◆ SpookStack

' bun MEN TAL DL 100-5257 claimed that the NAACP had violated the laws of this satate, where- upon Judge OTIS DUNAGAN issued a temporary restraining order against the NAACP, and later enlarged the restraining order into a temporary injunction. The effect of this was to tie up the affairs of the NAACP in the state, and close all of its branch offices for an in- Aafia definite period. The ultimate purpose of the suit was te drive the NAACP out of the state for good, this paper indicated. The paper continued that in the original suit, the state asked among other things, that the court issue a declaratory judg- ment in which 1t would properly interpret the laws of Texas with respect to the NAACP and its rights to continue to carry on its business in the state. It was the request by the state that gave rise to the permanent injunction issued by the court. The paper continued that in its injunction, the court directed the NAACP to re¥rain from the following: 1. Engaging in the practice of law 2. That it may not for its own benefit or with the intent to distress or harass the defendant, willfully in- stitute or encourage the bringing of law suits in violation of the laws of the state 2 That the NAACP may not solicit law suita for filing and it may not solicit persons to file law suits in Texas 4, That it may not hire or pay anyone to file a law suit in Texas 5. That it may not engage in political activities in - the state contrary to the laws of the state, and fo line. 6 It may not engage in lobbying activities contrary to the laws of the state. This newspaper stated that no corporation, either the NAACP or any other corporation may lawfully engage in the practice of law in Texas. It further stated that no corporation may law- fully do any of these things listed above and from which the NAACP is restrained from doing; therefore, the newspaper continued, ali. the NAACP has been enjoined from doing are things which it may not do lawfully anyway. So, the NAACP has lost no right as a corpora- tion that it had before the suit was filed. These things were un- lawful before the suit was filed, and they are unlawful now. The NAACP contends that it has never engaged in these activities in the past, and that it will not engage in them in the future, this paper stated, The paper concluded, therefore, that the NAACP had lost nothing in this suit. _o. CONFINENTM