BIERAL 

0 AS 

4x-11 3, 1952 

Brother Raphael Wilson 

Secretary-Treasurer 

Texas State Board of Examiners 

of the Basic Sciences 

Austin, Texas Opinion No. V-1431 

Re: Necessity for all licensed 

naturopathic physicians to 

have a basic science certlDear Sir: flcate. 

Reference Is made to your request in which 

you ask: 

“Question 1: Are Sections 12, 18a and 

18b of H.B. 69, Acts of the Fifty-first Legislature, in conflict? 

“Question 2: If, In your opinloni.these 

sections are in conflict,-which section Is to 

be interpreted as valid by this Board in the 

enforcement of the Basic Science Law? 

“Question 3 : Is It necessary for all 

naturopathic physicians licensed in the State 

of Texas to hold a basic science certificate 

issued by this Board? 

“Quest i,on 4 :, If your answer to question 

3 is in the affirmative, are the licenses issued ,to naturopathic physicians without a 

basic science certificate valid?” 

Sections 12, 18a and 18b of House Bill 69, 

Acts 51st Leg., 

V.C.S.) provide: 

R.S. 1949, ch. 480, p. 890 (Art. 4590d, 

“Sec. 12. Any naturopathic physician 

who has been practicing naturopathy in this 

State for three (3) years next preceding the 

passage of this Act and when membership was 

not fraudulently obtained, shall be granted 

a license under the provisions of this Act, 
Brother Raphael Wilson, page 2 (V-1431) 

Provided however, that any paturopathlc physic,ian having resided in Texas three (3) 

years and having practiced naturopathy for 

one (1) year In Texas next preceding the passage of this Act will not be required to have 

a certificate of prbfiolency from the Minimum 

Standards Board as a prerequisite for obtaining such naturopathic license; naturopathic 

physicians in practice In this State for more 

than one (1) year, but less than three (3) 

years, shall be examined in theory, philosophy, pathology, practice, symptomatology, 

and diagnosis, peculiar to naturopathy; all 

naturopathic physicians who have been in 

practice In this State, for less than one (1) 

year shall be required to take examinations 

as provided in Section 8 hereof.” 

“Sec. 18a. Provided, however, no provision of this Act shall amend or modify the 

provisions of H.B. No. 103, Acts of the Fiftyfirst Legislature; provided further that the 

provisions of this Act shall be subject to 

the provisions of H.B. No. 103, Acts of the 

Fifty-first Legislature; and provided further 

that no Board shall be appointed, as provided 

in this Act, until the provisions of H.B. No. 

103, Acts of the Fifty-first Legislature, have 

been complied with. ” 

“Sec. 18b. Before any person shall be 

licensed under this Act he shall comply with 

the provisions of H.B. No. 103 of the Flftyfirst Legislature.” 

House Bill 103, Acts 51st Leg., R.S. 1949, 

ch. 95, p. 170 (Art. 459Oc, V.C*S,) commonly referred 

to as the “Basic Science Law” Is an act prescribing 

minimum educational standards and requiring ,certlficates of proflclenoy In the basio sciences for those 

who engage in the praotlce of healing arts. The “Mlnimum Standards Board” referred to in Seation 12 must 

me&n the “State Board of Examiners in the Basla Salenoes” 

which was established by House.Blll 103. Thus Se&Ion 12 

excepts certain persons from the operation of House Bill 

103, while Sections 18a and 18b make all persons who come 

within House Bill 69 subject to House Bill 103. .Un uestlonably, Section 12 Is in conflict with Sections 1 8 a 
Brother Raphael Wilson, page 3 (V-1431) 

and 18b of the Act. 

In 2 Sutherland Statutory Construction 

(3rd Ed. 1943) 541, we find the following: 

"General and special acts may be in 

pari materia. If,so, they should-be construed together, Where one statute deals 

with a subject in general terms, and another deals with a part of the same subject 

in a more detailed way, the two should be 

harmonized if possible; but if there 1% any 

conflict, the latter will prevail, regardless of whether it was passed prior to the 

general statute, unless it appears that 

the,legislature intended to make the general 

act controlling," 

Also, in the case of T0wnsend.v. Terrell, 

118 Tex. 463, 16 S.W.2d 1063 (1929), the court said: 

I! 

e e 0 It is only where acts are so 

i~nconsistent as to be Irreconcilable that 

a repeal by,implication will be indulged. 

If there exists such conflict, then there 

2s a presumption of the intention to repeal 

all laws and parts of,law% in conflict with 

the clear intent&on of the last act. This 

is .necessari?,y &rue where (both acts cannot 

s'tand~ as valid enactments. 

"This rule of con&ruc:tion ,has found 

frequent and apt lllu&ration ~where one o'f 

the supposedly conflicting statutes~was 

general in its term8 and the other specific. 

