### 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 certlflcate. Dear Sir: Reference Is madeto 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 abasic science certificate issued by this Board?

“Questi,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 HouseBill 69, Acts 51st Leg., V.C.S.) provide: R.S. 1949, ch. 480, p. 890 (Art. 4590d,

“Sec. 12. Anynaturopathic physician whohas been practicing naturopathy in this State for three (3) years next preceding the passage of this Act andwhen membershipwas not fraudulently obtained, shall be granted alicense under the provisions of this Act,Brother Raphael Wilson, page 2 (V-1431)

Provided however, that anypaturopathlc physic,ian having resided in Texas three (3) years andhaving 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 whohave been in practice In this State, for less than one (1) year shall be required to take examinations as provided in Section 8hereof.”

“Sec. 18a. Provided, however, noprovision of this Act shall amendor 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; andprovided further that noBoard 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. 103of the Flftyfirst Legislature.” HouseBill 103, Acts 51st Leg., R.S. 1949, ch. 95, p. 170 (Art. 459Oc, V.C*S,) commonlyreferred to as the “Basic Science Law”Is anact prescribing minimumeducational standards andrequiring ,certlficates of proflclenoy In the basio sciences for those whoengage in the praotlce of healing arts. The “MlnimumStandards Board” referred to in Seation 12 must me&nthe “State Board of Examiners in the Basla Salenoes” which was established byHouse.Blll 103. ThusSe&Ion 12 excepts certain persons from the operation of HouseBill 103, while Sections 18a and 18bmakeall persons whocome within HouseBill 69subject to HouseBill 103. .Unuestlonably, Section 12Is in conflict with Sections 18 aBrother Raphael Wilson, page 3 (V-1431)

and 18b of the Act.

In 2Sutherland Statutory Construction (3rd Ed. 1943) 541, wefind the following:

"General and special acts maybe in pari materia. If,so, they should-be construed together, Whereone statute deals with a subject in general terms, andanother deals with a part of the samesubject in amoredetailed 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 makethe general act controlling," Also, in the case of T0wnsend.v. Terrell, 118Tex. 463, 16S.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 andparts of,law% in conflict with the clear intent&on of the last act. This is .necessari?,y &ruewhere (bothacts cannot s'tand~as valid enactments. "This rule of con&ruc:tion ,hasfound frequent andapt lllu&ration ~whereone o'f the supposedly conflicting statutes~was general in its term8 andthe 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, andtherefore that it WI11control. In such a~caseboth statutes are permitted to stand - the general one applicable to all cases ,except the particular one embraced in the specific statute.

. .', See also SamBassett Lbr. Co. v.'City of Houston, 145Tex, 492, 198S.W,2d 879 (1947); Canales

V. Laughlin,.147 Tex. 169, State v. Mauritz-Wells Co., 214 S.W,2d 421 (194r 141Tex. 63 , 175S.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 anda special provlsion dealing with the samesubject, the former is controlled or limited by the latter; andthis is so whether the provisions in question are contained in the, sameact or in different enactments. 39 Tex. Jur. 212." Theabove rules of statutory construction are applicable to conflicting provisions in the same statute. Apparently conflicting provisions mustbe harmonized andreconciled 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. 128vex. 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.)' Aspealflc provision of a statute which apbears to confilct with a general provision is regarded as anexception to the general one, andthe general yields~to the special. of Austin v. Cahill, 99Tex. 172 88 8W. 542 546 State v. Stack, 199S.W.2d 701 ($ex; Civ. App: Zufkln v. City of Galveston, 63Tex. 

### 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 mustbe taken together--the whole schemehad in view by the law-making power mustbe understood and carried outi and where there are apparent confllots or lnconslstencles between different parts of the instrument, that construction mustbe adopted which will give effeot to every part, rather than that which will render anypart nugatory andof no avail. "As anatural result,.of~th~%~&lnclple, it follows that where in one section ageneral rule is-prescribed, which without quallfioatlonBrother Raphael Wilson, page 5 (V-1431)

wo,uldembrace an entire class of subjects, and In another section a different rule is prescribed for individual subjects pf ’the sameclass, the latter must be construed as exceptions to the general rule, andbe governed by the section which Is applicable to themalone. ” Inasmuch as the relevant portion of Section 12of HouseBill 69is specific In nature andmore 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 whohave resided In Texas three years andpracticed 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 12of Art. 4590d, V.C,S,

In view of our answer to question 

### 3,it is unnecessary that weanswer your fourth question. SUMMARY Section 12of 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 18bof the act. Therefore, those persons exempt ,underSection 12are not required to obtain basic science certificates as required byArticle 459oc, v.c .s,BraotherRaphael Wilson, page 

### 6” (V-1431)

,~~

Underthe 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 PRICEDANIEL Attorney General

E. Jacobson Reviewing Assistant Charles D. Mathews First Assistant BY&ge~$g=LiAssistant

BA:mh