בס Education and Service. You remember the vision of Ibsen's John Gabriel Borkman as he stands in a winter midnight on an open plateau in the firwood, under the shadow of the mountain and facing the fiord and distant range, and recalls lovingly the early ambitions of a now broken life. Using in part the poet's phrases: He sees the smoke of great steamships on the fiord that weave a network of fellowship all around the world; he hears the hum of the factories with wheels whirling and bands flashing day and night; he sees in the mountain ranges the buried millions, the veins of metal stretching out their winding, branching, luring arms to him begging to be liberated, to be free, unborn treasures yearning for the light; and all these seem a shining train of power and glory, all his kingdom to be conquered. Ibsen's hero made a false god of his ambition, and a metal hand finally gripped him by the heart. But the picture may represent worthy visions of men who, in an age when the sword has been beaten into marvelous implements of industry, execute enterprises that would challenge the organizing power of a Cæsar or Napoleon,-men who have not felt the chill blast, whose hearts have not been clutched by the ice-hand. Goethe's Faust has the vision of power over nature's forces: "This world means something to the capable, Make grandly visible my daring plan !" But it is by the light of an inner revelation that he sees his work should help men, and, when the purpose to leave a permanent blessing to his fellows arises, the supreme moment of happiness which he would fain prolong has come, -the happiness which he has so long and deviously pursued. The German education everywhere looks toward service to state and society, and this is properly one of its chief functions; our education must train men to meet the increasing extent, complexness, and refinements of modern activities. To-day religion and ethics and poetry and philosophy and science and all knowledge must be realized in practical life. The philosophy is not, "Hitch your wagon to a star," but "Hitch your star to a wagon." From bricklaying to lawmaking too many are unskilled, and, what is worse, they don't care; and the schools have to weigh this fact. Huxley's enormous longing for the highest and best in all shapes should reach every practical occupation as well as the world of so-called culture interests. . Training should end in concentration, not diffusion, and should bear flower and fruit.-Dr. James H. Baker, President of the University of Colorado. "Peace Day" Observances in Public Schools Copyright by Underwood & Underwood, N. Y. Here are school children representing practically every European nation pledging allegiance to the flag of their adopted country. T BY PROF. B. B. BASSETT, M. A., LL. B. Iowa City, Iowa HE school boards or boards of directors in the various rural, town, and city school districts are charged with the general management and control of the schools of their respective districts. In order to exercise this control, they are empowered to make and enforce all reasonable rules and regulations necessary for the government and general welfare of the schools. In the exercise of this control, the school board has wide discretion. In fact the only limitation imposed upon that body is that the rules which they prescribe shall be reasonable; and what is reasonable can only be determined by the courts. In Burdick v. Babcock, 31 Iowa, 562, the court defines a reasonable rule thus: "Any rule not subversive of the right of children or parents, or in conflict with humanity or the precepts of divine law, which tends to advance the object of the law in establishing public schools, must be considered reasonable and proper.' The teacher is the agent of the school board in maintaining order and discipline and in enforcing its reasonable rules and regulations, except where such enforcement requires the expulsion of the pupil, since expulsion is the prerogative of the school board only. The jurisdiction of the teacher may be regarded as coextensive with that of the school board, inasmuch as he is the agent of the board in enforcing its rules, and, in absence of rules made by the board, may make them himself. Ebersole (Cyclopedia of Iowa Law) says: "It is the province of the directors to establish such rules and regulations as they may deem proper; but if they fail to do so, or in matters wherein they fail to provide any, the law will presume that they have delegated that power to the teacher, and he may establish such rules as are reasonable, and not in conflict with rules already established by the board." In the maintenance of discipline and the enforcement of rules, the teacher may resort to corporal punishment (unless prohibited by statute, as in New Jersey) or to suspension. The board may resort to expulsion. With this brief statement of the source and nature of the power exercised by the teacher and school board over pupils, we will consider the extent and limitations of their jurisdiction. Exclusive on School Premises. So soon as the child sets foot upon the school premises during school hours and in the capacity of a pupil, the teacher's responsibility for and control over the conduct of said pupil becomes complete, and, under all ordinary circumstances, exclusive. No irate parent may lawfully interpose between the teacher and pupil. In the exercise of his control, he is limited only by the reasonable rules of the school board and by the Penal Code of the state. Concurrent on Pupil's Way to and from School. When we come to consider the teacher's responsibility for and control over the pupil's conduct on the way to and from school, we at once meet with difficulties. The following questions need to be answered: May the teacher lawfully punish a pupil for acts committed between home and school? Must he take cognizance of such acts, or may he disregard them? What is the nature of his jurisdiction over the pupil at such times? In considering these questions we must recognize changes which have taken place in the teacher's legal status, as well as changes in the popular sentiment. There was a time in this country when school keeping was a private enterprise. The private tutor who visited the home was merely a paid servant, with no power to command obedience on the part of his pupils, unless specifically conferred by the parents. The case stood a little better when the pupil sought the master, either in the master's own home or in a place especially provided by him. When the child was