State House: I

Only Governor Dever stands between Massachusetts and the loosely drawn anti-Communist bill recently passed by the State Senate. This bill defines a subversive organizations as one formed "for the purpose of advocating, advising, counseling, or inciting the overthrow of the government by force or any other unlawful means." Anyone who remains in a subversives, organization, rents an auditorium to subversives, or contributes to a subversive organization is liable for fines up to $1,000 and three years in jail. Any person converted of being a subversive is able to a $10,000 fine and one year in jail.

The Supreme Court, fortunately, will decide whether an individual or a group brought before it is subversive. At least the accused will receive the rudimentary rights in the courts denied them in the many legislative sessions. However, while the Supreme Court clause is a relief, it does not justify the bill by any means.

First, it is always possible that "advice and counseling" may have nothing to do with an overt, dangerous act. Under the new bill, a suspect's particular actions will no longer be the only criteria for judging whether he is subversive. Rather, the court must consider what he says as well.

Second, the bill is an indirect, but effective, attack on academic freedom. Under the University's present policy, any graduate or undergraduate group many invite whomever it wishes to lecture in one of the Harvard-owned auditoriums. If one of the many organizations wish to hear a man whom the State House men consider subversive, the University could not permit the group to use any of its lecture halls. Under this bill Harvard would be liable.

Third, every suspect, whether proven innocent or guilty, would undoubtedly suffer from the very allegations that could be made against him under this bill. The current fallacy "Where there is smoke there is fire" has ruined many an able man's career. For example, Philip K. Jessup was never accused (much less proved) by the Senate of being subversive. But he was rejected for the post of UN delegate because "the concerted . . . attacks made on him" led the Senate to believe that "there is a considerable segment of our people who lack confidence" in him.

It is amazing that such a bill could ever reach the Governor's desk. The Governor has before him a dangerous bill which we hope he will veto immediately.