A school board has no power to compel the payment of a sum of money as a condition of reinstatement. (116 N W 232)

If the trustees refuse to expel a persistently disobedient pupil, it has been held that the teacher may decline to continue the school and draw wages for the full term (D 1725), or at least up to the time of giving up the school (27 Vt 755, 46 Vt 452). See page 132.

It is the duty of a trustee to aid a woman teacher, when appealed to, in reducing to subjection a vicious and disturbing pupil, and if necessary, to remove such pupil from the school. (D 3678).

If trustees will not expel them, a teacher may refuse to instruct large boys who treat her disrespectfully and refuse proper obedience. "A female cannot be expected to control large boys by physical force" (D 1725)

A boy expelled for impertinence should be readmitted if he apologizes (D 1695). Compare page 257. Nor can he be required to apologize upon his knees (D 1960).

By other decisions, pupils cannot be suspended for refusing to apologize to a teacher for declining to sit by a very hot stove as punishment, or for wearing the hair in a manner forbidden by the teacher but approved by the mother. page 169.

See

In Ill. it has been held that the board may require a pupil to inform it of the name of another pupil guilty of a breach of the rules, and on his refusal may suspend him, but not for more than the rest of the school year (32 Ill A 300); but it would not be safe to rely on this decision.

It is not in the line of duty for trustees to refuse a person expelled from a school the quiet enjoyment of an exhibition held by a literary society of a school in a school-building. In charging the jury in such a case, the judge remarked:

To say that a student expelled from a school for disobedience to some municipal regulation should be excluded from

attending a prayer meeting or public lecture in the schoolhouse or college premises for all time to come, without any evidence of improper conduct or suspicion of improper purposes, would be an exercise of tyranny over his private rights not vested in the trustees, directors, or professors of our educational institutions. (3 Pittsb 264)

If a pupil who has been suspended or expelled refuses to leave the building, the teacher or trustee may at once enter a complaint before any justice of the peace or city magistrate under the provisions referred to on page 155.

The law of N. H. says "If any scholar, after notice, shall attend or visit a school which he has no right to attend, or shall interrupt or disturb the same, he shall be fined for the first offence $5, and for any subsequent offence $10, or be imprisoned not exceeding 30 days."

How long expulsion should continue when a punishment for bad conduct has been a subject of controversy.

The usual view is that the expulsion should continue till repentance is shown.

On April 8, 1874, L. H. Hanchett was suspended from the union school at Phoenix, N. Y., "for disrespectful conduct and language towards his teacher", and the board refused to restore him until he should make an apology. He refused to make such apology, on the ground that he had been unjustly dealt with in reference to a certain examination, and more than a year afterwards he applied to the state superintendent to be readmitted to the school without apology. The superintendent's decision reads as follows: "The language of the appellant to his

teacher was such as no provocation would ever justify a gentleman in using toward a lady, as the teacher is: and the appellant's own sense of self-respect and of what under the circumstances was due from him to his teacher should have led him to make the apology of his own free-will, without a demand for it from the board in behalf of the offended party. But it appears that the appellant persistently refuses to do not only the teacher but himself justice in the matter, for in view of the offence committed, making at least the reparation of an apology for the language used, was, in my opinion, an act of justice even to himself, which he should have been not only willing but eager to perform. But in view of the fact that the appellant has already been kept from the privileges of the school for more than a year, and that such a suspension may be well deemed a sufficient punishment for the offence, committed as it probably was under unusual excitement and by a scholar of uniform previous good conduct, the appeal is, I must admit with considerable reluctance, sustained, and the respondents are directed to restore the appellant to the privileges of the school, on presenting himself for that purpose."-Letter book, Education department, July 21, 1875.

The principle here affirmed is that when the suspension has been continued long enough to be a sufficient punishment, the scholar must be received without acknowledgment of the wrong committed.

A similar decision was rendered April 24, 1901, in relation to a case in Huntington, where it was held that expulsion

could not be for a longer period than to the end of the school year.

In some states the statute limits the period of expulsion to the current term.

Among these are Kan., Neb., N.D., Ohio, S.D., Utah.

But New York has had only two administrations capable of rendering such decisions and is not likely to have another. The usual ruling is given in the decisions which follow.

Henry Merrill, 17 years old, a pupil in the school at Lyons, assaulted John H. Patterson, acting principal of the school, and on the next day when school was in session charged him with lying and offered to fight him. When called before the board he admitted this, and justified his conduct, whereupon he was suspended, and his guardian appealed. There can be no doubt of the power of local school authorities to suspend pupils from school privileges when their conduct is so wilfully insubordinate as to be destructive of the good order and efficiency of the schools. There are undoubtedly some cases which would justify an entire and perpetual taking away of school privileges. There are many more cases which call for a temporary taking away of such privileges, to continue until such time as the pupil gives satisfactory evidence of his willingness to submit himself to the discipline of the school * * * This department will not be inclined to overrule the action of the board in this case, at least before it is shown that it refuses to readmit Merrill to the privileges of the school after he has given abundant proof of regret for his misconduct, and readiness to submit unreservedly to the discipline of the school. (D 3596)

The action of a teacher and of a board of education in suspending a pupil will be upheld when it is shown that the pupil was disorderly and refused to obey the teacher and properly deport himself in the school. Until it has been made to appear by proof that the pupil has been subjugated and is ready to properly conduct himself, he should not be admitted to the privileges of the school. (D 3689)

Appeal from the refusal of the trustees of a district to receive a pupil in the school who has been expelled for a breach of discipline. The boy has been denied the privileges for several weeks. The act for which the punishment was inflicted was evidently the result of momentary impulse, and for which he is now contrite. Nothing is shown against him but this one act. Held, that he should be admitted to the school.

(D 3861).

In Ill., when a pupil has been suspended, and uses gross vulgarity and profanity to the board on being called before it, he forfeits his right if any to reinstatement until reparation is tendered. (32 Ill A 300)

In Me. the trustees may expel any obstinately disobedient and disorderly scholar, and restore him on suitable evidence of his repentance and amendment.

In R. I. the principle involved has been clearly stated. On March 9, 1870, a scholar named Fuller resisted the authority of J. I. Davenport, principal of the Woonsocket high school. The teacher suspended him. The committee justified the teacher in the suspension, but voted to restore the boy unconditionally. The teacher appealed from the committee to the state commissioner of public schools, who rendered the following decision:

In the case of Master Fuller, no punishment has yet been inflicted for the offence committed, save that indirectly following the publicity of suspension from school; and so far as the vote of the committee extends, there has been no requirement made which secures to the governing power of the school a recognition of the violation of law, or a proper pledge of future obedience. If the scholar so disobeying be allowed to return to the schoolroom without such acknowledgment of wrong, or a promise of future obedience, the discipline of the school would instantly be degraded to the position occupied by the offender, and to a state of discord in harmony with the offence. On the other hand, the recognition on the part of the offender, of the offence committed, as well as an acknowledgment of the authority of the teacher to regulate the internal police of the school, with a pledge of