### 28:

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

Bonorable

Cerl C. l?ardfn(

Jr., Seoretsrp Texas State Board of Dental Examiners 311 Nomood Ruilding Austin,Texas
Dear Sir:

in **00Oaitions is** 

Board. of Dental Examiners shall hereby authorized to refuse to

. to praotlcedentistry to any per- who have been guilty, in the opinard, of violating any of the provisions of the Statutes of The State of Texas relating to the practioe of dentistry, or any provis,ions of Chapter 7 of Title 12 of the Fenal Code of the State of Texas, within twelve (12) ;rionths prior to the filing of an applioaticqfor such license.' "Concerningthis provision, Is the suthority thereingranted to the Board discretionaryorDonorableOar1 C.,Hardin,Jr., Page 2

.

mandatory3 Does the Boar&have the authority.to wsvle such violationsand examine the applicant In spite of it?
@%uust the violationhave occurredwithin twelve (12)months of the filing of the application? Does this ,mean that after the expiration of that time, the Board must examinean applicant who, for fnsta,uca, practiced illegslly~in Texas fourteen (14) months before filing his application for examination?
*Or aoes this provision mean that the Board must do its refusingwithin twelve (12) months of the violation? "Artiole4549 of the Civil Statutes, Chepter 9, Title 71, also covers this refusal of the Doard to examine an applicant. This article does not mention any time.

limitationupon the Board's authority. Can the Doard, then, refuse to examine an applicantunder Artlole 4549 even if the tvielve months have expired and bar suoh refusal under Article 752~ quoted above?

ì.í lî

. . The statutes pertinent to your inquiry are;
Article 4549, as amended, reads iu part as follows:
"The State Board of Dental Examiners shall have authority to refuse to examine any person or refuses to issue a lioense to any person for any one or more of the Solloaingcauses: "(a) Proof of presentationto the Eoard of any dishonest or fake evidence of qualification or being guilty of any, illegality,fraud or deception in the proooss of examination,or for the purpose of securing, a lloense. *(b) Proof of ahronic or habitual intosioatlon or eddiotion to drugs on the pert of the applioant.hcnorable Carl 0. ~Kilrdin,

Jr?, Page 3

"(0) Proof that the applioanthas been guilty of dishonestor illegalpraotioos in or connected with the practice of dentistry.

Article 7520, Seotion 3, is quoted in your letter andwas added by the,kotsof 1937, 45th Legislature,p. 1346, chapter501.

Chapter 7, Title 12 of Penal Code, State of Texas, deals with the subject of Ventistryv, such as requiring, a personto obtain a license to practice dentistry (P. C., Art. 747);to comply with .the law (P. C., Art. 74S); the reoordatlonof the license (P. C., hrt. 749); prohibitingpracticing when license is revoked (P. C., Art, 750); license to be exhibitedin the dentist office; enjoiningdentists to practice undarow proper name instead of a oorporate or trade name (2.C., Art. 752); etc.

You desire to know whether the suthority granted 'to the Board is discretionary ormandator~y. .It is our opinionthst theseprovisions (P. C., Art. 75EO and R. 3. 1925, Art. 4549, as amended) are discretionary and the Board can, in the exercise of its judgment,examine the applicant. It '. la also our opinion that the twelvemonths period mentioned In P. c..

, Urt. 7520, maans twelve months previous to and imaedlately

preoeding the date of the filing of the application. If the applicanthad not practiced illegally in Texas for fourteen

months precedina his applicationend presuminghe POESeSS6d ell qualificstions, tekethe examinetion. the Board &ould permit him to However, if the applicant' engaged in any illegalpractice during .the twelvemonths immediately FreOedlng

the date of his filing then it is discretionary 81ththe Board whether or not the epplicentbe permitted to take the examination. VB ara further of the opinion that the time limitationmentioned In the P. C., Art. 7520, is ePPlicableto the quoted provisions of Art. 4549, as amended.

The fundamentalrule in the oonstructionof a statute is to give cffcot to tha intentionof the Legislature *nd all statutesrelating: to the same gorsral subjkot should be construedtoRethor. )%9). Gram v. ~Colficld(C. A. 116 S. :'r. 2d. In :!c>rldo

v. Clz>@z, 1~10

Tax. 71, 166 S. X. 28 125, it was held-at all statutes "are presumed to be enacted <lth full kno%:lledge of exist&e, conditionof law and with.Honorable Carl 0. Herdin, Jr., Page 4

referencet0 it, end are to be construed in connectionwith and in harmonywith existinzT law, and theirmeaning is to bc determinedin connectionnot onlv y:ith conm~on law and Conatitutionbut also with referencat'b other statutesand court dooisions.N And in StanPord v. Butler (Sup. 1944), 181 S. :?. 21 269. 153 A. L. R. 1054. the court held that uAll statutes b pari m?~teria

are to be-construedto;let;nr as if they were cne law, and if it cm be catherod from a subsequentststute in par1 materia,whet~meaning Legislatureattaches to words of a former statute, this willamount to a lo~islativedeclaration of its meaning and will govern constructionof first statute."

Our Supreme Court in Natl. Surety Corp. v. Ledd (1938),115 S. V. 2d 600,, 602, has said:
"In the construction of laws, courts will not hesitate to con&true !?ords in ~ord6r to carry out the expressed. intentionof'the Legisleture. In many cases~

the tord *may*has been construed

. to mean 'shall',on& vice versa. The rule is governedby the intentionexpressed in the statute, *

. ,. "
The time limitation (peri,cd of forgiveness)

preaorlbedin F. C., Art. 752c, is not an innovationin our jurisprudence. It has'existed from time imemorial and had its beginningin OUT moral teachingsof forgivingour neighbor ' "thehurt that he hath done unto thee" (Ecclesiastes 28:2)* Our Penal Code, Article 2, specifically provides that "the objeotof punishment, is to suppress crime and reform,the offender". And in this connection,our courts have held that remoteness

of convictionfor crime protects a witnessagainst impeachment

and "that the period of time in whioh reformation of the witness should be to have taken~placeaeted Bith the beginning of his presumed

Penal servitude". Bernard'sv. Austin, (DallasC. A. 1927 300 S, %, 256, 259 1.0.
Yours very truly