Assuming what appears to be a less determined stand on the Oath Bill, President Conant has issued a letter which will be sent to all members of the Faculty this week asking that they sign the oath forms.

In this letter he said, "I consider the passage of this bill unfortunate, and I sincerely hope that the act will be repealed." However, he continued with, "It would seem to me very unfortunate for Harvard University to become involved in a technical controversy in regard to the mode of enforcing this law."

McLaughlin Supports Mather

Still another paragraph was written in the Epic of the Oath Bill yesterday with the release of a letter by James A. McLaughlin, professor of Law, in which he supported the stand of Kirtley F. Mather, professor of Goology.

Another addition to the role of enemies of the Oath is John R. Walsh, instructor in Economics who will preside at the meeting which will be held in New Lecture Hall at 8 o'clock tonight under the suspices of the Liberal Club. Professor McLaughlin will probably be on the list of speakers with Professor Mather, and Max Lerner, instructor in Government, and former brain truster has also signified his willingness to be on the program.

President Conant's Letter

President Conant's letter follows:

"I am inclosing a copy of the socalled Teachers' Oath Bill which was encated by the Massachusetts Legislature last June. The passage of this bill was opposed by the presidents of most of the colleges in this state, who appeared before a legislative committee and later circularized the legislature. I felt at that time and still feel that this measure is an unnecessary and unwise piece of legislation. Section 2A, which was added susbsquent to the public hearing, improves the statute from the point of view of those who opposed it; but in spite of this addition I consider the passage of this bill unfortunate, and I sincerely hope that the act will be repealed.

"The bill appears to make it maudatory for the institutions concerned not to permit any citizens of the United States to teach who fail to carry out the provisions of this act. This is clearly the case in regard to Section 1, dealing with new appointments. It is not as clear in regard to Section 2, dealing with existing appointments. It would seem to me very unfortunate for Harvard University to become involved in a technical controversy in regard to the mode of enforcing this law. For this reason I am taking the oath and hope that all members of the various faculties of this University will do like wise.

"It is clear that the act does not require you to take the oath if your duties are wholly and clearly apart from teaching.  Very sincerely yours,  James B. Conant."

McLaughlin Letter

Professor McLaughlin's letter to Professor Mather follows:

"My dear Mr. Mather:

"I should like to congratulate you on taking the leadership in expression of disapproval of the "Teachers Oath" Act (Ch. 370, Mass. Laws of 1935). I also approve your decision not to consider the matter of sufficient immediate importance to warrant embarrassing the University administration in view of the course of action it has seen fit to announce. Of course I speak only as an individual colleague, in no other capacity, and with no other authority whatsoever.

"Whether Harvard would be breaking any law by ignoring this statute is hard to say. As it is perfectly clear, however, that Harvard would be charged with being a law-breaker by many ignorant people whatever the true legal situation is, it is doubtless proper to avoid such charge unless serious principle is at stake.