reformatory or industrial school, his expulsion from a board school would imply, most probably, the entire cessation of his education. Also when parents are compelled to send their children to school under the provisions of the Elementary Education Acts, they are only excused from sending them to a board school for certain reasons, none of which is that the child has been expelled; therefore, if a child could be expelled, we should have the father in the awkward position of being liable to a penalty for not causing his child to attend a school, to which the master of that school refused to admit the child. Disney's Law relating to Schoolmasters, pages 89, 90.

How, then, is expulsion to be reconciled with the principle of compulsory education (see page 185)? Here we have the law with one hand compelling children against their will to enter the school, and with the other making exclusion the penalty for misbehavior.

Governor Dix believed that corporal punishment was preferable to expulsion. He said:

A teacher ought not, I think, to dismiss a scholar from school. From the nature of the common school system, teachers are, as a general rule, bound to receive and instruct all children sent to them. If a scholar is so refractory that he cannot be managed, and his dismission becomes necessary to the preservation of order, I think the teacher should lay the matter before the trustees for their direction; but not until the ordinary means of correction had been fully tried and found unavailing.-Decisions, page 145.

This is unquestionably sound doctrine. While corporal punishment should be seldom necessary, the pupils should not know that the power to inflict it is taken from the teacher. Impertinence, for instance, always the utterance of a weak and cowardly

nature, can be easily checked only by the certainty of immediate and physically painful punishment. Deprivation of recess or extra tasks often develop it into confirmed insolence, and expulsion follows. The boy whom one tingling blow of the ferule might have saved, grows up in lowbred ignorance. Instances like this we have known ; and we do not believe that boards of education should take away this right of the teacher, or that teachers themselves should ostentatiously renounce it. If the teacher has determined to maintain good order without the use of the rod, it does him honor, and we wish him success. But let him keep his resolution to himself. There are pupils who fear only what hurts them; and they may bring about a crisis when only the rod, and that vigorously applied, will maintain order in the school

room.

But we have shown that modern sentiment is growing so strongly against corporal punishment that it is a dangerous power to exercise, even where it is permitted. Besides, it is asking a good deal of young teachers, especially of young women, to control unruly boys by physical force. Evidently as a last resort some new punishment must be substituted for persistent bad conduct in school.

The truant school is the solution of the difficulty. Every system of schools should have such a school, not penal but reformatory, to which refractory pupils may be sent. Without such schools no compulsory law can be effective. See page 194.

(10 Am Law Reg N S 366, 55 Ill 280, 19 Ohio 184, 40 Wis 328)

J

Fortunately the New York law makes the necessary provision in providing for truant schools. (537.)

These are not the correctional institutions of the kind referred to in the English quotation as "reformatory or industrial school", presence in which is proof of crime. On the contrary, "no person convicted of crimes or misdemeanors, other than truancy, shall be committed thereto." (537)

When properly conducted these schools are a pleasure as well as a blessing to their pupils, and for certain types of boys and girls, coming from certain kinds of homes, are unquestionably better fitted to their needs than the common schools can be.

Where these schools are available, suspension and expulsion with commitment to these schools may be much more freely resorted to than when the result was to throw the child upon the streets. Under this law the suspended pupil instead of being relieved from supervision comes under closer supervision.

Suspension and Expulsion

The right to attend school is not absolute, but is conditional upon compliance with the rules and regulations. (50 Ia 152, 48 Wis 473)

The Iowa law says the true idea is to bring all within the salutary influence of the school, and to drive none out; but cases sometimes occur in which it becomes necessary for the board to protect the rights of the many by excluding a scholar whose presence and example are a constant menace to the successful progress of the school.

The authorities are generally to the effect that when a pupil is guilty of such misconduct as to interfere with the discipline and government of the school he may be suspended or expelled.

(110 N W 73., citing 30 Am Rep 706, 35 Am Rep 163, 14 Barb 222 41 Conn 442, 8 Cush 163, 95 Ill 263, 32 Ill A 300, 105 Mass 475, 157 Mass 561, 42 Mo A 24 32 N E 864, 27 Vt 755, 46 Vt 456, 45 Wis 150)

Accordingly, in most states, there is vested in the teacher the right to suspend pupils for bad conduct.

(14 Barb 221, 48 Cal 36, 3 Head 455, 23 Ia 531, 31 Ia 562, 5 Lea 525. 111 Mass 499, 133 Mass 103, 27 Me 266, 38 Me 376, 3 Tenn Leg R 19, 17 Vt 480, 27 Vt 755, 32 Vt 224, 46 Vt 452, 48 Vt 473, 45 Wis 150)

New York holds that the power to suspend rests only in the trustees.

"The appellant (teacher) had no authority to establish rules .. nor to suspend or expel a single pupil without the order or consent of the respondent (trustee)." (D 4355)

....

In 1881, the principal of the Cattaraugus union school suspended Homer Crandall for two weeks under a by-law of the board authorizing the principal to suspend a pupil who is guilty of flagrant misconduct, or whose example is positively

injurious, or whose reformation after repeated admonitions appears to be hopeless. The court of sessions ruled that the board could not delegate to a teacher the power of suspension or expulsion; and that a boy could not be expelled without notice to appear before the board, with opportunity to defend himself.-S. B. vii. 116.

Previous decisions had held that the teacher might suspend but must immediately report the case to the trustees for review. (D 1725, 3876)

The New York city by-laws read:

3 Any pupil found to be incorrigible or persistently disobedient to or regardless of the rules and regulations prescribed for the government of the school or class, or who has been irregular in attendance may be suspended by the principal, with the approval of the district superintendent. Before suspending a pupil for such cause, the principal shall give notice of his intention to the parent or guardian of such pupil and he shall notify the district superintendent.

4 Any pupil who resists the authority of the principal or class teacher or who by reckless depravity may injure or demoralize the school or class, may be immediately suspended by the principal, who shall forthwith notify the parent or guardian of such pupil and the district superintendent.

5 The district superintendent, within five days after receiving a report from a principal concerning the suspension of a pupil, shall give reasonable notice of a hearing to such child, and to the persons in parental relation to such child, and an opportunity for them to be heard. After a hearing, the district superintendent shall report his findings in the case to the city superintendent, who may authorize the expulsion of such pupil and order his commitment to a truant school, in accordance with the provisions of the compulsory education law, or his transfer to another school or his reinstatement.

In most states teachers may suspend, but must at once