Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

I. THE A’ITOKN-E-Y GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN. T-s Jals 30, 1949. ;l;bLN~. Crabb,X;D. opinionHo. V-867. !fexas State ~Bokrd of Be: QuestLana relating to HA EedloallkxamlaeP13 103 and B;B; 915, Bats of Fort Uorth 2, Texas 51et Leg. 1949 0-7 referredi,0 80 %as~o soiaucsLav;' Dr. Orabb: YOWP~W~~~~~ (1l3opini~~Olat*t0m~0 Bills 103 and 915, Aote of the 51st Legialatare more omauly referredto aa the Bat310SoieaoeLaV, 18 aa f0llOWt (I . a In carryingout the owtuwry and atatutoGy*~ovisias of the Hedical Fraatioe Aat OS Texas, the Ten8 State Board of Hediaal ExaWnnersobtainedby letter the smdaatiapr~ dates of the three bdioal eohdolsof Texas, and at its meet- om-xovmr 28, 1948,the BoaH set Jane 16, 17, 18, 1949, as the next examlmtlon eesslan for license to praotiae md#.alneIn Texas. These dates and the plaae of the examlnatlanwere forwrd~ to allmd- ioaland osteopathicjournalefo~p~lLatlo13, and all sohools; The medical eohoolsof Texas hadtheirgraduatio~ onJune 6th,lOthand 13th, 1949, and by July.lsteaoh graduatehad to be ia lnternehip,vrh%ch duty VXll take them into most all states of the United Statesaa well a8 the Oanal Zque. Thu8 the necessityai holdlugthe examlnatlcmon the epecif%eddatea. vurlng the went seasi~ or the Legis- lature,Hquse Bllp”Ho.103wan enaatedand pro- vided,t3m0ngother thage, r0r the non-repeal of existlngmdical1i0eneure1alm; Itwas that the lalflraato go the g&era1 l.EprssfJian into &feat ninety (90) days after adjourn+h 0r the IngislatrPe,rbiah is PC& ti seatrioai fan. II;B. Crabb, page 2 (V-867) Prooeedingumler the Impressionthat IX.B. 'Hoi 103 was not In effect,and since 20 Basic Soi- ence Board bad been appointedor organized, the Texas State Board of Medical?Emm&aem went into executiveand examinationsessionat GregoryG~slum, The Universityof Texas in Austln,at 8:OO A..M;June 16th, 1949. During the course of the af'ternqonof June lj'%h, it was calledto the attentionof the Boa:Q that there was a possibilityHi B. lo; 103 ~4s in effeotat that .time;however,the Board con- ' tLuuedto hold its exam&mtion sessionfor the ,_, examlriees i It bad alreadyapprovedapproxi- mately 200.applioatlons for licenseto prac- tice meilioineby reclproaalendorsemez?ivlth other states;. i ." You have @n&tteQ seieraiquestionsvhloh, for the sake of e,larlty wLlX be statedan&answered ?Bp-' arately; QuestionNoi 1; "Was House Bill Bo; 103 A~effeot on June 16, 17, and 18 ,1949?'If so, vhen did it go into efl%at?"' Section39 oS.,Artlale.III oft* C&et@ttion OS Texas proddeie: ~%o ~~paes&lb~the Legislat&e,ex- oept the generalapprcpriatlon'qot, shall take effeator go into force until ninety days af& . ter thcadjoumimentof the sessionat whloh It was einactetl, unlessIn ease of an emergency, vhioh emergencymust be expressedin a pream: ble,or.ti,thebody ol?the act, the Lsgitrlature shall,~bsa vote of two thirds of all the mm- here electedto eaoh House, otherv%eqdlrecrt; sald'voteto be taken by qas apa nays, and, aut.er4ad,aupqs the journals. In the aaaaeoi EbcPaAe,Ha ,118 'Par;Cri 165 40 s;lf;nq811 (lg31),thee-1 Appealshe16 that a substitutebill uifrerent rS0p th;zFgtebL$ and not passe&by a reoordvote eh oi.theLesmgislat~e oainp! vas lnef eotive as q emer- ag maare ana that the pcnm.tomake an emergemay sme~mtqt be exerogeed when the L&glslaturebeams . ’ HOG; 1. H; Crabb, page 3 (V-867) aware of the terms containedla the bill as finally agreed upon and passed. This case w-8 Sollovedby the SupremeCourt of Texas la the oase oS Caplee v. Cole, 129 Tex. 370, 102 S.W.2d 173 (1937), wktere3.athe Su- preme Court said: "In the May Caee the Court of Criminal Appealsheld, in substance,that a bnbstltute bill, diifereatfrom the originalbill, and not passedby a~recordvote showingcm%r- reaoe of two-thirdsof the legislature, was Ineffectiveas sn emergency measure;and that the power to make an emergencymeaeuremust be exercised when the Legislaturebecomesavare of the terms containedin the bill as Sinally agreed upon and passed; The Comt of Civil Appeals Sollovedthe rule announcedby the Court of CrlmlnalAppeals in the May Case, and held that the vote upon the amendments,and yGt;z vote upon the original'bill, would l . . 