I am of opinion that under the school law the house may be used for educational purposes collateral to the main purpose, such as meetings of the district for school business, lectures upon literary or scientific subjects, debating societies for the people or children of the district, &c. It may not be easy in all cases to draw the line between legal and illegal uses, but it would be perfectly clear that the district could not use the house for trade or religious meetings, if any person objected to it.

The question then arises whether the deed in the present case, varies the rights of parties from what they would be if the deed contained no conditions.

By the deed from Joseph Case and others, dated October 11th, 1848, the school house lot is conveyed to the district, "for the purpose of maintaining thereon a district school house and appurtenances, for the benefit of the district school of said district, and for no other use or purpose whatever, except religious meetings," and it is provided when said lot of land shall cease to be occupied for the purposes of a district school aforesaid, the same shall revert to the grantors, their heirs and assigns forever."

"that

The exception in regard to religious meetings may be left out of consideration in the present case, It cannot affect it in any way. If the district have no right to religious meetings there independent of the deed, the deed cannot give it to them. And if the district would have such a right otherwise it may admit of question whether a provision in a deed would deprive them of it.

Leaving out of consideration the words, "except religious meetings," the remainder of the first passage quoted from the deed, appears to me, on the maturest reflection, to express no more and no less than the school law according to the construction herein given to it, would have expressed without the deed; the provision in the deed is exactly in the spirit of the law, and neither adds to or lessens the rights and powers of the district or trustees.

If the first passage quoted from the deed, does not vary the rights of the district, from what they would be, if there was no such provisions in the deed, the latter proviso appears for the same reason to contain no limitation as to the use of the house, which would prevent its being used for the purposes for which I have said the law apart from the deed would authorize. E. R. POTTER,

Commissioner of Public Schools.

I have carefully considered of the above opioion and approve of the same. I have also consulted with Judges Haile and Brayton, who concur with me in opinion.

March 4th, 1853.

R. W. GREENE,

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

MAKING FIRES, ETC. IN SCHOOLS.

Appeal to the Commissioner of Public Schools from a regulation made by the School Committee of the town of North Kingstown, relating to the making of fires in school houses.

The regulation No. 26 adopted by the School Committee, October 25, 1852, is in these words: "The trustee or trustees of each district with the teacher, may cause the fires to be made in the school house, by directing the scholars of a suitable age, to take turns in making the fires, or procure them to be made in any other way they may think proper."

In a private school the teacher has a right to prescribe his own terms. The parent who sends children to the school delegates to the teacher the right to govern them according to his own rules and to punish to a reasonable extent for the violation of them. The remedy of the parent, if he does not like the school or its regulations, is in not sending to it. Before the establishment of a public school system all our

schools were of this character. The practice of requiring the scholars toperform services of this sort, was generally adopted in the country schools, aud in many of them has continued to this day. It remains to inquire what alteration the establishing of public schools by law, supported by the common funds and property of the State, has made in the rights of the parties in this respect.

To a public school every parent has a legal right to send his children. He sends them subject to the lawful authority of the teacher, and to the lawful regulations which may be prescribed for the discipline and studies of the school, but he has a right to insist that no regulations be made which the law does not authorize.

The right claimed, if it exists at all, must be derived from the general power of the Committee to make regulations, or from the authority given to districts and trustees to make assessments on scholars and their parents. (Sec. 59.) The latter, however, it is very evident, contemplates only assessments to be paid in money and not labor.

The power of the Committee to make regulations is given by Section 16, which authorizes them, "to make and cause to be put up in each school house, or furnished to each teacher a general system of rules and regulations for the admission and attendance of pupils, the classification, studies, books, discipline and method of instruction in the public schools."

It seems to me very plain that the power to make a regulation of the character of the one in question is not given in this paragraph. We might as well infer a right to require the scholars to cut and saw the wood. And as I can find no other authority for it in the law, it must be considered as unauthorized by law, and accordingly null and void.

The practical difficulty in the case may be easily obviated by a voluntary arrangement on the part of the parents, or by

making a small addition to the money assessments, and paying some person for attending to it under the direction of the teacher.

E. R. POTTER,

Commissioner of Public Schools.

Providence, R. I., Jan. 1, 1853.

APPENDIX No. III.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS.

The following extracts from writers of different religious denominations, are given, in order to exhibit the grea variety of views upon this subject. Some of the extracts it is believed will be found suggestive of subjects for the most Serious reflection:

Extract from a Lecture by RICHARD GARDNER, Esq., before the Public School Association of Lancashire, England. "Another fundamental objection will be taken to the plan, as to which I shall not do more than throw out a few general observations. I alluded to the exclusion of theological teaching. This, it will be said, is godless education. Now, in the first place, that which is contemplated by the plan, or indeed by any system of day schools whatever, is not education at all, in the strict sense of the term. Education commences in the cradle, and is affected by all the circumstances of a man's life in his course to the grave. The instruction received in the day school is one of those circumstances which we desire to make as favorable as possible. Then comes the question, What is to be taught in the day school? I very much doubt whether, under any circumstances, this is the proper place for religious instruction. It is a place of labor, of restraint, and sentiments of punishment. I doubt whether the Bible and the Catechism have their appropriate place amidst the routine of circular studies, and whether one