ask me if I mean, that a teacher ought to be
entirely and immediately under the supervision and control of the
trustees, just as a mechanic is when employed by another man. By no
means. There are various circumstances connected with the nature of this
employment; the impossibility of the employers fully understanding it in
all its details; and the character and the standing of the teacher
himself, which always will, in matter of fact, prevent this. The
employers always will, in a great many respects, place more confidence
in the teacher and in his views, than they will in their own. But still,
the ultimate power is theirs. Even if they err,--if they wish to have a
course pursued which is manifestly inexpedient and wrong, _they still
have a right to decide_. It is their work: it is going on at their
instance, and at their expense, and the power of ultimate decision, on
all disputed questions, must, from the very nature of the case, rest
with them. The teacher may, it is true, have his option either to comply
with their wishes or to seek employment in another sphere; but while he
remains in the employ of any persons, whether in teaching or in any
other service, he is bound to yield to the wishes of his employers, when
they insist upon it, and to submit pleasantly to their direction, when
they shall claim their undoubted right to direct.

This is to be done, it must be remembered, when they are wrong, as well
as when they are right. The obligation of the teacher is not founded
upon _the superior wisdom_ of his employers, in reference to the
business for which they have engaged him, for they are very probably
his inferiors in this respect; _but upon their right as employers_, to
determine _how their own work shall be done_. A gardener, we will
suppose, is engaged by a gentleman to lay out his grounds. The gardener
goes to work, and after a few hours the gentleman comes out to see how
he goes on, and to give directions. He proposes something which the
gardener, who, to make the case stronger, we will suppose knows better
that the proprietor of the grounds, considers ridiculous and absurd;
nay, we will suppose it is ridiculous and absurd. Now what can the
gardener do? There are, obviously, two courses. He can say to the
proprietor, after a vain attempt to convince him he is wrong, "Well,
sir, I will do just as you say. The grounds are yours: I have no
interest in it, or responsibility, except to accomplish your wishes."
This