committed to the master's care, an implied contract at once arose that, in consideration for services rendered, the parent agreed to pay the advertised rate, and delegated to the master so much of his parental authority as was necessary to compel obedience on the part of the pupil, at least while under his immediate supervision. At the next stage of advancement, the state commanded the establishment of public schools and provided for their maintenance by general taxation; also, providing for the certification of the teacher. The teacher now had state recognition; but, as he was still examined, certificated, and employed by local authorities, he was still regarded as merely an employee of the community. With the growth of population and the development of this country, a process of centralization of administration in education has taken place. To-day the certification of teachers has been practically taken out of the hands of local authorities, and vested in state officials. The teacher has at last come to be recognized as a state official, acting with authority delegated to him by the state, and not by the parent. Fourteen states have defined the teacher's jurisdiction in part by statute. Although it extends in each case beyond the school premises, there are four different boundaries defined: (1) From the time the pupil leaves the parental roof until he arrives home again. Arizona, California, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington. (2) From the time the pupil leaves home for school ground until he arrives home from school. West Virginia. (3) From the time the pupil leaves home for school until he leaves school for home. Montana. (4) When "near" the school ground. Florida. The exercise of this control is either obligatory on the part of the teacher(Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, New Jersey, Nevada, Virginia) or permissive and discretionary (Montana; Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Washington). The Montana and Washington laws state that this power is to be exercised by the teacher "in school," which is a recognition of the principle declared by the court of Indiana as early as 1859, that a teacher may not inflict punishment on a pupil away from the school ground. The Nevada law, however, says: "The school trustees, principal, and teachers. are hereby given concurrent power with the peace officers for the protection of children in school and on the way to and from school, and for the enforcement of order and discipline among them." From a study of all the decisions bearing on the subject since 1851, it is evident that the courts give two opposing lines of decisions. (1) The teacher's authority does not extend beyond the school premises. This is the position taken in New York.. 3 (2) It extends from the time the pupil leaves home for school until he arrives home from school, and the teacher may punish for acts committed by the pupil on his way to and from school. It has been so held in Missouri,1 Texas,2 Vermont and in England. The law has been so interpreted by the school authorities in Colorado, Kansas, Ohio, Nebraska and Arkansas. The nature of the teacher's jurisdiction is generally expressed as concurrent with that of the parent. It is interesting to note the changes which have taken place in the interpretion of the common law of England. Cooley's Blackstone says: "The general right of discipline does not extend beyond conduct in the schoolroom and adjoining yard; and, if punishment may be inflicted for bad behavior elsewhere, it can be only under very exceptional circumstances." In 1893 the case of Cleary v. Booth [1893] 1 Q. B. 463, was adjudicated. The appellant was the head master of a boarding school, and the respondent a pupil of that school. The respondent was on his way to school one morning in company with another pupil named Calloway, when they met a third pupil named Godding. Calloway assaulted Godding, but there is no evidence that the respondent assaulted him. Upon complaint being made to the appellant, he caned both Calloway and respondent. The justices in the lower court held that 1 Deskins v. Gose, 85 Mo. 485, 55 Am. Rep. 387. 2 Hutton v. State, 23 Tex. App. 386, 59 Am. Rep. 776, 5 S. W. 122. 3 Lander v. Seaver, 32 Vt. 114, 76 Am. Dec. 156. Cleary v. Booth [1893] 1 B. 465, 62 L. J. Mag. Čas. N. S. 87, 5 Reports, 263, 68 L. T. N. S. 349, 41 Week. Rep. 391, 17 Cox, C. C. 611, 57 J. P. 375. the teacher exceeded his authority in punishing for an act committed away from the school premises. The higher court reversed the decision. The following is an extract from the opinion: Poland, J.: "The power of the school master to punish a pupil is not limited to acts which take place within the four walls of the school premises. His authority over the pupil is an authority delegated to him by the parent, and, though it would not extend to the conduct of a pupil while under his parent's roof, when the parental authority would be resumed, it must extend to the conduct of the pupil on his way to and from school." Lawrence, J.: "It is difficult to express in words the extent of the schoolmaster's authority in respect to the punishment of his pupils; but in my opinion his authority extends not only to acts done in school, but also to cases where a complaint of acts done out of school, at any rate while going to and from school, is made to the teacher." Collins, J.: "Very grave consequences would result if it were held that the parent's authority was exclusive up to the door of the school; and that then, and only then, the master's authority commenced. It cannot be that such duty or power ceases the moment that the pupil leaves school for home. In my opinion parents do contemplate such an exercise of authority by the schoolmaster. I should be sorry if I felt myself driven to come to the opposite conclusion, and am glad to be able to say that the principle shows that the authority delegated to the school master is not limited to the four walls of the school." It seems strange that this case is without a precedent in England. For the first time the right of the teacher to inflict punishment for acts of the pupil away from school was brought before an English court for consideration. In Deskins v. Gose, 85 Mo. 485, 55 Am. Rep. 387 (1885) the defendant, a teacher, punished the plaintiff, a pupil, for violation of a rule of the school forbidding the use of profane language, quarreling, and fighting with other scholars, either at the schoolhouse or on their way home. The quarreling and |