last year's convention, declaring that as a general rule, a teacher who could govern himself, could discipline a school without corporal punishment, and that a person who could not govern himself, was not fit to be entrusted with the sacred duty of the instruction of youth.

Mr. Tidd spoke of the action of the convention of last year on this subject. He thought we should recognize the right of the teacher to inflict corporal punishment upon the scholars, when necessity required it. While he would recommend to all to endeavor to govern schools entirely upon the principle of moral suasion, he would yet let the scholars understand that there was something behind the desk, which would be used, if good government could not otherwise be enforced.

Mr. A. Wright said the resolution did not deny the right of the teacher to inflict corporal punishment in cases of necessity, but only asserted as a general principle, that flagellation was not the proper means to govern the mind. There undoubtedly are cases where the rod must be applied, but, as a general principle, he insisted that it was true, that a teacher who can govern himself, could govern his school without the rod.

Mr. Holcomb renewed the amendment which was offered last year, which in substance declares that while the right of the teacher to inflict punishment is recognized, yet the convention recommend to use moral suasion as the best mode of governing schools, &c. &c. He thought it would be absolutely dangerous to let the scholars know beforehand that, whatever might be their conduct, no correcting power was lodged in the hands of the teacher.

Mr. Frazier was satisfied, from what had fell under his observation in his county, that the dispensing with corporal punishment entirely had resulted in great harm to the schools; and he believed that the communication of Mr. Randall in the District School Journal, on dispensing with corporal punishment, had done injury in some in

stances.

Mr. A. Wright was sorry to hear that the District School Journal had done injury to the schools in any county. Such certainly had not been its effect in Washington county. There, teachers who some time since believed that a rod five feet long was absolutely necessary, had been induced to throw it aside, and the resuit had been better I discipline in the schools, and greater attainments in the branches taught, while at the same time the scholars were permitted to keep their backs sound.

Mr. Dwight said he by no means held himself responsible for all the doctrines put forth in the various communications which appeared in the District Journal. But he thought the gentleman from Broome (Mr. Frazier) would look in vain in the Journal to find the doctrine advanced that corporal punishment should never be employed. He believed that the teachers had right to inflict it, but wished the convention to pass some resolution expressive of its sense of the manner and the occasions of its administration. Heretofore it had been inflicted to an extent bordering on barbarity. He would not take from the teacher the right to enforce the laws of his school, yet he would do all in his power to inculcate upon all the expediency and importance of endeavoring to rule by moral suasion and the law of love, rather than by the infliction of corporal chastisement.

He did not believe the sentiment of the resolution was strictly true. He had no doubt there were very many persons who could and did govern themselves well, but yet who could not dispense, upon all occasions, with the use of the rod in school. He preferred the amendment to the original resolution.

Mr. Woodin believed that the more the District |

School Journal was read, the more happy would be the influence exerted. Such had invariably been its effect in his county. He was no advocate for the rod. The best schools that had come under his supervision were those where the rod was used the least, or hot at all. But let the scholars know beforehand that the teacher has no right under any emergency to inflict corporal punishment, and he might as well lock up the school house and quit at once, to save being turned out of doors by the scholars.

Mr. Frazier explained that he did not mean to attack the Journal. Its influence generally had been most salutary. All that he had said was that he believed the recommendation to dispense entirely with corporal punishment, had had a deleterious effect in some instances.

Mr. Henry did not understand the resolution as denying the right to inflict corporal punishment. It only asserted a general principle.

