113 So. 757 | La. | 1927
Act No. 125 of 1908, as amended and re-enacted in toto by Act No. 136 of 1924, p. 227, reads (as to section 5) as follows:
"Section 5. The state board of certified public accountants * * * may, in its discretion, register the certificate of any certified public accountant who is the lawful holder of a certified public accountant's certificate issued under the law of another state, * * * provided that the state issuing the original certificate grants similar privileges to the certified public accountants of this state. * * *"
There are some minor differences between this section as first enacted in 1908 and as re-enacted in 1924, but the language above quoted is identical in both enactments, and is the only part of said section which is pertinent to the issues involved in this case. We have italicized the words which give rise to this controversy.
We do not, however, mean to say that the board may not require of all such applicants alike such additional qualifications as it may in its discretion think proper, and also proof of good moral character. For the right to refuse to register at all necessarily includes the right to register only on compliance with some condition; and, of course, the law expects that the board shall require of all applicants proof of good moral character (i.e., integrity).
All that we mean is that the board must treat alike all applicants similarly situated, and may not arbitrarily discriminate between them.
And the defense set up by the board is that the petition discloses no right or cause of action, which exception the trial judge sustained.
O'NIELL, C.J., dissents.