'It is clear that the object of the pro- vision OS the Constitutionabove,quoted %~a that if a binis to take eifect imediately on Its @assage,It must containan emergency clauseand such bill must be passedby a vote OS two-thirdsof all the members electedto eaoh house,a@ each vote to be taken by yeas and nays and enteredupon the journals; We think the rulespresaribedby the Constitution also appliesto amendmentsand mports OS caaferencecanrmittees . i i" Howe Bill 103, Acts OS the 5lst Legislature, passed the House origInally'enMaroh 14,.1949,by 93 yeas and 43 nays, two presentnot voting. It was amepd- ed by the Senateand passed April 21st, 1949 with 23 yeas and 3 nays'. Upaa return to the House, the House conorpredin the Senate amendmentson April 25, 1949, by‘ 113 yeas and.8 nays, three present not voting; House Bill 103 was signedby the Governor a April 28, 1949, and therefore beoame efieotiveon the seae date; On May 5, 1949, House Bill 915 which amended oertalaseathas of House Bill 103 passed the House by a viva vooe vote. It wae paeeed by the &mate on May 12, 1949, by 31 yeas end 0 nays; House Bill 915 was approved ma. M. H. CFabb, page 4 (v-867) by the Qoveraoron May 27, 1949, and It ther;$o;;~;omes effective90 days from the date oS a 1joumme Leglelat~e, or more specifically, October5, 1949. On June 5, 1949, the Rouse passed House Ccaoumemt Besolu- tlon Bo. 175 which directedthat House Bill Ho. 915 go into effectImmediatelyupon the adoptionof the resolu- tion by a two-tblrdevote oS the House of Representa- tives and the Senateand upon the appron? of the Qover- nor OS the State of Texas; It Is to be ncted that House ConcurrentResolutionRo. 175 does not clm.ge the ef- fectivedate of Rouse Bill 915 inasmuchas t coaourreat resolutionof the Legislaturecannothave the effect of emendinga statute80 as to changeits effectivedate; Moshlem vi Rola, 79 S.W.2d 672 (Tex;Clvi App; 1935); #lgv. Cole, eupra; State vi Dslesdenier,7 Texi 76 The scope or functionof a "resolution' as dletingu3.shedfrozea "bill"la adequatelystatedby ChleS JustloeGaines in the case of San Antoniovi Mickle~ohu; 89 TAX; 79, 33 SX; 735 (18951,as follows: n - i A resolutionpraperIs not a law, State ;;*Deleedenier, 7 Texi 76; A legiela- tlve body,mayin that form expressan opinion, emy govern It8 own prooedarevithln the llmL- tationsimposedupon it by its constitution or charter,and, In case It have ndnieterial fun&ions, may directtheir performance;but It cannotadopt tha' mode of procedurein mak- lag laws where the power which createdit has c0mwadea that It shall legislatein a tiffs& at rod! In the case of Conies vi Texas Mvlslcm oS UaltedDaughters of the Confederacy 164 S W 24 (Texi Elv. App. lgn, error ref.),the co&t etaiei: *rhe oblef dlstlmtlon betweena reeolu- tioa and a law is that a resolutionis used whenever the Legislatureviehee to mrely 8x- press en opinionwhloh 18 to have only a tem- porary effect,whLle a law is intendedto permanentlydirect and aoatrolmatt?;sapply- ing to personsor tbiage In gemeral. This officebaa oonslsteatly held that a Rouse Conoument Resolutioncannotchangethe effectivedate EON; 1. H. Crabb,page 5 (V-867) al'legislationinasmuchas the requbwaemts OS the Coa- etitutionare not met by this method ?S legislation;-, Attorneygeneral's~opinicm Ho; O-95, dated January 13, 1939; AttorneyfJeneral%OpinionHo. O-1717,datedBei oember~23, 1939; AttorneyGeneral'sOpinionX0; O&3697, dated August 14, 19J+l.It Is readily*em. that House concurrentResolution175 bid