September 4, 1969 

Honorable Preston Smith Opinion NO. M-463 

Governor of Texas 

Austin, Texas Re: Validity of Senate Bill 667, 

Acts of 61at Legislature, 

Regular Session, 1969 relating to licensing of 

Dear Governor Smith: psychologists 

Your request for an opinion on the validity of 

Senate Bill 667, Acts of 61at Legislature, Regular Session, 

1969, Chapter 713, Page 2059 (codified in Vernon's as 

Article 4512C, Vernon's Civil Statutes), asks the following 

questions: 

" 1 . Does this caption meet the constitutional 

requirement of giving notice to the public in 

that it makes no reference to the definition 

of who is a 'psychologist'; it makes no reference 

to qualifications of members of the Board; it 

makes no reference to the qualifications of applicants for examination for certification; it makes 

no reference to exemptions from the act; it makes 

no reference to cancellation or suspension of 

licenses or certificates; and it makes no reference to criminal penalties for violations of the 

act? 

" 2 . Does Section 4 of this Act establishing 

staggered three year terms violate the provisions 

of Article XVI, Section 30 or Article XVI, Section 

30a, of the Texas Constitution? 

" 3 . Is the definition of the term 'psychologists' within Section 2(b) and (c) of this Act 

so vague and indefinite that it is impossible of 

interpretations and enforcement in view of Wilson 

v. State Board of Naturopathic Examiners, 298 

S.W+2d 946 and Ex Parte Halsted, 182 S.W.2d 479? 

-2293- 
Hon. Preston Smith, Page 2 (~-463) 

" 4 . Is any other provision of this Act in 

conflict with the laws and Constitution of this 

State or these United States?" 

Section 35 of Article III of the Constitution of 

Texas provides: 

"No bill, (except general appropriation 

bills, which may embrace the various subjects 

and accounts, for and on account of which moneys 

are appropriated) shall contain more than one 

subject, which shall be expressed in its title. 

But if any subject shall be embraced in an act, 

which shall not be expressed in the title, such 

act shall be void only as to so much thereof, as 

shall not be so expressed." 

Although the above provision is mandatory 

upon the Legislature, it should be given a liberal construction. 

C&nom v. Hemphill, 7 Tex. 184 (1851); State v. Praetorians, 

143 Tex. 565, 186 S.W.Zd 973, 158 A.L.R. 596 (1945). 

The purpose of this section is to afford legislators and other 

interested people a ready and reasonably accurate means of 

knowledge of the contents of bills without their having to read 

the full text. Falkner v. Allied Finance Company of Bay City, 394 

S.W.2d 208, (Civ.App. 1965, error ref. n.r.e.1; Schlichting v. 

Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, 310 S.W.2d 557 (Sup.Ct. 

‘1958) ; Board of Water Engineers v. City of San Antonio, 155 

Tex. 111, 283 S.W.Zd 722 (1955). Therefore, it is not necessary 

that the caption state the details of the provisions of the Act 

so long as the reader of the caption is not misled as to the 

real contents of the Bill. State v. McCracken, 42 Tex. 383 (1875); 

Gunter v. Texas Land & Mortgage Co., 82 Tex. 496, 17 S.W. 840 

(1891); English & Scottish-American Mortgage & Investment Co., 

Ltd. v. Hardy, 93 Tex. 289, 55 S.W. 169 (1900). However, if the 

reader of the caption is misled, and the bill actually deals 

with a different-subject than that contained in the caption, or 

contains provisions not contemplated, or contains provisions to 

which no fair notice was given in the caption, the act will be 

in violation of Section 35 of Article III of the Constitution of 

Texas. Board of Water Engineers v. City of San Antonio, supra; 

Harris County Fresh Water Supply District No. 55 v. Carr, 372 

-2294- 
Bon. Preston Smith, Page 3 (M-463) 

S.W.2d 523 (Sup.Ct. 1963); Fletcher v. State, 439 S.W.2d 656 

(Sup.Ct. 1969); White v. State, 440 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.Crim. 1969). 

The caption of Senate Bill 667 provides: 

"An Act concerning the profession of 

Psychology; requiring certification and 

licensing of psychologists; establishing a 

Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists i making an appropriation and declaring 

an emergency." 

The body of the Bill provides for the certification and licensing 

of Psychologists, establishes a Texas State Board of Examiners 

of Psychologists, and makes provisions for the duties of the 

Board, qualifications of applicants and other related provisions. 

It is our opinion that a reader of the caption is given fair 

notice of the purpose and intent of the Act and, therefore, the 

caption meets the requirements of Section 35 of Article III of the 

Constitution of Texas. 