In-such a case it is universally held 'that 

the specific statute more clearly evtdences. 

the fntentlon of the Legislature than the 

general one, and therefore that it WI11 control. In such a ~case both statutes are permitted to stand - the general one applicable to all cases ,except the particular one 

embraced in the specific statute. . .', 

See also Sam Bassett Lbr. Co. v.'City of 

Houston, 145 Tex, 492, 198 S.W,2d 879 (1947); Canales 

V. Laughlin,.147 Tex. 169, 

State v. Mauritz-Wells Co., 

214 S.W,2d 4 2 1 (194r 

141 Tex. 63 , 175 S.W.2d 

238 (1943). 
Brother Raphael Wilson, page 4 (V-1431) 

(Tex. 

In Randell v. Randell, 222 S.W.2d 252, 254 

Civ. App. 1949, error dlsm. w.o.j.) It Is stated: 

"Article 1995 is a general statute 

governing venue of actions. Article 4631 

Is a particular statute pertaining to dlvorce suits. In case of conflict between 

a general provision and a special provlsion dealing with the same subject, the 

former is controlled or limited by the 

latter; and this is so whether the provisions in question are contained in the, 

same act or in different enactments. 39 

Tex. Jur. 212." 

The above rules of statutory construction 

are applicable to conflicting provisions in the same 

statute. Apparently conflicting provisions must be 

harmonized and reconciled so that every part of the 

statute will be given effect, If It Is reasonably,possible to do so. 

~;:~~d~0~~7'~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~il~jld 

294 (Tex. Civ. App.'lg$ zipetl dism. 128 vex. 218 '97 

S.W.2d 673); Standard 0i.i Co. of Texas v. State, 14; 

S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Clv. App. 1940 error ref.)' A spealflc 

provision of a statute which apbears to confilct with a 

general provision is regarded as an exception to the 

general one, and the general yields~to the special. 

of Austin v. Cahill, 99 Tex. 172 88 8 W. 542 546 

State v. Stack, 199 S.W.2d 701 ($ex; Civ. App: 

Zufkln v. City of Galveston, 63 Tex. 437, 439 

rules are expressed in the following language: 

"It is a cardinal rule In the construction of constitutions and statutes that the 

whole Instrument must be taken together--the 

whole scheme had in view by the law-making 

power must be understood and carried outi and 

where there are apparent confllots or lnconslstencles between different parts of the 

instrument, that construction must be adopted 

which will give effeot to every part, rather 

than that which will render any part nugatory 

and of no avail. 

"As a natural result,.of~th~%~&lnclple, 

it follows that where in one section a general 

rule is-prescribed, which without quallfioatlon 
Brother Raphael Wilson, page 5 (V-1431) 

wo,uld embrace an entire class of subjects, 

and In another section a different rule is 

prescribed for individual subjects pf’the 

same class, the latter must be construed as 

exceptions to the general rule, and be governed by the section which Is applicable to 

them alone. ” 

Inasmuch as the relevant portion of Section 

12 of House Bill 69 is specific In nature and more 

clearly evidences the Intention of the Legislature 

than the general provisions found In Sections 18a 

and lab, it Is our opinion that the specific provision will prevail and those naturopaths who have 

resided In Texas three years and practiced naturopathy for one year In Texas next preceding the paesage of this Act are not required to have a certificate of proficiency In the basic sciences. 

It follows from the foregoing that It is 

necessary for all naturopathic physicians licensed 

in the State of Texas to hold a basic science certificate issued by the Texas State Board of Examiners in the basic sciences except those exempt under 

the provisions of Section 12 of Art. 4590d, V.C,S, 

In view of our answer to question 3, it is 

unnecessary that we answer your fourth question. 

SUMMARY 

Section 12 of Article &god, V.C,S,., an 

act regulating the practice of naturopathy, 

conflicts with Sections 18a and 18b of the 

act, and since it is specific in nature It 

will prevail over the general provisions contained In Sections 18a and 18b of the act. 

Therefore, those persons exempt ,under Section 12 are not required to obtain basic 

science certificates as required by Article 

459oc, v.c .s, 
Braother Raphael Wilson, page 6” (V-1431) 

,~~ 

Under the provisions of Sections 18a 

and 18b of"Article 4590d, V.C.S., all other 

naturopathic physicians licensed in the State 

of Texas are required to hold basic science 

certificates. 

Yours very truly, 

APPROVED: 

J. C. Davis, Jr. 

County Affairs Division 

PRICE DANIEL 

Attorney General 

E. Jacobson 

Reviewing Assistant 

Charles D. Mathews 

First Assistant 

BY&ge~$g=LiAssistant 

BA:mh