## Facts

- In April 1859, the Police Court of Boston heard a criminal complaint by the Commonwealth “on complaint of Wall” charging public-school teacher McLaurin F. Cooke with assault.
- Massachusetts public-school practice, grounded in state law and local school committee rules, required students to read or memorize the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandments and to take part in Bible reading (using the King James Version).
- Thomas J. Wall, an 11-year-old student and a Roman Catholic, attended a church sermon in which his priest instructed children not to read or repeat the Commandments in the public school (objecting to use of the King James Bible rather than a Catholic version).
- The next school day, Wall and other students refused to read or repeat the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandments as required by the school exercises.
- Cooke responded by striking Wall’s hands repeatedly with a long stick (described as a long, thick rattan), intermittently for about thirty minutes, while repeatedly demanding compliance.
- Wall continued to refuse for a period; after roughly thirty minutes he agreed to comply, and Cooke stopped.
- Wall’s hands became swollen, but the evidence did not show severe or lasting injury.
- Wall’s side argued that the punishment, imposed to force participation in the religious exercise, violated the Massachusetts constitutional provision that no person shall be “hurt, molested, or restrained” for worship or religious belief, and that Cooke therefore had no lawful authority to compel obedience by force.
- Cooke maintained that the school’s requirements were lawful and that a teacher may use reasonable corporal punishment to enforce school rules and maintain discipline.

## Issues

1. Whether school rules requiring students to participate in reading or memorizing the Lord’s Prayer and Ten Commandments (with Bible reading from the King James Version) violated Massachusetts constitutional protections of religious conscience.
2. Whether Cooke committed criminal assault by striking Wall’s hands with a rattan stick for about thirty minutes to compel compliance with those school requirements.

## Decision

- The Police Court of Boston (Maine, J.) found Cooke not criminally liable (acquitted on the assault complaint).
- The court treated the school committee’s requirement of Bible-based exercises as lawful within the common-school program contemplated by Massachusetts law, and not a punishment of Wall for his religious belief within the meaning of the state constitution’s conscience protections.
- The court concluded that a teacher has authority to enforce lawful school commands and may use corporal punishment so long as it is not shown to be clearly excessive or cruel so as to become criminal.
- Although the punishment was severe, the court held that, on the proof presented (including the absence of severe or permanent injury), the Commonwealth had not shown an unlawful assault.

## Legal Principles

- A generally applicable public-school requirement that students participate in prescribed moral/religious exercises (as then authorized by state law and school committee rule) was not treated as unconstitutional punishment of a student for religious worship or belief under the Massachusetts constitution’s conscience clause.
- A teacher, standing in the place of a parent for school discipline, may use corporal punishment to enforce lawful school rules; criminal assault requires proof that the force used was clearly excessive, cruel, or otherwise outside the bounds of lawful discipline.
- Even where discipline is harsh, criminal liability does not follow absent a showing that the punishment crossed the criminal threshold; other noncriminal remedies (such as school governance measures) are distinct from an assault prosecution.

## Conclusion

Commonwealth v. Cooke held that Boston’s public-school requirement that pupils read or memorize the Lord’s Prayer and Ten Commandments (with Bible reading from the King James Version) did not, as applied, violate Massachusetts constitutional protections of religious conscience, and that the teacher’s repeated rattan-stick punishment to compel compliance—though severe—was not proven to be criminally excessive and therefore did not constitute assault.


Commonwealth v. Cooke, 7 Am. L. Reg. 417 (1859)