1914-12-04aa

"That it has been a common practice among the teachers of the Hamilton public schools to punishing pupils by washing their mouths out with soap was the statement of Chas. G. Booker, chairman of the internal management committee of the board of education.”

Hamilton Spectator.   December 4, 1914.

That such a practice was in effect was brought to light at a meeting of the internal management committee of the Hamilton Board of Education upon receipt of the following letter from Mr. David L. Matthews, father of a boy who was subjected to such disciple:

“I wish to place before you the case of my son, Albert Matthews, the pupil at the Picton street school who was ill-treated by his teacher, Miss Nunn, Thursday afternoon last.

“His mother received word that he had been so used and that the teacher was keeping him in school. She went to school and found the boy and the teacher in the class room. When she remonstrated with the teacher, she admitted that she had rubbed soap in his mouth and said she would do it again.

“The mother then threatened her should she ever do such a thing again, and Miss Nunn replied by saying, ‘Oh, no, you won’t, madam, for I have  the board of education at my back.’

“When Mrs. Matthews and myself called at the class room the following day, Miss Nunn told us we would have to see the principal, and then shut the door in our faces. Had she expressed regret, and promised not to do this thing again, we would have been contented to let the matter drop, but instead of this, Miss Nunn sent my wife a letter demanding an apology for having threatened her, a copy of which I herewith enclose.’ ” ¹

¹ “Soap Punishment Has Been Common : Chairman Booker So Says Regarding Incident.”

Hamilton Spectator.    December 4, 1914.

The letter from Miss Nunn read as follows:

“ Upon due reflection, I have decided that the course I pursued in order to cure your son of atrocious language was not the wisest. I take pleasure in assuring you that different means of punishment will be dealt him in future.

“Apparently you are ignorant of the fact that in Canada, we have a law whereby one person shall not threaten another, there fore it is only reasonable to expect that you, having violated this law, will make apology for your offense.”¹

Following the reading of these letters, Mr. William Simmons, who had attended  the meeting in company with Mr. and Mrs. Matthews, and their son Albert, rose and asked the committee if he could speak to them on behalf of the Matthews family” :

“ ‘Have you anything to say in connection with the Matthews case, but I have –‘

“ ‘Well, we cannot hear from you, so please sit down,’ said Chairman Booker, cutting Mr. Simmons short in his remarks.

“ ‘I think I have a right to address this board,’ replied Mr. Simmons.

“ ‘Well, we won’t listen to you, so please sit down,’ said Chairman Booker, and Mr. Simmons gave up the attempt to speak.

“ ‘I find on inquiry,’ said Chairman Booker, addressing Mr. and Mrs. Matthews, ‘that what was done to your child, has been done to many other school children, and that this kind of punishment has been quite the common thing among the teachers of the various schools.

“ ‘ I have discovered that my own daughter was one who was thus treated, and Charles Moran, the assistant city solicitor, informs me that when he was a pupil in Hamilton schools, he was also punished in this way.

“ ‘It is evident, therefore, that this style of punishment has been in vogue for some years. This case, however, will serve as a lesson and a warning to all teachers that in future such punishment will not be tolerated.

“In this case, Miss Nunn has expressed regret and I hope you will accept this as an end to the trouble and let the whole thing drop.

“On the other hand, we object to the language you, Mrs. Matthews, used to Miss Nunn, when you told her that if she ever did this kind of thing again, you would put manure in her mouth, and I think she had a right to demand an apology from you for this statement.

“We must maintain discipline in our schools. We regret the incident and I don’t think such a thing will ever occur in Hamilton schools again. I believe in corporal punishment, properly administered, but some of our teachers have not been complying with the regulation which requires them to report to the board every instance in which corporal punishment is used.

“Some of them regard hand whipping as not in this class, but it is, and in future, all teachers will be required to report to this board every case in which they find it necessary to inflict corporal punishment.’ ”¹

At this point, Mrs. Matthews was allowed to speak:

“ ‘I did say that to Miss Nunn, but I will certainly make no apology. If this is not demanded, I am will to let the case drop, on your explanation, and we will say not more about it.’ ”

In reply to Mrs. Matthews, Chairman Booker wrapped up the matter as follows:

“ ‘ I thank you, Mrs. Matthews, and I can assure you that the case of your boy will be a benefit to the whole city, as it will put a stop to this means of punishment.’ ”