Section 30 of Article XVI of the Constitution of Texas 

provides that the duration of all offices not fixed by this 

Constitution shall never exceed two years. Section 30a of 

Article XVI of the Constitution of Texas provides: 

"The Legislature may provide by law that the 

members of the Board of Regents of the State 

University and boards of trustees or managers of 

the educational, eleemosynary, and penal institutions of the State, and such-boards-as have been, 

or may hereafter be established by law, may hold 

their respective offices for the term of six (6) 

years, one-third of the members of such boards 

to be elected or appointed every two (2) years in 

such manner as the Legislature may determine; 

vacancies in such offices to be filled as may be 

provided by law, and the Legislature shall enact 

suitable laws to give effect to this section." 

(emphasis added). 

-229% 
Hon. Preston Smith, Page 4 (M-463) 

Section 4 of Senate Bill 667 provides: 

"There is hereby created the Texas State 

Board of Examiners of Psychologists which shall 

consist of six qualified persons appointed by 

the governor with the atlvice and consent of 

the Senate. The,members of the first Board shall 

be appointed within ninety days after this Act 

takes effect to serve the following terms; two 

members for one year, two members for two years, 

and two members for three years from the date of 

their appointment. Thereafter, at the expiration 

of the term of each member, the governor shall 

appoint a successor for a term of three years. 

Before, entering upon the duties of his office, 

each member of the Board shall take the constitutional oath of office and file it with the 

Secretary of State." 

It is evident that Section 30 of Article XVI of 

the Constitution of Texas limits the terms of office to two 

years, unless a different term of office is authorized by 

other constitutional provisions. Section 4 of Senate Bill 667 

does not comply with Section 30a; and since the terms fixed 

by Section 4 are not authorized by any other constitutional 

provision, such section is invalid. 

Section 31 of Article XVI of the Constitution of 

Texas provides: 

"The Legislature may pass laws prescribing 

the qualifications of practitioners of medicine 

in this State, and to punish persons for malpractice, but no preference shall ever be given 

by law to any schools of medicine." (emphasis added). 

The purpose of Section 31 of Article XVI of the Constitution of 

Texas is stated in Ex Parte Kalsted, 182 S.W.2d 479 (Tex.Crim. 

1944) as follows: 

"We come now to a determination of whether 

the Act before us is violative of the nonpreference clause of Art. 16, Sec. 31, of our 

-2296- 
hon. Preston Smith, Page 5 (M-463) 

State Constitution. Said Section is a part 

of the Constitution of 1876, and has remained 

unchanged through the years. It is and has 

been the basis upon which has rested the legislative control over, and definition of, the practice of medicine. It furnishes the direct reasons 

why the courts have steadfastly held that, if 

one treats or offers to treat, as a business, 

profession, or avocation, diseases or disorders 

of the human body--by any method, system, or means-- 

he must first qualify himself to do so by taking 

the same examination that is required..of all 

others doing the,same thing, regardless of the 

system employed. Not only was such interpretation 

authorized, but same was required by that provision 

of said Art. 16, Sec. 31, which says that 'No 

preference shall ever be given by law to any schools 

of medicine.' The term 'schools of medicine,' 

as there used, means, and has reference to, the 

system, means, or method employed, or the schools 

of thought as accepted, by the practitioner. Such 

is exemplified by Chapter 12, Acts 27th Legislature, 

1901, wherein the Legislature created three separate 

Boards of Medical Examiners in this State,.each 

representing a particular system, method, or school 

of thought, for the treatment of disease, that is, 

a Board of Examiners for the allopaths, one for 

the homeopaths, and one for the eclectics. nowever, the subjects embraced in the examination 

required for license under either Board were the 

same, such requirement being necessary ,in order 

that there be no preference between the three different schools of thought. The Act of 1901 was superceded by our present Medicinal Practice Act, passed 

in 1907, c. 123. 

"Under the Medical Practice Act, one desiring 

to practice medicine must possess certain qualifications as to character and educational attainments, 

Art. 4501, R.C.S., and must pass a satisfactory 

examination upon certain basic subjects, Art. 4503, 

R.C.S.” (emphasis added). 

-2297- 
HOIl. Preston Smith, Page 6 (M-463) 

The Court concluded that the Legislature could not carve out 

of the field of the healing art a single system for treating 

diseases and disorders and give such system special treatment limiting the use thereof to those only who qualify. 

The Court held that such legislation violates Section 31 of 

Article XVI of the Constitution of Texas. 

The same conclusion was reached in Wilson v. State 

Board of Naturopathic Examiners, 298 S.W.2d 946 (Tex.Civ.App. 

1957 error ref. n.r.e.), cert. denied 355 U.S. 870, 78 Sup. 

Ct. 121, 2 L ed 2d 76, wherein the Court construed the 

Naturopathic Act as authorizing and not denying the practice 

of medicine in specialized fields and giving,preference to 

naturopathy in violation of Section 31 of Article XVI of the 

Constitution of Texas. Thus, it has been held that where 

an Act both authorizes and prohibits simultaneously the 

practice of medicine, such Act is either in violation of 

Section 31 of Article XVI of the Constitution or is void for 

vaaueness since the Act will be incapable of enforcement. Ex 

Paste Halsted, supra; Wilson v. State Board of NaturopathicExaminers, supra. 

