as he conducted himself with the propriety and order befitting the place; and that if his conduct was such as to subvert the necessary discipline of the school, to interrupt its exercises, or demoralize its pupils, he should be sent back to his parents until such time as some sufficient guarantee could be afforded for his future good behavior, and that in the mean while he would be debarred from any other similar institution? Would not parents and guardians themselves, who had neglected their duty in this respect, be stimulated by such expulsion or suspension to prepare their children or wards for admission to the public schools on the same footing as others? Is there, or can there be, any good reason why this duty should be shifted from the shoulders of the parent, to that of the teacher, whose functions are essentially different?"

"The public opinion of the age in which we live has unmistakably affixed its seal of condemnation upon this degrading species of punishment. In all our higher institutions of learning,- in our Universities, Colleges, Academies, Seminaries, Normal and High schools, it has substantially disappeared. Even in the Army and Navy, where the rigid maintenance of discipline is an absolute necessity, it has been proscribed.

"Its infliction as a penalty for crimes and misdemeanors, in one of the States of our Union, has called forth from the public press one universal and indignant cry of disapprobation and shame. Was it desirable that the public schools of the city of New York should longer retain, in their discipline, this relic of a past age- sanctioned as it is by custom

alone - justified by no law-repulsive to every benevolent dictate of our nature and disapproved by the enlightened judgment of every community? Was it not rather incumbent upon us, justly proud as we are of the conceded superiority of our system, to proclaim to the world by the entire abolition of this mode of punishment, our judgment of its inefficacy, impolicy, and inconsistency with every well founded method of educational culture?"

This opinion from the Superintendent of the Public Schools of the City of New York certainly demands some attention, and evidently is given with a certainty that has resulted from long experience as a public educator.

In the Massachusetts Legislature of 1868, the Committee on Education, consisting of Messrs. F. D. Brown of the Senate, and D. A. Goddard, Geo. E. Allen, L. A. Abbott, John P. Ordway, N. M. Gaylord of the House, and B. F. Clark of the Senate, presented three separate reports. The first four named gentlemen say, "That, while they are convinced that the practice of corporal punishment is unwise, unnecessary and demoralizing in its effects upon both teachers and scholars, nevertheless, believing that full power to banish it from our public schools is now vested in School Committees, and further, that the time and the manner of dealing with the question should be left to their discretion, they report that it is inexpedient to legislate on the subject." Then follows one minority report in favor of the entire abolition of corporal punishment, written

by Dr. Ordway and signed by Messrs. Ordway and Gaylord, which your Committee think it advisable to print in full with but few additions, as it contains the opinions of so many distinguished educators all over our country.

"The undersigned, members of the Legislative Committee on Education, herewith present their Minority Report, in favor of the entire abolition of corporal punishment in all of the schools of our State, without regard to age, color, race or sex. In presenting a few of the many reasons for the abolition of corporal punishment, we intend to be just, assuming that justice belongs to the scholar as well as teacher. In defining corporal punishment, we mean any punishment which produces physical pain. School government, to be really effectual, should consist of kindness, parental love and affection, which guides only by a desire to interest as well as instruct the pupil. The teachers who possess these qualifications never resort to corporal punishment, but, with a firm and loving nature, study the individual character of each pupil under their charge, in regard to constitution, temper, capability, peculiar sensibility and mental endowment.

"But the question may be asked, 'Why seek for legislation in the matter, when the subject should be left to district committees?' We reply, 'For the simple reason that members of the school board are too much influenced by the opinions of teachers who have so long revelled in the debasing practice of corporal punishment that the system has almost become

a part of their nature.' When first the school committee man enters upon his duties, he revolts at the idea of the sharp ring of the rattan or ferule as a means of discipline upon a human being, and the demoralizing influence upon his own mind of such treatment; but the teacher says, 'It must be; we cannot dispense with the rod entirely, for it is absolutely necessary in extreme cases, but we desire you to understand distinctly that we never use it except it is positively required as a "last resort;"' and the committee man quiets his mind with the belief that all is right, and that we have the best schools and teachers in the world. Those words, 'last resort,' so often used by teachers, should, in nine cases out of ten, read, 'first resort,' as thousands of children could testify from the experience of year to year.

"But we propose to give a few of the many reasons why, in our judgment, corporal punishment should be abolished. If left to teachers it will not be done, at least for many years; they love power; they cling to authority in this matter as if their lives depended upon it. In their teachers' meetings, if one of their number happens to suggest that it might be dispensed with, the idea is scouted at once. 'What, take away from us this "last resort" in an extreme case! shall it be said by the community that we have been doing wrong all our days; that we have whipped little boys and girls to no purpose? away with this sickly sentimentalism, and retain the power. A good teacher never whips unless he is obliged to.' And thus good teachers, who seldom if ever whip, are

placed in the same boat with the bad teacher, and are obliged to take their average share of the obloquy attendant on the same. Again, teachers are constantly arguing that it will not do to take away the power, when the same argument was used by officers in the army and navy, and it was found that while eft to boards of navy and army officers to decide, the rod would not be abolished. The acting officers were saying from time to time to the naval and army poards: 'There will be mutiny if you dispense with it; why, our lives will not be worth anything.' Consequently, Congress steps in and passes a law abolishing the brutality. Corporal punishment should be abolished because thousands of parents desire it. The numerous petitions which have from time to time been presented by parents for its abolition is a strong reason, because we believe the teacher, acting in loco parentis, has no right to use a form of discipline in school, which the parent does not use at home. The fact that many parents have taken their children from our public schools, and sent them to private schools, is evidence that the system is faulty. Again, how absurd is the idea that any teacher can have towards a child true parental feeling, or at least such feeling as the mother holds towards her offspring.

"Corporal punishment should be abolished because of the great contrariety of opinion among teachers, as to the class of children requiring the most severe discipline; some contending that the children of the poor and ignorant require the most on account of