Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN Say 20, 1939 Lb. W. J. Ddrtez, Secretary State E3oardof Barber EXamlnare Austin, Texas Denr'Slr: ae to whetti- or or not only a health die tools, uupplies,or et&- iIISaid 8hOpB Qr~~lOPll, them to,work in aaid &@pa re unless said barber or logist or ODhm person has 1004 test showing freedom from ottaor oommudoable biosaeo and he6 in h.iapoaseeeion a R&etra- tion aa IdentiiioationGertifY.oate mentioned in aaid Health~Certiri,oate Ordinanoe;nor shall any barber, mm- metologiet or suoh other person work in a barber shop OF beauty parlor or Zr. it.J. Dartez, Xay 2C, 1939, Page 2 pursue his trade in connectionwith barberingor cosmetologyin said Cit,y unless he has had said blood..test and has'in hXs possession.such regis- tration and Ideatiiicat%onCertifi- cate. Such certificateshall be *alid for six months only fromdate of ls- suarnce .” We assIMI)your doubt.ot.theforge of the'abovesection rests on the ~aonetltutloneIi~y or the attemptedregulation. The power to re@ate~*r the protqa- tfon of publio health in this day of prophylaxis is establishedbeyond doubt. The aonetltutlonal authorlty.ofa-munialpal borparatlonin Tenw to regulate the professionof barbers from a~ ea@itary or health etaudpolnt:has been eetablfehed lntbe case of Eenzal v. city of San Antonlo, 221 SW 237, Cot& of Civil Appeals (error rerueed). See also 20 A.L.R., page 1108. In the instant qplmlon we have before us the right of a aanialpal aarparationto regu' late'aa oaaupatlon after the state hm3 exeralsed tbs le&&etlve control over that oaaupatlon, The aourts or thiristate have held that a business ar oaaupatitilloensed by state law mss be rem- late4 rith5.n I reasonable Unit, by munlaipal ordisnnaa, it the regulation does not impids the right under the state license, &s "ExPart.e Rrwer,a I.52SY 106S, a Texas case. Let us omsiiler~kuretate regulation ot barbers and aoexmtologlstswith referenaato phyaiaal examlnatlon. Our ~Tera8 Barber Lau, arti- hle 734a, eeotion 21, subseotion (1) of our'Pena1 Code reads as fol~ws: "No certificateshall be isauad or I&-.Ii.Jo.Dartez, &.y 20, 1939, Psge 3 renewed unless and until each appli- cant shall'presenta health certifi- oate rrozna regular practicingmedical doctor showing that the applicant Is free from any kind of Itieotiousor contagiousdiseases, tuberaulosls, oommunicablediseases, free from the use of euy kind of mDrphIne, cooaine, or other habit-farming drw, or a habitual drunkard and that said ap- plioant shall make affidavit to said medical examinetionthat all of said fact6 are true." The above section requires an eremin- atlon onae a yeer and a health certificateis the require-t of'tha eppliaent. Thus, a blood test Is not necessary to oolpglywith tlm state statute, however, a aertiticeteevldemaimga blood test would satisfy the statsrequirement. The alty of Midland, a homrsrule alty, has attemptedto etrengthenthe requirement as ta the~physiael aonditionor barb&s and aosnmtologists. In order to comply with the aity ordinenea It will be necesssry for a barber to have two or not more than three blood tests a year, oae of dish may also be uaed'to qualiry for a state liaense. Our state law on haird8esearasnd oos- mstologists,art&ale 734b, seotion 10, aubseation (b) of our Penal Code reads ae tollomr: *All appliaationefor examins- tion and for llaanee shall be acaom- panied by a health certificateby a regularly liaensed doctor of medicine, showing the applicant to be free from any crontagiousor Infectiousdiseasea as determIned by a general examIna- tion and Wasserman blood test.* tir.X. J. Dartez, IGay20, 19S9, ?age 4 The persons followingthat profession tirepresently requiredto hjve a Kasseraanblood test once a year. The Xidland Ordinancewill require another such test six months frox the dnte of the last one. The oourts of this and other states are wont ti sustain any reasonablemunioipal regulationfor the protectionof health and the preservjtionof the lives of our citizens. This is true, thou&h the municipal regulationgoes further than state regulation. See 43 Corpus Suris p. 220 axxlGulf C. k.9. P. R'.Co. v. Calvert, 32 SK 246, e-or refused. For other authorities holding that.a city may enlarge the requirements of a statute where the regulationmoves In the same direction ati not oounter to the state.law, and that suoh regulation ie consistentwit&the state law, see Olson v. Plattville91 A.L.R. 308 and Spitler v. 'km of b¶uneter115 A.L.R. 1395. lkour o lkonthe attemptedregula- tion Is oonsistentIv,ith the purpose of'the legis- '. lature to proteot ihe publIa health from the dangers of.skin inieotione,scalp dletiases or any other oontagiouediseases. It go68 further than the state law, but moves in the same direa- tion, ndt.oouuter to it,.axl has a co&mendable purpose. Wails our state law& have not Uder- taken to regulate portera, they *'regulate as- sietentsto barbers and aometologists and.require physical examinations _ .. .of those _ -._ peraom. This attemptearegulation 18 a Ilealthmeaeure ana tne requiremat of blood teeta of porters handling the tools or supplies of a .ahop.Isa reasonable one. It should be a ~timulue to the present ef- forts of State Health Authorities, to eradicate social diseases. Sr. X. J. Dartez, 6tay20, 1939, Page 5 ~.eare faced with another test of this atteroptedregulation. Does it invade a field reserved to itself by our legislatureby reason of state legislationupon this mtter? The ordinance under considerationis designed as a health measure. The power of a city to pass ordinancesfor the protectionof health after the state has passed similar laws seems to rest upon their conformitywith the state law upon the m+~ subject. See Mantel v. State, 117 SW 855. The aity or Mldland has *posed no sort of tax upon the barbers Or cosmetologists$it Zlk8S PO f'8~Uir8IU8at Of mDY?alCharacterOp Of th8~trad8 name Used and it does not~att8m& to PSS UpOU.the GOIQeteUOyOf the per&Xl tO~mCtiO8 the prOi8SsiOL Those matters 'areleft to the controllingState Boards authorized by statute to determine those facts. w8 do IlOtb8li8V8 that the 18gi8latU8 by 8MOting al-tic18734a and aI%iOle 734b Of Our &HLa) COf38~iUt8ild8d t0 or did usurp the exolussivspower to protsot the publio health in barber and beauty shops. 98 attempted regulationis not ~violativeOf stat8 regulation,but is in harmon8yrith it. .It la the opinfoa of this depar$ment that seotlon 4a or the City Ordinance or Midland, Texas as submitted lx&yoUr letter or April 27, 1939 is a valid regulationand IP obligatory Up&l the p8rtXOUEiWIRd therein. Toum vary truly ATTOBKgY GEt?XRALOF TECAS (signed) BY