Section 3 of Senate Bill 667 provides.: 

"Nothing in this Act shall be construed as 

permitting the practice of medicine as defined 

by the laws of this state." 

The practice of medicine is defined in Article 4510, Vernon's 

Civil Statutes and Article 741, Vernon's Penal Code, as follows: 

"Any person shall be regarded as practicing 

medicine within the meaning of this law: 

(1) Who shall publicly profess to be a physician 

or surgeon and shall diagnose, treat, or offer to 

treat, any disease or disorder, mental or ,physical, 

or any physical deformity or injury, by any system 

or method, or to effect cures thereof; 

(2) or who shall diagnose, treat or offer to treat 

any disease or disorder, mental or physical or any 

physical deformity or injury by any system or 

method and to effect cures thereof and charge therefor, 

directly or indirectly, money or other compensation;" 

-2298- 
Bon. Preston Smith, Page 7 (M-463) 

Section 3 of Senate Bill 667 specifically provides that its 

provisions shall not permit the practice of medicine as defined 

by the laws of this state and an examination of the remaining 

provisions of the Senate Bill 667 does not reveal any provisions 

which would authorize a licensee to diagnose, treat, or offer 

to treat, any disease or disorder, mental or physical, or any 

physical deformity or injury by any system or method or to 

effect cures thereof. 

"Psychiatry" is a branch of medicine that relates to 

mental diseases and deals with the science and practice of 

treating mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders. Wallach v. 

Monarch Life Insurance Co., 295 N.Y.S.2d 109, 111 (58 Misc. 2d 

202 1968); Mashak v. Poelker, 356 S.W.2d 713, 720 (Mo.App. 1962). 

Psychology on the other hand is the study of an individual's 

mental characteristics as memory intelligence,, emotionality, 

intelligence, or speed of reaction. Calhoun,v,; Members of 

Board of Education, City of Atlanta, 188 FrSupp. 401, 409, (1959). 

Section 2 of Senate Bill 667 contains the following definitions: 

"(b) A person represents himself to be a 

'psychologist' within the meaning of this Act 

when he holds himself out to the public by any 

title or description of services incorporating 

the words 'psychological,' 'psychologists,' or 

'psychology,' or offers to render or renders 

services to individuals, corporations, or the 

public for compensation. 

"(c) The term 'psychological services,' means 

acts or behaviors coming within the purview of 

the practice of psychology." 

Therefore, a psychiatrist in Texas is an individual who has been 

issued a license to practice medicine in this state by the 

Texas Board of Medical Examiners and specializes in the treatment of mentally ill individuals, while a psychologist in Texas 

has not been issued a license to practice medicine in this 

state, is not authorized to practice medicine, and is not 

permitted to treat or offer to treat mentally ill persons. 

No provision in Senate Bill 667 permits the performance of any 

act constituting the practice of medicine. See Attorney General 

-2299- 
Hon. Preston Smith, Page 8 (M-463) 

Opinion No. M-453(1969). Therefore, the conflict referred to 

in Ex Parte Halsted, supra, and Wilson v. State Board of 

Naturopathic Examiners, supra, does not exist in Senate Bill 667. 

Thus, we conclude that the provisions of Senate Bill 667 

neither violate Section 31 of the Constitution of Texas nor 

is it void for the vagueness or uncertainty described in Wilson 

v. State Board of Naturopathic Examiners, supra, and Ex Parte 

Halsted, supra. 

In answer to the fourth question, it is our opinion 

that with the exception of Section 4 of Senate Bill 667 referred 

to above, no other provision of this Act which has come to our 

attention appears to be in conflict withany provision of the 

Constitution of this State or of the United States. 

------- SUMMARY 

The provisions of Senate Bill 667, Acts of 

61st Legislature, Regular Session, 1969, Chapter 

713, Page 2059 (relating to licensing of Psychologists) are not in violation of either Section 35 of 

Article III of the Constitution of Texas or Section 31 

of Article XVI of the Constitution of Texas. Section 

4 of Senate Bill 667 prescribing terms for Board members for three years is in violation of Section 30 of 

Article XVI of the Constitution of Texas. 

Prepared by John Reeves 

Assistant Attorney General 

General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Kerns Taylor, Chairman 

tieorge Kelton, Vice Chairman 

Bill Corbusier 

Houghton Brownlee, Jr. 

-2300- 
. ., 

Hon. Preston Smith, Page 9 (M-463) 

Sarah E. Phillips 

Harold Kennedy 

MEADE F. GRIFFIN 

Staff Legal Assistant 

HAWTHORNE PHILLIPS 

Executive Assistant 

NOLA WHITE 

First Assistant 

-2301-