aot have the err60t or plaa* House Bill 915 into lnmmllateeffectas antlcl- pated. Ia answer to your questionlV0;1, :t is our opinionthat Bouse Bill I?oO;M3 I.8now In bffect,the eiieotivedate being April 28, 1949, the date oS the signatureby the Qoveraor, and that House Bill 915 xi11 beaome erfeotiveon October5, 1949. QuestionHoi 2. “If you have anmemad Questionlo; 1 in the affirmative.what ef- feat till t&ie~haveon the exen#n&on &ld on June 16, 17, 18, 19491" Seotion1,oS House Bill 103, Bats of the 51et Leglelature,$949, providesin jmrt that no perma shall be permittedto take an examiaat%onfor a lioenseto practhe the healingart or any branoh thereoi,ox!be Mted any~such~license, uulesshe baa preetited~tothe c ard or office empwered to issue such a llaenseas the appliaaat8eek?8, a .eertlSloateof prorloienoyin the .baeloecleacee. Seottion 6 of said Act provides that the board shall aonduotarrmillitions at ewh t-8 a&d plan- es as it deems beet provided,thatthe first exa&.aat:m shall be held tith%n six months of the erfeativeda%* of tlileAat cad examlinatlon to be held durlag eacirperiod 0s *lx months thereafter; By reason OS I;heplain prori- sloae of the law, whetherairectoryap maMatory, the board shouldin all cases require a oertiiiaateof'PEO- Sla$moy in the basic eclenoeebefore examlaatioaunder the Rknllaal Practiae.AatIs given to any applicant; How- ever, your reqqet presentsthe addl.tional question0S whetherexamlaationslnadverteatlybegua but not graded (and no llaeaeee issued thereon) would be a nullity ii theBoard ehouldnowrequlrebaelo eeleneecertiiiqatee before eatpletingthe exemlaatioas, by gradingthem; The realqueetioais whethea llaeneeeissuedupoasuahexam- laatiaaswould be v02d; Ve believethat the answer to this questionis rouadlathe generalIntent or the A&thataopereon ROIL HI;H. crabb,page 6 (V-867) shouldpraotiaethe healingarts before satisfyingthe basic ecleaoerequlremeate.At the Xme of the regtllar gradwtlon of thle large class in Jum, 1949, end at the tleieOS the regularlyscheduledmedloal. oxaninatloa, there was no Basic ScienceBoard in existencei The mem- bers of such Board were not in fact appointeduntil July 23, 1949; So It was lxpoeslblefor the appl%cantsto proowe such oertlflcates; Yom Board proceededwith the eramlnatlous but has withheldthe gra&.iugthereof end the leeuenoeof llaeneesuntil the Baa.s Soionce BoaM was appointed; It is now In exLetouoeand oen aat on applloatlousfor Basic ScienceCertlfloates;Is YOU now requiresuch certificateof eauh applimut before poaeedlag to grade He exemlaatlcmand before ieemlng his llcbaee, It ie our opinionthat Such a&Ion end ll- oease would not under these particularciroum&auoeebe void, and a peraoa so llceneedwould not be subjectto eny penaltiesuuder the A&;~ QuoatlcmRo. 3; 2s you have anaw~~d Qwetlon Roi 1 in the affirmative,and in the absenceof a Basic ScienceBoard, can thie Board proceedwith the graw of the papors and Issue lloeneeto the enoceeeSulexamlu- eee of the Jwe 16, 17, 18, 19, 1949, exe& laatlciu,withouta basic scienceoertlfioiite?’ In anewer to your questionEo; 3 it is IA opinfaathat the board shouldrequire a eerM.Sioateal praflo1eacyin the basic 3alenceeOS appllaentetaking the aramluatloaon Jane 16; 17, 18, and 19, 1949, be:..:,e ex.a&mtlongapers aud IssuInglloeaees zi% Therefare, your qwetiou is auewezedin the .the negativei, Our answersto qw.etiouslros.2 end 3 also an- sver your qwetiou lo. 4. Qtreetlaalo; 5’: 3s you have answered Qwetlou Xo. 1 In the aff%rmatlve,what er- feat will this have..on the applioaute*se applloatlouer0r Uoenee by Feolproaalea- doreement :were approvedon JIlne17thV U- oenee oertifloatee were signed 051June 17th r0r approximately200 applicants,and are now ready to be seat out, shouldthe Board send out~theeelioeneeoortlS1aatee tithoutbav- lng obtained‘abaelo saleacecertlSloate, . . Eon. H; B. Crabb, page 7 W-867) evea though there Is no Board of Basic Sol- eace l&aolaereto lsew a basic mlenoe CW- tlSloate4n Since receivingyour request r0r oplnha, you have advlsadthat tbls questianehoaldbe llmltedto those applicantswho riled aft- the effectivedate 0S the Act, alnoe actlarr. baa alreadybeen taken on’thaee whloh,were ffled bef0re such date, ‘onappl.