address fifty years afterward, "scattered over the then village of Schenectady, meeting for educational purposes in what was then a cabinet-maker's shop, with a single professor, was the whole of Union College." He bent himself to the work of removing all these disabilities and providing for these pressing needs.

From this time the College progressed rapidly. Dr. Nott has himself been the most munificent benefactor to the institution. Through his direct bounty the College will realize over half a million of dollars. Dr. Nott had acquired a fortune through valuable inventions which he had contributed to society-among which was that of the first anthracite coal stove ever used in this countryand the College reaped a large harvest from his success.

To the last of his long life Dr. Nott retaind a very large proportion of the vigor and enthusiasm which had characterized his early career. It was not until September, 1860, that he ceased to appear in the lecture-room. In 1862 he presided at the annual Commencement of the College. Since then his decline has been gradual, and death came to him as winter follows upon autumn, after the rich and abundant harvest of life had been fully reaped.

Excuses for Music.

Music hath charms to soothe the savage breast.

In every place large enough to support a music-teacher, frequent petitions in relation to this artist are addressed to the heads of the departments: "Mr. Pestalozzi, may I be excused at 3 o'clock to take my music-lesson?" is the usual form of the request, generally verbal, though some times stamped with the written authority of a maternal hand. What shall be done? The kind heart of the pedagogue dislikes to refuse, and yet a sense of duty decides against the practice.

Now we yield to none in our appreciation of this divine enjoyment; with Dr. Holland, we believe that music is a creature of the skies,' and with Shakspeare, he that is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treason, stratagems, and spoils,'-and yet, after all, when school and piano come in collision, school invariably receives our preference; and for this reason: few of the pupils in our public schools have any portion of the six hours to spare, without withdrawing attention needed for the acquisition of

a substantial English education. Besides, a large number of these maidens who thus desire to exchange the fingering of their textbooks for the fingering of the keys have no vocal or instrumental ear, and, after spending time of school and time out of school all the years of girlhood in drumming on a Chickering, a year or two of married life amidst the cares of a household, and the 'Marches' and 'Italian songs' are never taken from the corner. She practiced simply to please her mother, any how; and the big square instru ment henceforth will stand in the parlor for occasional young company, or until her eldest daughter, Anna Matilda, is old enough to go through the same dubious process. Meanwhile the conversations of the household are tinctured with divers barbarisms which a proper knowledge of Goold Brown might correct; and little Johnny, being of an inquiring mind, is continually asking the reason of things which a slight acquaintance with Natural Philosophy could readily answer. Music, however, had called our heroine from school about the time these lessons should have been prepared or recited, and hence the lady, at the present writing, has neither the skill of Thalberg nor the science of Agassiz.

When parents insist on leave of absence for their hopefuls at certain hours, the demand must doubtless be met. This preroga tive may, however, be materially limited by the teacher's suspending the privilege whenever the pupil's deportment or diligence proves unsatisfactory.-Illinois Teacher.

The Rights and Obligations of Teachers..

AN IMPORTANT DECISION BY JUDGE SANFORD.

"The master," says Judge Blackston, "is in loco parentis, and has such a portion of the powers of the parent committed to his charge as may be necessary to answer the purposes for which he is em ployed."

The right to inflict punishment, for proper cause, belongs to the master, the law having clothed him with that authority; and the question is simply in what form, and to what extent, it may be ad ministered by him.

Judge Swift, remarking upon this subject, says: "A schoolmaster has a right to inflict moderate corporal punishment upon his scholars, for this is necessary for the support of good government in his school; but he should reserve this as a last resort, when all other measures fail. He should avoid all unnecessary severity, or extreme cruelty. If all gentle and moderate measures fail, the master is vested with the power of inflicting corporal punishment. This should be done with coolness and deliberation, not in the heat of passion, and with a suitable instrument; the blows should be inflicted, not on the head, but on those parts of the body where there is no danger of material injury, and with a moderation or severity proportioned to the nature of the offence, and the stubborness of the offender." 1 Swift, Dig., 63.

The Supreme Court of Massachusetts has held, that "if inflicting punishment upon his pupils, the master goes beyond the limit of moderate castigation, and either in the degree or mode of correction is guilty of any unreasonable and disproportioned violence or force, he is clearly liable for such excess in a criminal prosecution." 4 Gray's R., 36.