Col. Stone, after explaining under what circumstances the committee had reported this resolution, remarked that he dissented entirely from the principle that corporal punishment is in no cases necessary. At times it is the only resort of the Teacher. He spoke particularly of the schools in the city of New-York. Let the teacher there be fettered in that respect, and he would be tumbled into the gutter by the scholars in a very short time, and without much ceremony. The great point should be, to obtain teachers fully qualified-not only in respect to their intellectual attainments, but also their habits, tempers, &c. When you have obtained such a teacher, it must be left entirely to his own discretion when to inflict corporal punishment, and when to forbear. He gave a history of the only case where complaint had been made to him of undue punishment by one of the teachers. A mother came with her boy of about 15 years old, and told her story, which appeared to show that too much severity had been used. Upon hearing the statement of the teacher, however, he was satisfied that he was fully justified. The sequel proved the correctness of his decision. The mother withdrew her boy from the school on account of the flogging, and it was but a few months before he obtained such control over her that the family were obliged to move some four miles down town, in order that she might have the assistance of her father to keep the unruly son in subjection.

Mr. Randall was firmly of the opinion that corporal punishment was in no case necessary. It was either right or it was wrong. If it was right, then we should pass no resolution on the subject. If it is wrong, then it is all wrong, and should be done away with entirely. There could be no such thing as half right and half wrong about this business. He believed it was all wrong. The business of a school was to develop the intellectual powers of the pupils. Punishment was an address only to the animal feelings, and certainly was not necessary to assist the development of the higher faculties of man.

Mr. W. Wright stated a fact which came under his own observation. A teacher who was every way qualified for the performance of his duties, announced to the scholars at the beginning of the school, that in no case would corporal punishment be resorted to. The result was soon seen.Insubordination began to be manifested, and before the term was half out, the teacher was, to use the language of his friend, "tumbled into the ditch." He spoke at length of the effect which the passage of such a resolution would have. It would be most disastrous. Take away from the teacher the power to assert his rights, and to maintain them, if necessary, by the infliction of personal chastisement, and you open the flood gates of insubordination and crime. As a general rule, it was neces

Three o'clock. Mr. S. S. Randall presented certain books, with a communication from Rev. P. Bullions.

Mr. Frazier presented a communication from Mr. J. Holbrook on the subject of Geology, which was referred to the business committee.

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.

Mr. Randall called for the consideration of the resolution in relation to the infliction of corporal punishment in schools.

The question was announced, on an amendment, declaratory of the authority of a teacher, to be the same as that of a parent over a wayward child.

Mr. Hardenbergh remarked that this subject had been pretty freely discussed at the last convention, and the debate had been published in the District School Journal. It had been again discussed this morning; and he had no doubt the convention were

prepared to vote upon it without farther talking. He hoped the question would be taken.

Mr. Randall did not propose to occupy much of the time of the convention; but he did not agree with the gentlemen in the opinion, that this convention, or the public generally, had sufficiently discussed this subject. He regarded it as one of vital importance as affecting materially the whole system of school education. He had been amused at the shifts which the advocates for retaining this relic of barbarism, (as he regarded it) resorted to. The resolution, as it came from the committee, took the broad ground that a teacher who could govern himself could govern a school without corporal punishment. The corollary, he supposed, followed, of course, that one incapable of governing himself was unfit to be a teacher. He supposed no one would think of granting a certificate to such a person. But to adopt the proposed amendment, would be to say that teachers ought never to inflict corporal punishment, yet that they ought to have

1

the power to do so. If any gentleman was disposed to take the affirmative side of this question, and argue in favor of the principle of corporal punishment, he should be happy to hear him, but he hoped he would go one step farther than to advance the mere assertion that schools could not be governed without it, because he should meet that with the counter assertion, that the failure only proved the inefficiency of the teachers. The best schools in this and other states, were governed without corporal punishment. The argument of gentlemen would forever preclude the general introduction of female teachers, which all acknowledge to be desirable; for females had not the physical ability to cope with refractory pupils.

