- i 

OFTEXAS 

Honorable R.L. Wilson, Member 

Texas Board of Pharmacy 

Huntsville, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-3577 

Re: (1) Whether the Texas Board of 

Pharmacy may refuse to issue a 

reciprocity license to an applicant licensed in another State on 

grounds of moral character. (2) 

Whether the Board may call an appltcant who seeks a license by 

reciprocity before it for examination as to character, ethics and 

past experience. 

We have given careful consideration to the above questions upon which you have requested our opinion. These questions involve a construction of Section 9 of 4542a, Vernon's 

Annotated Civil Statutes, known as the Texas Pharmacy Law. We 

quote said Section 9 and underscore those provisIons which relate dfrectly to the questions under consideration: 

"Sec. go Every applicant for license as a 

registered Pharmacist shall be not less than 

twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, 

and a graduate of a school or college of pharmacy recognized by the Board. Such applicant, in 

addition to the time required to graduate from 

school or college of pharmacy and exclusive of 

the portion of the year spent in attendance at 

school or college, shall have had at least one 

year of practical experience in retail pharmacy 

under the dFrect supervision of a registered 

pharmacfst, which experfence shall be principally work directly related to selling drugs and 

poisons, compounding of pharmaceutical preparations and physicians' prescrlptfons, and keeping 

of records and maklng reports required under 

the State and Federal statutes; and to obtain 

a license shall pass a theoretlcal and practical 

examination satisfactory to the Board of pharma0 prOVfa8a that the Board may at its dlscrez?on grant lfcense as pharmacist to persons who 
Honorable R.L. Wilson, page 2 o-3577 

furnish Droof that thev hav 

such In some other Statg9-v 

good moral character, provided such other State 

In its examination required the same general 

degree of fitness~required by this State and 

grants the same reciprocal privileges to pharmaclsts of this State; and provided that exemption 

from the graduate in pharmacy requirement for 

entrance to examination for registration as 

pharmacist shall be allowed to persons who before this Act becomes effective have been employed for at least six months in a retail phtirmacy under the supervision of a registered pharmacist, and who register with the Board for such 

examination within one year after this Act beoomes effective a-hd who, within not more than 

five gears from date~~on which this Act becomes 

effective , produce satisfactory evidence to the 

Board of Pharmacy of having haa four years of 

pharmaceutical tralnfng under the supervision 

of a registered pharmacist and shall successfully pass the examination required 

of Pharmacy." (Underscoring ours). 

by the Board 

The validity of the Texas Pharmacy Law as a regulation 

of the profession of pharmacy in the Interest of the public 

health cannot be questtoned. 21 Tex. Jur.,~~511; Ratizal v. City 

of l&n Antonio, 221 S-W. 237. The good moral character of~those 

practicing pharmacy is as vital to the safety of the public as 

IS their training and experience, The Legislature may properly 

make character as well as training a prerequisite to a llcgnse, 

? 

3 American Jwisprudenc,e 372; McDonough v.'Gooacell, 13 Cal. 

28) 741, 91 P, (2a) 1035, 123 A. L. R, 1205. The discretion 

and duty to pass upon the moral fitness of applicants may be 

conferred by the Legislature upon the administrative board or' " 

agency charged with granting the licenses. 48 Corpus Jurls 1090. 

We have been unable to find any Texas cases passing upon 

the precise questfons submitted, but we refer to two cases frdm 

other States which by analogy are applicable. The Supreme~ Court 

of Oklahoma In Re Mosher, 24 Okla. 61, 102 P. 705, held that a 

reclproclty provision In the Oklahoma Constitution as to licensing attorneys dfd not preclude inquiry into the moral qualiflcations of applicants from other.States, Fernel v. State Board 

of Keaical Examiners, 267 Pac. 561, by the California Court of 

Appeals hbldsi 'that an tippllcant for a reciprocrty certificate 

to practice niedlclne tiust satI@ the board of his good moral 

character, under the provfsions"of the Medlcal Practice Act of 

California, We quote from the courts opinion in that case: 
Honorable R.L. Wilson, page 3 o-3577 

"If It be required that one shall show 

reasonable evidence that he Is an ordinarily 

decent fellow before he shall have the privllege of submitting himself to the 'examination 

provided before he may emerge from the status 

of a student to.that of a licensed practltloner in our state, what reason could be advanced 

to excuse this showing In a recent comer in our 

midst, whose history is unknown to us;and who 

may have found it convenient to seek pastures 

new for reasons not comfortable to disclose?" 

The underscored portion of Section 9 of the Act quoted 

above, manifests, in our opinion, a clear intention on the part 

of the Legislature to make proof of good moral character of the 

applicant to the board's satisfaction a prerequisite to the 

granting of a license to one who was previously licensed in 

another State. If the board acts arbitrarily and without justlf~ication In this regard, the applicant may have his remedy ln 

the courts. 

We likewise believe that it would be within the authority and discretion of the State Board of Pharmacy to require applicants for licenses as pharmacists, whether by examination or 

reciprocity, to appear before it in order that It may make personal examination of the applicant as to his moral Character, 

ethics, experience, etc. Section 4 of Article 4542a provides 

in part: 

ëI* * l * The Board shall have the power to 

make by-laws and regulations, not Inconsistent 

with the law, for the proper performance of Its 

duties * * **'I 

Requiring the personal appearance of applicants before 

the board would, we believe, come within the scope of discretion 

as to the manner of discharging Its duties which has been delegated to the board by the Legislature. As stated at 27 Texas 

Jurisprudence 888: 

"In conferring power to license and prescribing rules under which the power Is to be exercised, 

a law-making body does not delegate a legislative 

function, but an adminlstratlve or quasi-judicial 

one, even though considerable latitude is given 

the licensing offlclal in exercising such power." 
Honorable R, L, Wilson, page 4 0 -3577 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TFXAS 

By s/Walter R. Koch 

WalteFR. Koch 

Assistant 

WRK:RS:wc 

APPROVED JUN 9, 1941 

s/Grover Sellers 

FIRST ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENHLAL 

Approved Opinion Committee By s/BWB Chairman 

,