, 

IiKE NEY GENERAL. 

Mr. Edmund Tobola, President Opinion No. C-570 

State Board of Barber Examiners 

Austin, Texas Re: Whether the State Board of 

Barber Examiners have the 

authority under Section 11, 

Article 734a of Vernon's 

Penal Code, in light of subsequent amendments to Article 

734a, to require all applicants for enrollment in 

barber schools to appear before the Board to determine 

their "educational fitness" 

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, supersedes the provisions 

of Section 11 of Article 734a authorizing the State Board of 

Barber Examiners to conduct an examination of applicants prior 

to their enrollment in barber schools to determine their educational fitness. 

In answering your question, we look to the provisions 

of Section 11 and to the provisions of Section 9, as amended 

in 1961, of Article 734a. We note that Section 11 of Article 

734a has not been amended since its enactment by the Legislature 

in 1929. Section 11 of Article 734a provides and we quote as 

follows: 

"Sec. 11. The Board shall conduct examination 

of applicants for certificates of registration to 

practice as registered barbers and of applicants 

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

for certificates of registration to practice as 

registered assistant barbers and of annlicants to 

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 certificate or 

permit shall be issued as provided for herein to 

an applicant to be a student in such a school 

or college unless said applicant demonstrates 

1 his or her abi i 

write clearlv the Enslish lancuaue determined 

bv an examination conducted by the school or 

college." (Emphasis added) 

Upon examination of the above quoted provisions, there 

obviously exists a conflict as to who shall conduct the educational fitness examination of applicants to be students. Section 

11 of Article 734a authorizes the Board of Barber Btaminers to 

conduct this examination and 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 repugnant with Section 11 of Article 734a, evidences an intent; 

in our opinion, that the Legislature intended that Section 11 

of Article 734a be repealed insofar as it is in conflict with 

Section 9 (a). First National Bank v. Lee Countv Cotton Oil Co., 

250 S.W. 313, (Tex.Civ.App. 1923), affirmed First National Bank 

of Giddinos v. Lee Countv Cotton Oil Co., 274 S.W. 127, (Coaun.App. 

1925). 

Although the Legislature did not expressly repeal 

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, insofar as the provisions of 

-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 expression of the lawmakers will be given effect. 53 Tex.Jur.Zd 149, Statutes, 

Sec. 101. To the extent that Section 11 of Article 734a is 

inconsistent, repugnant, and in conflict with Section 9 (a) of 

Article 734a. it is repealed by 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 repealed by implication insofar 

as they conflict with Section 9 (a) of Article 734a, you are 

respectfully advised that the Board of Barber Examiners has no 

authority to require applicants for enrollment in barber schools 

or colleges to appear before the Board to determine their 

"educational fitness'! prior to enrollment in 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 conflicts with Section 9 (a), 

it is repealed by necessary implication. Therefore, 

the Board of Barber Examiners is without authority 

to require applicants for enrollment in barber schools 

or colleges to appear before 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-