A lawyer told the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts yesterday that the only possible interpretation of the Teacher Loyalty Oath is that it forbids treason or slaveholding.

That interpretation would be "ridiculous," Gerald Berlin, attorney for Joseph Pedlosky, an assistant professor of Mathematics at M.I.T., told the court. Pedlosky challenged the constitutionality of the oath by refusing to sign it last fall.

Samuel Bowles, now assistant professor of Economics here, also refused to take the oath last year but has an injunction preventing his dismissal from Harvard until Pedlosky's case is decided. Decision is unlikely before next month.

Berlin stressed the "vagueness" of the oath and that it applies only to teachers -- including those at private institutions.

Still Obligated

He was opposed by Edward T. Martin, first deputy attorney general, who said that even if the oath was so narrowly interpreted thatit prevented only treason and slaveholding, the Court was obligated to uphold it as doing just that.

The well-attended session opened with Chief Justice Raymond S. Wilkins '12 asking both counsels if they objected to his presiding.

Wilkins -- a member of the M.I.T. Corporation, defendant in the action -- would have stepped down but neither counsel objected.

Associate Justice Richard A. Cutter '22 challenged Berlin when he claimed that the "superficially innocuous" oath had "menacing" implications.

"You took an oath to support the Constitution on becoming a member of the bar, did you not, Mr. Berlin?" Cutter asked. "Did you feel 'menaced' then?"

Berlin replied that lawyers have at least an indirect responsibility to the state.

"I am an arm of this court," he said. He argued that the teachers' oath penalizes any teacher who disobeys it but that a lawyer is only "charged" with perjury for breaking his oath.

The only course of appeal following Supreme Judicial Court decision is to the U.S. Supreme Court.