Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1952 )

BIERAL
0 AS
4x-11 3, 1952
Brother Raphael Wilson
Secretary-Treasurer
Texas State Board of Examiners
of the Basic Sciences
Austin, Texas Opinion No. V-1431
Re: Necessity for all licensed
naturopathic physicians to
have a basic science certl-
Dear Sir: flcate.
Reference Is made to your request in which
you ask:
“Question 1: Are Sections 12, 18a and
18b of H.B. 69, Acts of the Fifty-first Leg-
islature, in conflict?
“Question 2: If, In your opinloni.these
sections are in conflict,-which section Is to
be interpreted as valid by this Board in the
enforcement of the Basic Science Law?
“Question 3 : Is It necessary for all
naturopathic physicians licensed in the State
of Texas to hold a basic science certificate
issued by this Board?
“Quest i,on 4 :, If your answer to question
3 is in the affirmative, are the licenses is-
sued ,to naturopathic physicians without a
basic science certificate valid?”
Sections 12, 18a and 18b of House Bill 69,
Acts 51st Leg., R.S. 1949, ch. 480, p. 890 (Art. 4590d,
V.C.S.) provide:
“Sec. 12. Any naturopathic physician
who has been practicing naturopathy in this
State for three (3) years next preceding the
passage of this Act and when membership was
not fraudulently obtained, shall be granted
a license under the provisions of this Act,
Brother Raphael Wilson, page 2 (V-1431)
Provided however, that any paturopathlc phy-
sic,ian having resided in Texas three (3)
years and having practiced naturopathy for
one (1) year In Texas next preceding the pas-
sage of this Act will not be required to have
a certificate of prbfiolency from the Minimum
Standards Board as a prerequisite for obtain-
ing such naturopathic license; naturopathic
physicians in practice In this State for more
than one (1) year, but less than three (3)
years, shall be examined in theory, philos-
ophy, pathology, practice, symptomatology,
and diagnosis, peculiar to naturopathy; all
naturopathic physicians who have been in
practice In this State, for less than one (1)
year shall be required to take examinations
as provided in Section 8 hereof.”
“Sec. 18a. Provided, however, no provi-
sion of this Act shall amend or modify the
provisions of H.B. No. 103, Acts of the Fifty-
first Legislature; provided further that the
provisions of this Act shall be subject to
the provisions of H.B. No. 103, Acts of the
Fifty-first Legislature; and provided further
that no Board shall be appointed, as provided
in this Act, until the provisions of H.B. No.
103, Acts of the Fifty-first Legislature, have
been complied with. ”
“Sec. 18b. Before any person shall be
licensed under this Act he shall comply with
the provisions of H.B. No. 103 of the Flfty-
first Legislature.”
House Bill 103, Acts 51st Leg., R.S. 1949,
ch. 95, p. 170 (Art. 459Oc, V.C*S,) commonly referred
to as the “Basic Science Law” Is an act prescribing
minimum educational standards and requiring ,certlfi-
cates of proflclenoy In the basio sciences for those
who engage in the praotlce of healing arts. The “Mln-
imum Standards Board” referred to in Seation 12 must
me&n the “State Board of Examiners in the Basla Salenoes”
which was established by House.Blll 103. Thus Se&Ion 12
excepts certain persons from the operation of House Bill
103, while Sections 18a and 18b make all persons who come
within House Bill 69 subject to House Bill 103. .Un ues-
tlonably, Section 12 Is in conflict with Sections 18a
Brother Raphael Wilson, page 3 (V-1431)
and 18b of the Act.
In 2 Sutherland Statutory Construction
(3rd Ed. 1943) 541, we find the following:
"General and special acts may be in
pari materia. If,so, they should-be con-
strued together, Where one statute deals
with a subject in general terms, and anoth-
er deals with a part of the same subject
in a more detailed way, the two should be
harmonized if possible; but if there 1% any
conflict, the latter will prevail, regard-
less of whether it was passed prior to the
general statute, unless it appears that
the,legislature intended to make the general
act controlling,"
Also, in the case of T0wnsend.v. Terrell,
118 Tex. 463, 16 S.W.2d 1063 (1929), the court said:
I!
e It is only where acts are so
e 0
i~nconsistent as to be Irreconcilable that
a repeal by,implication will be indulged.
If there exists such conflict, then there
2s a presumption of the intention to repeal
all laws and parts of,law% in conflict with
the clear intent&on of the last act. This
is .necessari?,y &rue where (both acts cannot
s'tand~as valid enactments.
"This rule of con&ruc:tion ,has found
frequent and apt lllu&ration ~where one o'f
the supposedly conflicting statutes~was
general in its term8 and the other specific.