In North Carolina, it has been held that "a teacher will not be held responsible, unless the punishment be such as to occasion permanent injury to the child, or be inflicted merely to gratify his own evil passions." 2 Dev. & Bae., 365.

This is the only case in which the court undertakes to define what excessive punishment is-namely, "Such as to occasion permanent injury to the child," and is not, in this regard, sustained by the more modern authorities.

I refer to but a single decision further, and I quote somewhat at length.

In the case of Lander vs. Seaver, 32 Vermont, 124, the court used this language: "In determining what is a reasonable punishment, various considerations must be regarded, the nature of the offence, the apparent motive and disposition of the offender, the influence of his example and conduct upon others, and the sex, age, size, and strength of the pupil to be punished. Among reasonable persons much difference prevails as to the circumstances which will justify the infliction of punishment, and the extent to which it may properly be administered. On account of this difference of opinion, and the difficulty which exists in determining what is a reasonable

punishment, and the advantage which the master has by being on the spot, to know all the circumstances, the manner, look, tone, gestures, and language of the offender (which are not always easily described), and thus to form a correct opinion as to the necessity and extent of the punishment, considerable allowance should be made to the teacher by way of protecting him in the exercise of his discretion. Especially should he have this indulgence when he appears to have acted from good motives, and not from anger or malice. Hence the teacher is not to be held liable on the ground of excess of punishment, unless the punishment is clearly excessive, and would be held so in the general judgment of reasonable men. If the punishment be thus clearly excessive, then the master should be held liable for such excess, though he acted from good motives in inflicting the punishment, and in his own judgment considered it necessary, and not excessive. But if there is any reasonable doubt whether the punishment was excessive, the master should have the benefit of the doubt."

I think, therefore, the following may safely be adopted as the rule: that while the master, to a certain extent, and for certain purposes, stands in loco parentis, and has, for sufficient cause, the right to inflict reasonable corporal punishment, while the pupil is under his charge, he must exercise a reasonable judgment and sound discretion in determining when to punish, and to what extent; but the punishment must not be excessive or cruel, nor inflicted for the purpose of gratifying private malice or his own evil passions.

Punishments may be severe, yet entirely reasonable; and on the other hand, even moderate punishments may, under certain circumstances, be unreasonable; but excessive and cruel punishments are not only unreasonable, but unlawful, and for their infliction the master may be held criminally responsible.

Whether the punishment inflicted is excessive or cruel, is a ques tion of fact to be determined in each particular case that may

arise.

In the case now under consideration, if I could find from the evidence that the injuries upon Hoban were caused by the accused, in the manner and under the circumstances detailed by the boy himself, I should have no hesitation in saying that the punishment in

flicted was excessive and cruel, and that the master had made himself criminally liable.

But what are the facts as established by the testimony?

On the 21st of July last, and during the regular school-hours, Mr. Lewis, as a punishment for some supposed misdemeanor on the part of young Hoban, directed him to take his book and go to the recitation-room. The order was reluctantly obeyed. At the closing of the school, but before the pupils had retired, he came out of the room without permission, and was immediately ordered back by the teacher. The order was several times repeated, and Hoban repeatedly refused to obey. Seizing two or three brushes, which were lying near by, with oaths and language most foul, and threats of violence if the teacher approached him, he dared him to come on, and all this in the presence of a large number of the scholars. Hoban is a boy of fourteen years of age, of fair size for his years, and, as it would seem, possessed of more than ordinary strength. It is clear, under all the circumstances, there was but one course for the teacher to pursue. He must vindicate his authority. It was necessary for the good of the school, as well as of the boy himself, that he should learn obedience and submission to that authority. For the milder offense, a mild punishment had been inflicted by sending him to the recitation-room to study by himself. For the more serious offenses, the insults to the teacher, the refusal to obey a proper command, the vulgar and profane language, the threats to kill the teacher if he should attempt to whip him, it was manifestly fitting and proper that he should receive a severer punishment. Mr. Lewis now approached the boy, who endeavored to strike him with the brushes. A struggle ensued, in which the teacher, notwithstanding the violent resistance of the pupil, succeeded in pushing him into the recitation-room; but I do not find that he used more force than was necessary to accomplish this object.

It was during this struggle that the boy received the injuries about the head and face, though I have no reason to believe that they were the result of blows inflicted directly by the accused. However this may be, the teacher was in the performance of his duty, the boy was making unlawful resistance; and I apprehend the law to be, that if the pupil receives an injury while making unlawful resistance to the master, who is using no more force than