Louisiana capitolian. (Baton Rouge, La.) 1879-1881, 1880-12-25
DECISION IN THE UNIVERSITY
CASE.
State tx. rel, Buckner Attorney, ct. al, VS..
Leon Jastremski, ct. al.
Appeal from the 18th Judicial Court for the Par
ish of East Baton Rouge.

Mr.. Justice Fenners delivered the
opinion and decree of the Court in
the words and figures following, to-wit
This is suit under the intrusion into
Office act, the sole question involved
being whether the REALTORS or the
defendants are lawfully entitled to
hold and exercise the Offices of Su-
pervisors of the Louisiana State
University and Agricultural and
Mechanical College. No salary or
pecuniary perquisite of any kind is
attached to the Office in controversy.
The same question of jurisdiction
yaH0ae @,ateri@, which presented it.
self in the case of State, ex rel, New
man ct al, VS.. Ben HAYES, recently
decided, meets us here.
In that case, involving the title to
the Office of Police Juror of a parish,
we declined jurisdiction only after a
most careful consideration of our
constitutional duty, of judicial pre-
cedents and OF all the grave conse-
quences directly or indirectly flowing
from our decision. -.......r
These considerations have now
been again carefully reviewed by US,
and our conclusions are only strength
ened thereby.
The intrusion Into Office act had
rested on the statute books of the
State for eleven years prior to the
adoption Of the Constitution of 1879.
1t had been repeatedly decided, un-
der the previous Constitution, in
suits brought under that very act,
that the pecuniary interest involved
was the amount of the salary of the
Office in dispute, and such was the
test of the appellate jurisdiction of
this Court.
This doctrine was never question
ed, except by 4 mere abites dictum of
the majority of the Court in the ia
nous Returning Board case, 18th A.,
p. 5, by which they advanced the
doctrine that if the cause were, in
their opinion, important and involv-
ing the interests of the people, they
would not "refuse to entertain iuris-
diction, even if there were no pecu-
mary interest shown" The effect of
such doctrine is to abrogate the man.
date of the Constitution, and to set
up a different test OF jurisdiction,
based upon the Courts own idea of
he Importance of controversies. This
would be contrary to the Constitu-
ton and to settled jurisprudence, and
was substantially abandoned by that
Court itself in the case of State er
rcf., Simmons VS.. Vargas, 18th A.,
3l2, where it unanimously declined
jurisdiction of controversy involv-
ing the Offices of COuncilmen of the
city of Natchitoches, certainly one of
great Importance and involving the
interest Of the people-upon the ex-
press ground that there is no pay
attached to said Offices
Such being the state of jurispru-
dcnce under the intrusion act as CEN
terlng the criterion of jurisdiction in
controversies arising Hereunder, the |
Constitution OF 1879, in defining the
OF this Court, has not
changed it in any manner, which pre-
vents or affects the application Of
these judicial presidents. Apart from
the plainness of the language of the
Constitution, and even if we could
consider it as ambiguous, we could
not. without violating settled rules of
construction, avoid giving it an inter-
probation consonant with that applied
up to the time of its adoption to the
similar provisions of former Constitu-
tiOnS.
The interest OF the State to main
tain this appeal on the ground that
the Board of Supervisors are intrust-
ed with the distribution of public |
funds exceeding $4,000 is not differ
cnt from the interest set up by the
city of New Orleans in the case of
State er ret., Belain VS.. Markey ct al.,
u ~, 743, and there held to furnish
no basis of jurisdiction. That case
involved the titles to the offices of Al
lCrman and Assistants Aldermen of |