Two Law School Professors Hit Proposed Loyalty Laws

Two Law School professors in testimony yesterday before the state Committee on Constitutional Law attacked Massachusetts' proposed law outlawing all "subversive" activities and particularly the provision requiring loyalty oaths from lawyers.

George K. Gardner '12, professor of Law, said before the quiet hearing that loyalty oaths would be a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution. He pointed out that lawyers in the Massachusetts General Court do not have to take Oaths. Yet if oaths were required of other lawyers, he contended, the bill would violate the provision stating that "no one elected to a position of authority shall require of a citizen more than the Constitution asks of him."

Asked whether "Communists should be allowed to practice law in this state," he replied: "No, not as I understand the principles of the communist party."

William C. Hardee, assistant professor of Law, thought additional laws for outlawing communists would be unnecessary. "Oaths mean nothing to those who are real communists." He called the bill an "invidious slur on the members of the bar."

The recommendation for lawyer oaths is a part of 25 suggestions for amending the present Massachusetts General Laws. All the suggestions would make the rulings more restrictive on "Subversive" organizations, and grant to law-enforcement agencies broad powers in bringing to trial groups suspected of "subversive" activities.

Roy F. Gootenberg '49, spokesman for the American Veterans Committee, said: "As anti-communists, we are especially concerned that communism be fought without hurting our civil rights. Civil rights are America's greatest strength." He thought that the proposed bill would "chip away these civil liberties."

Throughout the hearing, several committee members and opponents of the bill pointed out that the bill's powers are too great. Persons who did not know they belonged to "subversive" groups could be imprisoned, the opponents said.

One of the provisions requires all teachers to take loyalty oaths. In explaining this provision, Representative Michael J. Batal, vice-chairman of the legislative committee which made the report, said: "We're not interfering with the teachers or their teachings. The only thing we're saying is that no teacher shall advocate anything along the lines of overthrowing the government."