New Hampshire Attorney-General Seeks Socialism Lecture Contents

The New Hampshire Supreme Court will decide this fall whether or not its Attorney General can legally demand the contents of a college lecture before it is delivered, without infringing on rights granted under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The decision will come in the case of Paul, M. Sweezy, once an economic instructor at Harvard. In March of 1954, the Humanities department at the state-owned University of New Hampshire, informed that Sweezy was going to speak on Socialism, and probably Communism, asked to question Sweezy. Although this same lecture had been given in the two previous years, Wyman insisted that Sweezy be investigated before being allowed to speak Acting under chapter 193 of the N. H. Law of 1951 (Sumversive Activities Act), Wyman called Sweezy in for testimony.

Answering under oath, Sweezy asserted that he did not belong to the Communist party. But this answer did not satisfy Wyman, and he asked Sweezy two more questions; did he belong to the Progressive Party, and what were the contents of the speech he planned to deliver at the University of N. H.?

Stating that the questions were an invasion of his personal rights, he refused to answer both questions, except to say that in neither case did he advocate anything subversive as defined in the Act involved. The questioning then began to bear down on what was Sweezy going to speak about. The Superior Court judge ordered Sweezy to answer, ruling that the Attorney General is entitled to inquire into the actual content of any lecture given in any school. Sweezy refused to answer on the grounds of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Fifth Amendment was in no way involved.

When Sweezy refused to answer, he was declared in contempt of court and ordered confined until he answered. He was finally allowed out on bail, and his case will come up before the N. H. Supreme Court for oral arguments in September.

The case of New Hampshire, by Wyman, Atty Genl. v. Sweezy is significant in any study of thet relationship between the state and professor. The problem this case poses is whether or not a public official, in this case and Attorney-General, has the Constitutional right to investigate what a man plans to say--not what he said, and whether or not this investigation of a man's thoughts is in opposition to the Bill of Rights which assures man the right of free speech. The decision of the N.H. Supreme Court may very well set the limits on free speech in that New England State.