Ex parte Steckler, 32769

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
Writing for the CourtO'NIELL, Chief Justice.
Citation154 So. 41,179 La. 410
PartiesEx parte STECKLER et al
Docket Number32769
Decision Date26 February 1934

154 So. 41

179 La. 410

Ex parte STECKLER et al

No. 32769

Supreme Court of Louisiana

February 26, 1934


Rehearing Denied March 14, 1934

Application denied.

Thomas Gilmore, of New Orleans, for petitioners Lester Richard Steckler and Hilary Joseph Gaudin.

Paul M. Hebert and Henry G. McMahon, both of New Orleans, for Loyola University, amicus curiae.

Charles Rosen, Walker B. Spencer, J. Blanc Monroe, Joseph W. Carroll, and Esmond Phelps, all of New Orleans, Law Committee of Administrators of the Tulane Education Fund.

Robert Lee Tullis, of Baton Rouge, for Louisiana State University Law School.

Charles Vernon Porter, of Baton Rouge, C. Arthur Provost, of New Iberia, and Eldon S. Lazarus, of New Orleans, for Louisiana State Bar Ass'n.

O'NIELL, Chief Justice. ST. PAUL, J., absent.

OPINION

[179 La. 412] O'NIELL, Chief Justice.

Two graduates of a law school are applying to be licensed to practice law, without having to pass the examination prescribed by the Supreme Court Examining Committee, as required by Act No. 113 of 1924, and by rule 15 of the Supreme Court Rules (171 La. xiv), fixing the requirements for admission to the bar. The petitioners contend that the statute and the rule of the court are unconstitutional in denying the right of a holder of the degree of Bachelor of Laws from Tulane University to practice law without further examination. The degree of Bachelor of Laws was conferred upon Steckler by Tulane University, and upon Gaudin by Loyola University. Gaudin does not contend that the act of 1924 and rule 15 of the [154 So. 42] Supreme Court Rules, requiring all applicants for admission to the bar to pass an [179 La. 413] examination by the Supreme Court Examining Committee, are unconstitutional in requiring graduates of the law school of Loyola University or of Louisiana State University to pass such an examination, unless the statute and the rule of court are unconstitutional in requiring the graduates of the law department of Tulane University to pass such an examination. Gaudin's argument is that, if the act of 1924 and the court rule adopted in pursuance thereof are unconstitutional -- as he contends they are -- in so far as they attempt to require a graduate of the Law School of Tulane University to pass an examination by the Supreme Court Examining Committee, the statute and the rule of court should be declared entirely unconstitutional, because, to leave the statute in effect against the graduates of the two other law schools in this state, but without effect against the graduates of Tulane University Law School, would be making a law which would discriminate against the two other law schools, and which the Legislature did not intend to make. Gaudin's argument in that respect is supported by the fact that the Legislature has declared, by Act No. 93 of 1908, that the diplomas and degrees granted by the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University "shall be recognized by the courts and other officials of Louisiana as entitling the graduates holding said diplomas or degrees to the same rights, immunities and privileges in the State of Louisiana as the diplomas or degrees of any other institution of learning whatsoever," and by the fact that the Legislature has since declared, by Act No. 136 of 1912, in the same language as in Act No. 93 of 1908, that the diplomas and degrees granted by Loyola University shall [179 La. 414] have the same recognition as those granted by any other university or institution of learning. Gaudin's alternative argument, therefore, is so well founded that we consider that he has the same interest that Steckler has in the question of constitutionality of Act No. 113 of 1924 and of rule 15 of the Supreme Court Rules.

Act No. 113 of 1924 requires every applicant for admission to the bar -- even those holding a diploma from a law school -- to pass a satisfactory examination before the examining committee appointed by the Supreme Court, on such subjects and under such rules as may be prescribed by the court; and the statute provides that applicants for admission to the bar who have not received a diploma from an approved law school shall have pursued a course of study under the supervision of a reputable Louisiana lawyer for a period not less than three years.

Rule 15 of the Supreme Court Rules (171 La. xiv) provides for the appointment of the examining committee, prescribes the particular subjects of the examination, and adds to the qualifications and conditions required by the statute.

The claim of the petitioners here is founded upon a simple statement of the laws on the subject. By Act No. 43 of 1884, which was adopted as an amendment of the Constitution of 1879, Tulane University of Louisiana was created, by the changing of the name of the University of Louisiana, in New Orleans, to that of Tulane University of Louisiana. By the terms of the constitutional amendment, the Board of Administrators of the Tulane Education Fund was incorporated as the successor of the Board of Administrators [179 La. 415] of the University of Louisiana, which had been incorporated by Act No. 320 of 1855; and the constitutional amendment declared: That the Board of Administrators of the Tulane Education Fund, as administrators of the University of Louisiana, shall have the rights, powers, privileges, franchises and immunities, now vested in the Board of Administrators of the University of Louisiana by existing laws." The administration and control of all of the property of the old university was ordered turned over to the new board, and was exempted from taxation; and, in consideration therefor, the new board was obligated to use perpetually the powers conferred by the act, and all powers vested in the board, for the purpose of maintaining in the city of New Orleans a great university, devoted to the intellectual, moral, and industrial education and advancement of the youth of the state, under the terms of the donation by Paul Tulane. In further consideration of the powers conferred upon the new board of administrators, the board was obliged to waive all claim for appropriation by the state, and to give, continuously, free tuition to one student, in the academic department, from each senatorial district, and from each representative district or parish, to be nominated by the member of the Legislature, from among tim bona fide residents of his district or parish. [154 So. 43]

