,



### IiKE NEY GENERAL.

Mr. Edmund Tobola, President OpinionNo. C-570 State Board of Barber Examiners Austin, Texas Re: Whether the State Board of Barber Examinershave the authorityunder Section 11, Article 734a of Vernon's Penal Code, in light of subsequent amendmentsto Article 734a, to require all applicants for enrollmentin barber schools to appearbefore the Board to determine their "educationalfitness" prior to enrollment in a barber school and the issuance of a student permit Dear Mr. Tobola: and/or certificate.

In your letter of November 3, 1965, to this office, you request our opinion as to whether the 1961 amendment of Section 9 of Article 734a,Vernon's Penal Code, supersedesthe provisions of Section 11 of Article 734a authorizingthe State Board of Barber Examiners to conduct an examinationof applicantsprior to their enrollmentin barber schools to determine their educational fitness.

In answeringyour question,we look to the provisions of Section 11 and to the provisionsof Section 9, as amended in 1961, of Article 734a. We note that Section 11 of Article 734a has not been amended since its enactmentby the Legislature in 1929. Section 11 of Article 734a providesand we quote as follows:
"Sec. 11. The Board shall conduct examination of applicantsfor certificatesof registrationto practice as registered barbers and of applicants

-2?56-Mr. Edmund Tobola, page 2 (C-570)

for certificatesof registrationto practiceas registeredassistantbarbers and of annlicantsto enter barber schools to determine their educational fitness.not less than four times each year, at such times and places as the Board mav determine and desisnate.

. . .I' (Emphasis added) Section 9,of Article 734a was amended in 1961 to read and we quote in part as follows:

"Sec. 9. (a)
. . . and no certificateor permit shall **be** issued as provided for herein to an applicant to be a student in such a school or college unless said applicantdemonstrates 1 his or her abi i write clearlv the Enslish lancuauedetermined bv an examinationconductedby the school or college." (Emphasis added) Upon examinationof the above quoted provisions,there obviouslyexists a conflict as to who shall conduct the educational fitness examinationof applicantsto be students. Section 11 of Article 734a authorizesthe Board of Barber Btaminers to conduct this examinationand Section 9 (a) of Article 734a authorizes the barber school or college to conduct **such** examination.

To resolve this conflict,we are of the opinion that you must look to the intent of the Legislature when it amended Section 9 of Article 734a. By amending **Section** 9 of Article 734a in such a way as to be conflicting,inconsistent. and repugnantwith Section 11 of Article 734a, evidencesan intent; in our opinion, that the Legislatureintended that Section 11 of Article 734a be repealed insofar as it is in conflictwith Section 9 (a). First National Bank v. Lee Countv Cotton Oil Co., 250 S.W. 313, (Tex.Civ.App. 1923), affirmedFirst National Bank of Giddinosv. Lee Countv Cotton Oil Co., 274 S.W. 127, (Coaun.App. 1925). Although the Legislaturedid not expresslyrepeal Section 11 of Article 734a when it amended Section 9 of such Article in 1961, we are of the opinion that Section 9 (a) does repeal Section 11 by implication,insofaras the provisionsof
-275-i-Mr. Edmund Tobola, page 3 (C-570)

these sections are in conflict. The doctrine of implied repeal rests on the principle that the last expressionof the lawmakers will be given effect. 53 Tex.Jur.Zd149, Statutes, Sec. 101. To the extent that Section 11 of Article 734a is inconsistent,

repugnant,and in conflictwith Section 9 (a) of Article 734a. it is repealedby necessary implication. State ex rel. Martin v. Citv of Waxahachie, 240 S.W.2d 971 (Tax. App. 1952, no history).

Since we are of the opinion that the prwisions of Section 11 of Article 734a are repealedby implicationinsofar as they conflictwith Section 9 (a) of Article 734a, you are respectfullyadvised that the Board **of** Barber Examinershas no authority to require applicantsfor enrollment in barber schools or colleges to appearbefore **the** Board to determine **their** "educational

fitness'!

prior to enrollmentin such barber schools or colleges. SUMMARY

Section 11 and Section 9 (a) of Article 734a, Vernon's Penal Code, are in conflict,and to the extent that Section 11 conflictswith Section 9 (a), it is repealedby necessary implication. Therefore, the Board of Barber Examiners is without authority to require applicantsfor enrollment in barber schools or colleges to appearbefore the Board to determine their "educational fitness'*

prior to enrollment in **such** barber schools **or** colleges.
Yours very truly, WAGGONER CARR Attorney General

Assistant
DA:ra

-2x8-Mr. Edmund Tobola, page 4 (C-570)

APPRCWH): OPINION CCMMITTEE
W. V. Geppert, Chairman Pat Bailey **W.** 0. Shultz J. C. Davis Roy Johnson APPROVEDFCRT'HEATTORNEYGENERAL By: T. B,.

Wright

**-2759-**