◆ SpookStack

California Legal Profession Condent Lindbergh; Racial Intolerance Rapped . Flier’ 's Reference to Jewish People | ninaton of dotice wan don et [Djclored Unfortunate by President ' riatvely few suders rates wen Hudicial setup. soar tr Saenger es Sete Cot Charles A. Lindbergh in a reso- «the law which would permit lfore the board of delegates of the lution “unequivocally disapproving courts to enter final decrees as of iftate ber in convention here! They, and condemning any persons who|the date originally set by the tal jwill be submitted to raise racial) or religious issues in ‘he bined for the completion of Inited States.” voree. v Sometimes one party to a divorce case takes St for granted that the cther party obtained the de- were among the committer ‘tion yesterday without naming Lind- jbergh, but Loyd Wright of Los An- cree after the lapee os oa Slitractive functions in Washington, D.C, was deplored today in s re- Present cy centralization of Federal adminis required by law. But if the decree eles, president of the Bar is not finally entered, « subsequent “The occasion for this resolution|™*‘Tiage af elther party may be was undoubtedly the unfortunate held invalid. The suggested change reference by Lindbergh in his re-|Would permit entry of the decree cent spesch to tbe Jewish people. [a# of # date preceding ‘the remar- FREEDOM OF SPEECH “T have always believed that Lind- od rans ae Sheri ‘the Constitutional guarantees of that freedom of speech and any effort los rules of the Industrial Accident} ‘gtop it is dangerous and abhorrent|s.q Railroad Commissions to ex- {eo our American concept of liberty. " " “Notwithstanding my strong feel- |pedite their work, and deplored “the: of ings that every American should be|/; secure in his liberties guaranteed by ion ot rece emi ‘the Constitution, I regret that any man should be 90 un-American in|, % the jatter report the committee y Bis utterances as to give utterance |TUsses\ed that the bearings ra parnroush, the effort. nt the’ iste ac aa paoleel seman ages|beld in the judicial districts of the 4 tolal of 77 earcres’ pt acme divorced persons against in-|P* [parties involved rather than in the) WalicatiSn on the ground that their "24eP2? Wecree of seperation from their for-' mates was not finally entered: mie State Bar Astociation. FmaxGr IN LAW ee FOREARDED BY Se _ des Fuacis00 bIVisie v2 1449 A SEP 17 1941.