the village of Batavia, are made by the commissioner of education upon application, and in those cases in which, in his opinion, the parents or guardians of the applicants are able to bear a portion of the expense, he may impose conditions whereby some proportionate share of ex

pense of educating and clothing such pupils shall be paid by their parents, guardians or friends, in such manner and at such times as the commissioner shall designate, which conditions he may modify from time to time, if he shall deem it expedient to do so. (922)

Each pupil so received into any of these institutions is provided with board, lodging and tuition; and the directors of the institution receive an annual appropriation for each pupil so provided for. The regular term of instruction for such pupils shall be 5 years; but the commissioner of education may, in his discretion, extend the tern of any pupil for a period not exceeding 3 years. (923)

The supervisors of any county in this state from which county state pupils may be hereafter appointed to any institution for the instruction of the deaf and dumb, or to the New York institution for the blind, whose parents or guardians are unable to furnish them with suitable clothing, are hereby authorized and required to raise in each year for each pupil from said county, the sum of $30. (925)

The supervisors, or officers corresponding thereto, of the counties of New York, Kings, Queens, Nassau or Suffolk, from which state pupils shall be sent to and received in the New York institution for the blind, whose parents or guardians shall, in the opinion of the commissioner of education, be unable to furnish them with suitable clothing, are hereby authorized and directed, in every year while such pupils are in said institution, to raise and appropriate $50 for each of said pupils from said counties respectively, and to pay the sum so raised to the said institution, to be by it applied to furnishing such pupils with suitable clothing while in said institution. (925)

Whenever a blind person, who is a citizen of this state and a pupil in actual attendance at a college, university, technical or professional school located in this state and authorized by law to grant degrees, other than an institution established for the regular instruction of the blind, is designated by the trustees thereof as a fit person to receive the aid hereinafter rovided for, there shall be paid by the state for the use of