Such

had had some practical experience in visiting Mr. Rochester thought, if the General Deputy schools, it would bring his mind to a different conclusion. It was not alone in literary qualification, that teachers were generally deficient. There was a want of training in the capacity to govern. True, there were some men "born to command" whose countenance enforces obedience. men can govern better without corporal punishment than others can with it; but they are exceptions. Take the large majority of districts-particularly in cities and the larger villages, where there are many children who have not the benefit of proper parental training—and an ordinary teacher who should attempt to govern merely by moral nished with such a teacher as he could desire to suasion, must fail. When every district was fursee, then corporal punishment might be dispensed with. Such a state of things would be greatly in accordance with his feelings; but he apprehended it would take years to arrive at it.

Mr. Tooker said it was clear to his mind that

the proceedings of this convention were to be felt tone to the public mind on the great subject, to throughout the whole community; and tend to give discuss which they had assembled. Those who would retain this relict of barbarism-the infliction of corporal punishment-went upon the supposition that there were many teachers who could not govern a school without. He would say, in such case, let the officers take away the credentials. Was there no other mode of enforcing obedience to rules than by blows? It has been said that there was biblical authority for the use of the lived, could be quoted for it; but there was a difrod; and he admitted that the wisest man that ever ference between a parent's correcting a child, and a teacher, who may not have the power to govern himself. If a child should prove hopelessly refractory, reference might be had to the trustees. There was no obligation to keep such a child in the school. Many teachers were not judges of the manner and degree of punishments. Instances had been known, where the brain had been affected by a jured, by a blow on the side of the head; and thus blow upon the head-the tympanum of the ear ina teacher might inflict an injury in a moment of heat, which his whole lifetime would be unable to repair. Teachers should work with the minds of their pupils; convince them that they are wrong, and that was the very best means of preventing a repetition of the offence.

Mr. Dwight moved the following amendment to the resolution:

Resolved, That while we recognize the authority of a teacher to be similar to that of a parent over his child, we believe that corporal punishment should be the last resort, and when inflicted by a teacher, should be in private, and never without serious and friendly ad

monition.

Mr. Dwight said that in this form, the resolutio would meet most of the objections that had bee urged by those who opposed the amendment. H agreed with those who argued that the governmen of a school should be similar to that of a well go

low your mother." He was for going forwardcautiously, but still forward. If it was true that we must not move in the cause of virtue because we may find opposers, our common schools are then established in vain. But such he hoped was not the feeling.

Mr. D. Stevens hoped the resolutions would be adopted without a dissenting voice. There was difficulty in many districts in his county on the subject of opening the schools with prayer. He wished some action taken by the Convention on this subject.

Mr. Hardenburgh said if it was intended to make it an universal practice to open the schools throughout the State with prayer, he should oppose any such project, however unpopular his course might be. He had no objection to the inculcation of moral lessons in the schools, but he was not for introducing religious exercises as a positive rule. If the teacher made it a matter of conscience to open the school with prayer, he would leave him to exercise his own discretion. But he would not compel a teacher to pray in school, if he was not so disposed. It would injure the cause of religion. The President remarked that such was not the intention of the resolutions.

Without taking any question the Convention took a recess until 7 o'clock. Seven o'clock.

The Convention met and the consideration of the resolutions of Mr. Dwight was resumed.

The President read an article from the N. Y. Commercial Advertiser of Tuesday, in relation to the exclusion of the Bible from one of the district schools in the city of New-York.

Mr. Rochester made a few remarks in relation to his experience of the effect of opening schools with prayer. It had had uniformly a salutary effect upon the school, and seldom had been objected to by the parents. He spoke too of the importance of introducing moral exercises into the schools, such as the singing of a hymn, or reading a few verses in the Bible. He thought that moral instruction should go hand in hand with the intellectual. He hoped this subject would be fully discussed and some definite action adopted.

Rev. Mr. Abbot, being called upon by the President, addressed the Convention on the paramount importance of introducing moral and christian instruction into our schools of education. The safety of our country and its institutions is dependent upon the character which the next generation will bear. What shall that character be? Shall they come on to the stage with their intellectual faculties increased, but without a corresponding increase of moral power? If so, the effect would be disastrous. We are to look for safety in the education of the conscience, in regard to the moral duties of men. How can business be transacted unless the principles of probity and integrity are predominant? These christian principles must be developed. He spoke, too, of the effect which this moral training had in advancing the intellectual powers. This great question was not only agitating our own country, but also Great Britain, where no subject was more earnestly discussed than the importance of combining moral instruction with education, as the only means of preserving and strengthening the nation. He referred to two reports which he held in his hand as corroborative of this statement.

