◆ SpookStack

DL 100-5257 Attorneys W. J. DURHAM and C, B. BUNKLEY, JR., who rep- resented the NAACP in this suit, were quoted by the paper as having Baid that they could see no justifiable reason for an appeal from the ruling of the Tyler court because nothing had been lost by the decree. The NAACP is back in business, these attorneys were quoted as saying, and it is permitted to do all that it has ever done in the past. If the NAACP has engaged in any of the prohibited acti- vities, it was wrong in doing so, this paper stated, but the long history of the NAACP supports the contention that the NAACP always operated within the framework of the law. If this be BO, the new- paper reflected, “and it appears that it is 80, then the NAACP has lost nothing as a result of the suit." The court held as a matter of law that the NAACP is a non-profit making organization and that as such, it is not permitted by law to have a permit to do business in the state. This is 4 direct rejection of the state's contention that the NAACP is a profit-making organization and was, therefore, subject to strict corporate control by the Btate, this newspaper said, Mee UNA Liang Manntane Naw " motteas an Me «7 inhi Md LLas Morning news, iki Liat, Te dat ted ray 3; 1957, reflected that District Judge DUNAGAN on May 8, 1957, had issued a permanent injunction order against the NAACP in Texas, and all of its affiliated organizations. The order does not mean that the NAACP is completely outlawed, this article stated; how- ever, it points out that the defendant organizations have no lawful rights under the laws of Texas, and are permanently enjoined from: 1. Engaging in the practice of law or financing a suit in which they have no direct interest, 2. Engaging in political activities or in lobbying activities contrary to the state laws. 2: Soliciting law suits, either directly or indirectly. . Hiring or paying any litigants to present, maintain or prosecute a law suit. Judge DUNAGAN held that the Texas State Conference of Branches and the Southwest Regional Conference of the NAACP and the 111 individual branches named in the suit are integral parts wea ne = ae rae of the parent organization, and subject to its direction and con- trol. ' . The order also held that the NAACP which has done buginess in Texas since 1915, according to this newspaper, is a non-profit making organization, and ag such, is not required to obtain a state permit but "under the law is required to file franchise tax reports or returns and to pay franchise taxes for the privilege of operating as a corporation." The NAACP was ordered to pay all accrued franchise taxes plus interest and penalties within 30 days after the amount -3- LOW ANATIAL