Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1945 )

28:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
BonorableCerl C. l?ardfn(Jr., Seoretsrp
Texas State Board of Dental Examiners
311 Nomood Ruilding
Austin, Texas
Dear Sir:
in 00Oaitions is
Board.of Dental Examiners shall
hereby authorized to refuse to
to praotlce dentistry to any per- .
who have been guilty, in the opin-
ard, of violating any of the provi-
sions of the Statutes of The State of Texas relating
to the practioe of dentistry, or any provis,ionsof
Chapter 7 of Title 12 of the Fenal Code of the
State of Texas, within twelve (12) ;rionths
prior to
the filing of an applioaticq for such license.'
"Concerning this provision, Is the suthority
therein granted to the Board discretionaryor
Donorable Oar1 C.,Hardin,Jr., Page 2 .
mandatory3 Does the Boar&have the authority.to
wsvle such violations and examine the applicant
In spite of it?
@%uustthe violation have occurred within
twelve (12) months of the filing of the applica-
tion? Does this ,meanthat after the expiration
of that time, the Board must examine an applicant
who, for fnsta,uca,practiced illegslly~inTexas
fourteen (14) months before filing his application
for examination?
*Or aoes this provision mean that the Board
must do its refusing within twelve (12) months of
the violation?
"Artiole 4549 of the Civil Statutes, Chepter
9, Title 71, also covers this refusal of the Doard
to examine an applicant. This article does not
mention any time.limitationupon the Board's au-
thority. Can the Doard, then, refuse to examine
an applicant under Artlole 4549 even if the tvielve
months have expired and bar suoh refusal under
Article 752~ quoted above?
“.’ l . .”
The statutes pertinent to your inquiry are;
Article 4549, as amended, reads iu part as follows:
"The State Board of Dental Examiners shall
have authority to refuse to examine any person or
refusesto issue a lioense to any person for any
one or more of the Solloaing causes:
"(a) Proof of presentationto the Eoard of
any dishonest or fake evidence of qualification
or being guilty of any,illegality,fraud or de-
ception in the proooss of examination, or for the
purpose of securing,a lloense.
*(b) Proof of ahronic or habitual intosioa-
tlon or eddiotion to drugs on the pert of the ap-
plioant.
hcnorableCarl 0. ~Kilrdin,
Jr?, Page 3
"(0) Proof that the applioant has been guilty
of dishonest or illegal praotioos in or connected
with the practice of dentistry.
Article 7520, Seotion 3, is quoted in your letter
and was added by the,kots of 1937, 45th Legislature,p. 1346,
chapter501.
Chapter 7, Title 12 of Penal Code, State of Texas,
dealswith the subject of Ventistryv, such as requiring,a
person to obtain a license to practice dentistry (P. C., Art.
747); to comply with .thelaw (P. C., Art. 74S); the reoorda-
tlon of the license (P. C., hrt. 749); prohibitingpracticing
when license is revoked (P. C., Art, 750); license to be ex-
hibitedin the dentist office; enjoining dentists to practice
undar ow proper name instead of a oorporate or trade name
(2. C., Art. 752); etc.
You desire to know whether the suthority granted
'tothe Board is discretionaryormandator~y. .It is our opin-
ion thst these provisions (P. C., Art. 75EO and R. 3. 1925,
Art. 4549, as amended) are discretionaryand the Board can, '.
in the exercise of its judgment,examinethe applicant. It
la also our opinion that the twelve months period mentioned
In P. c.., Urt. 7520, maans twelve months previous to and im-
aedlatelypreoeding the date of the filing of the application.
If the applicant had not practiced illegally in Texas for
fourteenmonths precedina his application end presuming he
POESeSS6d ell qualificstions,the Board &ould permit him to
teke the examinetion. However, if the applicant'engaged in
any illegal practice during .thetwelve months immediately
FreOedlngthe date of his filing then it is discretionary
81th the Board whether or not the epplicent be permitted to
take the examination. VB ara further of the opinion that
the time limitationmentioned In the P. C., Art. 7520, is
ePPlicableto the quoted provisions of Art. 4549, as amended.
The fundamentalrule in the oonstruction of a stat-
ute is to give cffcot to tha intentionof the Legislature
*nd all statutes relating:to the same gorsral subjkot should
be construed toRethor. Gram v. ~Colficld(C. A. 116 S. :'r.2d.
)%9). In :!c>rldov. Clz>@z, 1~10Tax. 71, 166 S. X. 28 125,
it was held-at all statutes "are presumed to be enacted
153 A. L. R. 1054. the court held that uAll statutes
b pari m?~teriaare to be-construedto;let;nras if they were
cne law, and if it cm be catherod from a subsequent ststute
in par1 materia, whet~meaningLegislature attaches to words
of a former statute, this willamount to a lo~islative declar-
ation of its meaning and will govern constructionof first
statute."
Our Supreme Court in Natl. Surety Corp. v. Ledd
(1938),115 S. V. 2d 600,,602, has said:
"In the constructionof laws, courts will
not hesitate to con&true !?ordsin ~ord6r to carry
out the expressed.intention of'the Legisleture.
In many cases~the tord *may* has been construed
. to mean 'shall', on& vice versa. The rule is
governed by the intention expressed in the statute,
* . ,. "
The time limitation (peri,cdof forgiveness)pre-
aorlbed in F. C., Art. 752c, is not an innovationin our juris-
prudence. It has'existed from time imemorial and had its
beginningin OUT moral teachings of forgiving our neighbor '
"the hurt that he hath done unto thee" (Ecclesiastes28:2)*
Our Penal Code, Article 2, specificallyprovides that "the
objeot of punishment,is to suppress crime and reform,the of-
fender". And in this connection,our courts have held that
remotenessof conviction for crime protects a witnessagainst
impeachmentand "that the period of time in whioh reformation
of the witness should be presumed to have taken~placeaeted
Bith the beginning of his enal servitude". Bernard's v.
Austin, (Dallas C. A. 1927P 300 S, %, 256, 259 1.0.
Yours very truly