‘.tiatlane, Slled,and obviowly to be acted upoa titer the eSrect- lve date, April 28, 1949, IEowe Bill 103 clearlyre- q-es aertfficateeOS prorioiemy in the baeio aoleaoee before the lasuanoeoS licensesto practlcre;Since the Basic SalepceLaw indicatesthat no llceneeshall be Is- sued beS0re obtaw a certificateaf prorlolenoyaad elaoe no examlnatlonfor admlaelanby reciprocityla re- qulred,%t Is our opinionthat the B0ard or MedloalBxi amlneremay hold in abeyancethe appllcatiaw of those to be admittedto praotleethe heallagarts by reclproc- lty uatll.ewh time as the applloa#,amay obtainSrapI the BaSlo SoieaoeaBoard ths certlSloatesof proficiency remed by law; TJp0nreceipt0s such aertlfleatesof proflolencj l&ithe baalo eolenaee by the Board of X&u- oal X%andnereswh Board would .beaM,hotilsed to ibeub all llocweeawhich vem signed en June 17th by virtue 0S realprocalagroementei You hare Udioated that azpaaswer to qwetlon Boi 6; Is PO longer necessary; Qwstlam.Ilo;7; ?ie .anderstandthere was an ameadmat to the H; B; Bo; 103 exempt+ng voteraw ; Vi11 veteransbe required to obtala a oertifloateof pmSlolenoy in the basic eal- ewes beS0re they are ell#ble for Uoenmre by e3mmlnat.i~or reolpr6oalt3zia0p8t38mtt If they are exemptfrom the requirementsof the baeia eelenaeaertificate, 5rhat~rcu-m 0f evl- daaoe shouldthis Board require es veteran, Sf It be requlmd to obtainevidenceln order to kaow that the applicantIs entitledto the exemptleaunder the elawe exemptlagveterape?’, Seotlon 23a of Howe Bill 915, Acts of the 52et Legislature,1949, providesthat the Basic Salem33 dot ehall not apply to graduates0S the~eohooleoi heal- lag arts wh0 have been enr0lledln their respective eohoolafor at least in?eyear prior to the time this dot bea0meelaw ?indwho have attendedSaid sahooleunder the mn. 1. B. Crabb,page 8 (V-867) 0; I; BfU.0r Rlghte&a were bona ride residentsof the StateqfTaae atthetfme theyent~mdtherdlitary service,vith a furthee provlelonthat Section23a eball not apply to any person who enteredth+ militaryservice aSter Janwry 1, 1946; As prevlowly stated,Howe Bill 915 pill not beam effeatlveuntil 9C.dayeaSter the date of adjourmnantof the Legislature,the effeotlve data being October5, 1949. Therefore, veteran8mwt obtainoertlflcateeoS proflcleauyla the basic eal~eee before they are eligiblefor lloeneureby jxaminationor reclprwal endorsementat the preeenttlme~ &n&6*, after Wtober 5 any veteranwmfag within the provls1o.w of Seotlasr'23a0s EOWO Bill 915 rill h'exempt from eehreqni-t. SWUAXY ,'Xowe Bit11$03, Aote of the 5let Lepla-' t.ure,1949, gomanly referred to as the Baa10 Sol6aoeLev, bavlagrecelvedthe required two-thirdsvote, b ea alffeom t+ve up otha e slg 4 i nature of the Govmnor 011April 28, 1949. Howe .; Bill 915, A&e oS the 518t LaglelattPe,1949, ~hiehamad6do6rtalmeectfoas or HooseBill~ 103, wfll be errwt2ve October5, 1949, 90 days after the adjournmat 0s the Leglslature,.bav- lng railed to reaelvethe requiredconntlta- tiona1 vote; Applloaate for licenseto praa- tlae the healingart or any branah thereofmast obtain oertlfioateeof aofiolenoy la the basic '. e~leaaee' from the Board 0s lhaminerein the Baaia Soieaaeeafter April 28, 1949, the er- feotioe&ate oS eaid~lct. The oert¶.Sxcate oS priUlolenc~-should be ‘requiredbefore examlna- tloqfor a lloenaeto pqotloe the healing arts, but ~llaenaee leaued upon ezaminatiom .begunbefore oertlfloateeare furnished,but qompletedby gradingaSter the clling of t&e o~tiiloatee, would not be void. Yours very truly, ATTCRllE!?O~LOFTEXAS