He also spoke of the feeling on this question in New-England, and referred to the excellence of Wayland's Moral Philosophy as a school book. He described the effect which such a work had upon the minds and conduct of the pupils of the schools in which it was used. He hoped to see that book have an universal circulation.

This was a most important question. He did not exaggerate when he said that ten thousand eyes in

New-England were anxiously looking towards the proceedings of this convention on this question," and he trusted such a decided stand would be taken as would carry joy to their hearts.

Mr. Henry regarded this as one of the most important subjects that had been before the convention. All agreed in the general principle advanced in the resolutions. But in carrying out the details there might be differences of opinion.

Mr. Randall stated the ground which had been recently taken by the Common School Department in relation to opening school with prayer. The case was this: a female, every way qualified to teach school, desired to close the school with prayer. The trustees had no other objection to the teacher, and they desired to retain her, if she would give up this practice. They asked an order from the Superintendent to prohibit the opening or closing the schools with prayer, all over the State. Mr. R. read the answer which had been returned by him, (the Secretary being absent.) The Department highly approve of the practice, as long as no sectarian bias is given to the exercise. The request of the trustees was therefore denied. Mr. R. said he had no doubt the Superintendent would approve of this decision, but it would be highly gratifying to him if the convention would pass their opinion in relation to its correctness and propriety.

Albany, May 9, 1843.

Dear Sir-I understand from your letter, that the only objection which any of the inhabitants of your district have to the teacher, is, that she is desirous of opening and c'osing, or at least of closing the exercises of her school with prayer. It is not alleged that any apprehensions exist that attempts will be made through this medium to inculcate the peculiar tenets of any religious denomination or sectarianism in any form; nor can such an inference be fairly drawn from any thing stated in your letter. The objection goes to the principle of admitting prayer under any circumstances, as a preliminary or concluding exercise in our common schools, and you ask whether it would not be "well to exclude prayer from all common schools by the teachers in the hearing of any of the pupils."

Regarding, as I do, the moral influences exerted by our common schools as the fundamental attribute of their usefulness and the great end of their institution,

cannot answer this question in the affirmative. On the contrary, I decidedly approve of the practice of opening and closing the daily sessions of the school mend the adoption or enforcement of this practice as a with prayer. At the same time, I would not recompart of chool discipline, where it is repugnant to the wishes of any considerable portion of the inhabitants of the district; for this would be to detract from its usefulness, and to diminish to a serious extent its moral influence upon the schools. Least of all would I sanction the introduction of any thing partaking of a sectarian tendency in the practice of this devotional exercise. Any teacher guilty of such a palpable perversion of the privilege so enjoyed, would be unworthy of confidence or employment.

But I cannot conceive of anything more appropriate to the introduction and close of each day's instruction in our common schools, than a reverential acknowledgement of the Creator as the source of all knowledge and the fountain and dispenser of all goodness; and I am unwilling to believe that any Christian parent would discountenance in any way this salutary prac tice, when confined to its on legitimate object, the solemn and habitual recognition of a superintending Providence.

The Superintendent is at present out of town, but I cannot doubt his full concurrence in the views I have taken in respect to your application. I am, therefore, of opinion that no sufficient ground exists for the dis missal of your teacher. Very respectfully,

Your obedient servant, S. S. RANDALL, Gen. Dep Sup. Com. Schools. Mr. ISAAC BRINCKERHOFF, Collinsville, N. Y. Mr. Tidd moved that the convention approve of the course adopted by the Deputy Superintendent. Carried unanimously.