In-such a case it is universally held 'that
the specific statute more clearly evtdences.
the fntentlon of the Legislature than the
general one, and therefore that it WI11 con-
trol. In such a ~case both statutes are per-
mitted to stand - the general one applic-
able to all cases ,except the particular one
embraced in the specific statute. . .',
See also Sam Bassett Lbr. Co. v.'City of
Houston, 145 Tex, 492, 198 S.W,2d 879 (1947); Canales
V. Laughlin,.147 Tex. 169, 214 S.W,2d 42 1 (194r
State v. Mauritz-Wells Co., 141 Tex. 63 , 175 S.W.2d
238 (1943).
Brother Raphael Wilson, page 4 (V-1431)
In Randell v. Randell, 222 S.W.2d 252, 254
(Tex. Civ. App. 1949, error dlsm. w.o.j.) It Is stated:
"Article 1995 is a general statute
governing venue of actions. Article 4631
Is a particular statute pertaining to dl-
vorce suits. In case of conflict between
a general provision and a special provl-
sion dealing with the same subject, the
former is controlled or limited by the
latter; and this is so whether the provi-
sions in question are contained in the,
same act or in different enactments. 39
Tex. Jur. 212."
The above rules of statutory construction
are applicable to conflicting provisions in the same
statute. Apparently conflicting provisions must be
harmonized and reconciled so that every part of the
statute will be given effect, If It Is reasonably,pos-
sible to do so.
~;:``d~0``7'````````````~i``~il~jld
294 (Tex. Civ. App.'lg$ zipetl dism. 128 vex. 218 '97
S.W.2d 673); Standard 0i.i Co. of Texas v. State, 14;
S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Clv. App. 1940 error ref.)' A spealflc
provision of a statute which apbears to confilct with a
general provision is regarded as an exception to the
general one, and the general yields~to the special.
of Austin v. Cahill, 99 Tex. 172 88 8 W. 542 546
State v. Stack, 199 S.W.2d 701 ($ex; Civ. App:
Zufkln v. City of Galveston, 63 Tex. 437, 439
rules are expressed in the following language:
"It is a cardinal rule In the construc-
tion of constitutions and statutes that the
whole Instrument must be taken together--the
whole scheme had in view by the law-making
power must be understood and carried outi and
where there are apparent confllots or lncon-
slstencles between different parts of the
instrument, that construction must be adopted
which will give effeot to every part, rather
than that which will render any part nugatory
and of no avail.
"As a natural result,.of~th~%~&lnclple,
it follows that where in one section a general
rule is-prescribed, which without quallfioatlon
Brother Raphael Wilson, page 5 (V-1431)
wo,uld embrace an entire class of subjects,
and In another section a different rule is
prescribed for individual subjects pf’the
same class, the latter must be construed as
exceptions to the general rule, and be gov-
erned by the section which Is applicable to
them alone. ”
Inasmuch as the relevant portion of Section
12 of House Bill 69 is specific In nature and more
clearly evidences the Intention of the Legislature
than the general provisions found In Sections 18a
and lab, it Is our opinion that the specific pro-
vision will prevail and those naturopaths who have
resided In Texas three years and practiced naturo-
pathy for one year In Texas next preceding the paes-
age of this Act are not required to have a certifi-
cate of proficiency In the basic sciences.
It follows from the foregoing that It is
necessary for all naturopathic physicians licensed
in the State of Texas to hold a basic science cer-
tificate issued by the Texas State Board of Examin-
ers in the basic sciences except those exempt under
the provisions of Section 12 of Art. 4590d, V.C,S,
In view of our answer to question 3, it is
unnecessary that we answer your fourth question.
SUMMARY
Section 12 of Article &god, V.C,S,., an
act regulating the practice of naturopathy,
conflicts with Sections 18a and 18b of the
act, and since it is specific in nature It
will prevail over the general provisions con-
tained In Sections 18a and 18b of the act.
Therefore, those persons exempt ,under Sec-
tion 12 are not required to obtain basic
science certificates as required by Article
459oc, v.c .s,
Braother Raphael Wilson, page 6” (V-1431)
,``
Under the provisions of Sections 18a
and 18b of"Article 4590d, V.C.S., all other
naturopathic physicians licensed in the State
of Texas are required to hold basic science
certificates.
Yours very truly,
APPROVED: PRICE DANIEL
Attorney General
J. C. Davis, Jr.
County Affairs Division
E. Jacobson BY&ge~$g=Li-
Reviewing Assistant
Assistant
Charles D. Mathews
First Assistant
BA:mh