Among the rights or privileges that were vested originally in the Board of Administrators of the University of Louisiana, and that were therefore transferred to the Board of Administrators of the Tulane Education Fund, by the constitutional amendment of 1884, was the right to confer diplomas and [179 La. 416] degrees; which right was given originally by section 9 of Act No. 320 of 1855, which section became section 1359 of the Revised Statutes of 1870, viz.:

"They [the administrators] shall have the right of conferring under their common seal, on any person whom they may think worthy thereof, all literary honors and degrees known and usually granted by any university or college in the United States or elsewhere.

"The degree of Bachelor of Law * * * granted by them shall authorize the person on whom it is conferred to practice law...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 practice notes
  • Clark v. Austin, No. 34481.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 8, 1937
    ...practice of the law. In the exercise of the police power it undoubtedly can legislate in this matter." Ex parte Steckler (1934), 179 La. 410, 420-21, 154 So. 41, 44-5, was a case wherein two law school graduates applied to the Louisiana Supreme Court for a license to practice law witho......
  • City of New Orleans v. Board of Com'rs of Orleans Levee Dist.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • July 5, 1994
    ...Serv. Com'n, 156 La. 539, 100 So. 710 (1924); Fernandez v. Alford, 203 La. 111, 13 So.2d 483, 489 (1943); Ex Page 250 Parte Steckler, 179 La. 410, 154 So. 41 (1934); State v. City of New Orleans, 151 La. 24, 91 So. 533 (1922); McGee v. Police Jury of Caddo Parish, 63 So.2d 153 (La.App. 2nd ......
  • Ramstead v. Morgan
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • December 16, 1959
    ...unduly burdens or unduly interferes with the judicial department in the exercise of its judicial functions. Ex parte Steckler, 1934, 179 La. 410, 154 So. 41; In re Opinion of the Justices, 1932, 279 Mass. 607, 180 N.E. 725, 81 A.L.R. 1059; Clark v. Austin, 1936, 340 Mo. 467, 101 S.W.2d 977;......
  • Succession of Wallace, No. 90-CC-0159
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • January 22, 1991
    ...v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., 373 So.2d 102, 109, 115 (La.1979); LSBA v. Connolly, 201 La. 342, 9 So.2d 582 (1942); Ex Parte Steckler, 179 La. 410, 154 So. 41 (1934); Meunier v. Bernich, 170 So. 567 (La.App.1936). The sources of this power are this court's inherent judicial power emanating......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
36 cases
  • Clark v. Austin, No. 34481.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 8, 1937
    ...practice of the law. In the exercise of the police power it undoubtedly can legislate in this matter." Ex parte Steckler (1934), 179 La. 410, 420-21, 154 So. 41, 44-5, was a case wherein two law school graduates applied to the Louisiana Supreme Court for a license to practice law without pa......
  • City of New Orleans v. Board of Com'rs of Orleans Levee Dist.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • July 5, 1994
    ...Serv. Com'n, 156 La. 539, 100 So. 710 (1924); Fernandez v. Alford, 203 La. 111, 13 So.2d 483, 489 (1943); Ex Page 250 Parte Steckler, 179 La. 410, 154 So. 41 (1934); State v. City of New Orleans, 151 La. 24, 91 So. 533 (1922); McGee v. Police Jury of Caddo Parish, 63 So.2d 153 (La.App. 2nd ......
  • Ramstead v. Morgan
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • December 16, 1959
    ...unduly burdens or unduly interferes with the judicial department in the exercise of its judicial functions. Ex parte Steckler, 1934, 179 La. 410, 154 So. 41; In re Opinion of the Justices, 1932, 279 Mass. 607, 180 N.E. 725, 81 A.L.R. 1059; Clark v. Austin, 1936, 340 Mo. 467, 101 S.W.2d 977;......
  • Succession of Wallace, No. 90-CC-0159
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • January 22, 1991
    ...v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., 373 So.2d 102, 109, 115 (La.1979); LSBA v. Connolly, 201 La. 342, 9 So.2d 582 (1942); Ex Parte Steckler, 179 La. 410, 154 So. 41 (1934); Meunier v. Bernich, 170 So. 567 (La.App.1936). The sources of this power are this court's inherent judicial power emanating......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT