Louisiana capitolian. (Baton Rouge, La.) 1879-1881, 1880-12-21
y! OISION IN THE UNIVERSITY
CASE.

state OK. rel, Huc,ner, Attorney, ct al vs..
Leon Jastremski ct al
Appeal from the 18th Judicial Court for the Par.
sh Of East Baton Rouge.
Mr.. Justice Fenner 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 ST.
pcryisors of the Louisiana State
University and Agricultural and
Mechanical College. No salary or
pccuniary perquisite of any kind is
attached to the Office in controversy.
The same question of jurisdiction
miioue mdtcriT, 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 ease, involving the title to
the Office of Police Juror of IL parish,
we declined jurisdiction only after u
most careful consideration Of our
constitutional duty, of judicial pre-
ccdents and of all the grave conse-
quences directly or indirectly flowing
from our decision.
These considerations have now
been again carefully reviewed by It's,
and our conclusions are only strength
eued thereby.
The intrusion into Office act had
rested Oh 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 salaiy 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 Il mere dbitcs dictum of
the majority of the Court in the IA
msls Returning Board case, 18th A.,
p. 8, by which they advanced the
doctrine that il the cause were, in
their opinion, important and involv-
ing the interests of the people, they
would not "refuse to entertain juris-
sicti0D, 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
the Importance of controversies. This
would be contrary to the COnstitu-
tion and to settled Jurisprudence, and
was substantially abandoned by that
Court itself in the case of State ca
yct., Simmons vs.. Vargas, 2Sth A.,
3l2, where it unanimously declined
Jurisdiction OF a controversy involv-
ing the Offices Of COuncilmen of the
city of Natclitoches, certainly one OF
great Importance and involving the
interest of the people-upon the cx-
press ground that ''there is no pay
attached to said Offices"
Such being the state of jurispru-
dence under the intrusion act as CEN
tering the criterion Of jurisdiction in
controversies arising hereunder, the
Constitution of 1879, in defining the
jurisdiction of this Court, has not
changed it in any manner, which pre-
vents or affects the application Of
these judicial precedents. 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
snt from the interest set up by the
city of New Orleans in the case OF
State er rcl., Belain VS.. Marlsey ct ul.,
IN