OFFICEOFTHEATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS **AUSTIN**

floaorable GeorgeF’

.Cor State Xeelth Offloor mlrtln, T8X88 **D8ar**Sir:



### ofma108 aad. **cmulgatod by** the Hsalth underthm eotioo 5of the

$ubdlvislon (9) of +otlon 6of tha hot then ProVl688: -any permit lmmml ln~aoaordanoe wlth tho provlelans mrrybs revoked by the State Health Offloer uponproof orvlolatlon 0rany of the proviaionr **0r**Ronorable 

### Oeor&s--. 

### COX,pago 2

this hot. . . ." Your latter of October 24, 1940, requests 6 leg*1 opinion frooPtbla DoperWent a6 to whether the state Xealth Officer would be authorized to **revoke**the permit of an operator **who** has vloiated the rul46 andregulations promulgated by the State Board of Health under the rula-mekl~ power of the Boer4 net out above in 

### Section5. Youalao ask what procedure ehould bafollowed bythe state Health Cffloer **in** doing so.

The purpose of empowsrlng the State Board of Haalth to promulgate rule6 and regul6tlona was ‘to enable the more effective enforcamant of the Rot which **~64** enactad under the **State*8** police power for the protaotlon of health and for the ~avaation of tha spread of dlaeaaa.

A vital requfrensnt of the $ot 1s that any psraon eng6sgedin tha business of manutaaturlng, repairing or ranovatlng bedding ahall obtain a permit **from**the Depsrtmsnt of Realth and shell register eny &srmloldal prooeaa used in such bualneaa and aeoure the approv61 of the Depertment of auoh prooaaa.

Thepermit provlelons of the Aot era emong those touching which the State Board of Bealth waa ampoweradto promuleate rules and regulatlona. That oompllenoe thar6wlth la **required** of the permittoe la **lndloated** by tha languaga **of** sub**aeoticn** (b) of Seotlon 6whloh l uthorlzea a ranawel permit
-upon aubmiaalon or moor 0r oontlnued oomvllanoa with the provlilona of thisAOt in4 tha regulation6 of-the Degertmant.*- (Bnpharle **oura) -~** 

Thavalidity of leglolatlon whloh Oont6re rul6-meking powera upon admlnl6tr6tlv6 aganaiaa ha* bean conaiatently upheld by our oourta.

In SanAntonlo v. Joaea, 28 Tar. 33 (quoted wfth approval in O’Brien v. **~Unemmn,** 112 Tex. 264, 247 8. X’.270). it **wan**daolarsd by the 9uprme Court of Teraat

“TheLa~lalature say grant authority 

### aawell aa give oomands, **and**a&a done under it6 authority are aa valid as if dons in obedlenoe to its commanan. Nor1s a statute, whore complete l xeoution an4 applloetlon to the aubjectslattsar la, by its provlalona, meda to depend on the aaaant of 6ome other boQy, a Aalegatlon of laglolatlve power. Thedlaoretlon &or6Honorable Oaorge1%.cox, fgge 3

to the eraroloe of the power conferred by the law, but not to maksths lew itsslf. Thelaw, in such c4668, 

### maydependror its 

### praotloalefflolenoy on the sat of 

### someother body or lndlvlAua1; still it in not &erlved from auoh sot, but 

### fromthe laglalatlve authority.* It wae llkewlaa etated by the San Antonio Court of Civil AppeSlS in Tuttle v. Wood, 35 5. X. (2d) 1001, (writ or error refussd)r

*It is true. of Course thst the Legislature **cannot**dalegate to an aAmln~atratlvs board the power to make a law praaorlblllg a penalty, but It la equally true that it 1s oompdxmt for the Leglalatura to author126 

### aooauaiaaim 

### orboard oraatad for that; purpose to preaorlba dutlea or aaaertain oondltiona upon whioh an axlstlng law say operata 

### lnimposinga penalty 

### andin affeQtuatlng ths ;lurpoae daalgned in enaotlng the law. It la 1~ pursuance of this authority thet railroad oomlaalonm, publla utility a~leaeione, liveGtock sanitary oomutiasioaa, health boards and like ag;enoiee exerolae their **iunotlona** andadmlnleter and enforce laws ralatlng to their aev*ral aepertmentm. In their varg natQr6 such lara muat be flaxlble in order to glte thraPpr~otloable &ppllaetfon to tha Elvarae oondltlona whloh adat wlthln the savers1 states." In ReRahrar, 140 0. S. 554, it war said byXr. Chief Justiae Puller:

'The power of the 

### mtatato impose raatrafaj;m anA**burden::**upn 

### parsonsand property in 0onaervetlon andpromotion of ths public health, good order and prosperity la a pomr cri&~~lly end almya **bo** longing to the 

### states,not a~rranderad by them to the general government, nor direotly reetralnad by the Constitution of the United States, ain4eeaentlally *xclu*lv4." Samalso the oaaaa of Rash &ardware Companyv. tcorria, 105 Tar. 817, 146 Y. :f. 874~ Henry v. Wate, 260 8. 3. 19Or ExPart6 xhlte, 1QRti. 3. 5331 FJebbla v. HewYork, 291 U, S. 502.

### 335

Honorable George w. Cox, Faga 4

It is the opinion of this Department that a vlolation of the rules and regulations promulgated bytha State Board of Health in accordance with Seotion 5 ofthe Aot, by a person engaged in the bualnesa of manufacturing, repairing or renovating bedding would constitute a Violation of any of the provlslone of this AOt"within the purview of Subdivislon (e) of Ssctlon 6 of the Aot, and upon proof ofsuch, the gtate Health Officer would be authorized to revoke a permit theretofore laeued to such operator.

TheAot does not provide any particular procedure for the State Health Offloer to follow in the revooatlon of a permit. The State Board of Health is, however, authorized by Qeotion 5 of th& hot to "make . . . general rules and regulations of prooedure ror carrying into efreot all the provlalone of this Act". It la our opinion that the Board should promulgate reaaoueble rules whereunder the permittea would be given notlos and a hearing before the State Health Offloar prior to the revocation of a permit. This would involvethe giving of notice to the permittee of the exlatenoe of evldanoe before the State Health Officer of violations by the permittee of the rules andregulations promulgated'by the Board, togather with the right of the permittee to ahearing berora the Offloer at the time designated. If at such hearing it is establlahed that the permittea has violated the rules and regulation6 of the Board, the State Health Orflcer would be authorized to revoke the permit.Yours very truly ATTORNEYGENERAL

OFTEXAS