OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

Say 20, 1939

Lb. W. J. Ddrtez, Secretary State E3oard

of Barber EXamlnare Austin, Texas Denr'Slr:

ae to whettior or not only a health

die tools, uupplies,or et&- iII Said 8hOpB Qr~~lOPll, them to,work in aaid &@pa re unless said barber or logist or ODhm person has 1004 test showing freedom from otta or oommudoable biosaeo and he6 in h.ia

poaseeeion a R&etration aa Identiiioation GertifY.oate mentioned in aaid Health~Certiri,oate Ordinanoe;nor shall any barber, mmmetologietor suoh other person work in a barber shop OF beauty parlor orZr. it. J. Dartez, Xay 2C, 1939, Page 2

pursue his trade in connection with barberingor cosmetologyin said Cit,y unless he has had said blood..test and has'in hXs possession. such registration and Ideatiiicat%onCertificate. Such certificateshall be *alid for six months only fromdate of lssuarnce .” We assIMI)

your doubt.ot.the

forge of the'abovesection rests on the ~aonetltutloneIi~y or the attemptedregulation.

The power to re@ate~*r the protqatfon of publio health in this day of prophylaxis is establishedbeyonddoubt. The aonetltutlonal authorlty.of

a- munialpalborparatlonin Tenw to regulate the professionof barbers from a~ ea@itaryor health etaudpolnt: has been eetablfehed lntbe case of Eenzal v. city of San Antonlo, 221 SW 237, Cot& of Civil Appeals (errorrerueed). See also 20 A.L.R., page 1108.

In the instantqplmlon we have before us the right of a aanialpal aarparation to regu' late'aa oaaupatlonafter the state hm3 exeralsed tbs le&&etlve control over that oaaupatlon, The aourts or thiri state have held that a business ar oaaupatitilloensedby state law mss be remlate4 rith5.n I reasonable Unit, by munlaipal ordisnnaa,it the regulationdoes not impids the right under the state license, &s "ExPart.e Rrwer,a I.52

SY 106S, a Texas case. Let us omsiiler~kur etate regulation ot barbersand aoexmtologlsts with referenaato phyaiaalexamlnatlon. Our ~Tera8 Barber Lau, artihle 734a, eeotion 21, subseotion (1) of our'Pena1 Code reads as fol~ws:

"No certificateshall be isauad orI&-. Ii. Jo. Dartez, &.y 20, 1939, Psge 3

renewed unless and until each applicant shall'present a health certifioate rrozn

a regular practicing medical doctor showingthat the applicant Is free from any kind of Itieotiousor contagiousdiseases, tuberaulosls, oommunicable

diseases, free from the use of euy kind of mDrphIne, cooaine, or other habit-farming drw, or a habitual **drunkard** and that said applioant shall make affidavitto said medical examinetionthat all of said fact6 are true." The above section requiresan ereminatlon onae a yeer and a health certificateis the require-t of'tha eppliaent. Thus, a bloodtest Is not necessaryto oolpgly with tlm state statute, however, a aertiticeteevldemaimga blood test would satisfy the statsrequirement. The alty of Midland, a homrs rule alty, has attemptedto etrengthen

the requirementas ta the~physiael aonditionor barb&s and aosnmtologists. In order to comply with the aity ordineneaIt will be necesssryfor a barber to have two or not **more** than three **blood** tests a year, oae of dish may also be uaed'to qualiry for a state liaense.

Our state law on haird8eseara snd oosmstologists,

art&ale 734b, seotion 10, aubseation (b) of our Penal Code reads ae tollomr:

*All appliaationefor examinstion and for llaanee shall be acaompanied by a health certificateby a regularly liaensed doctor of medicine, showingthe applicantto be free from any crontagious

or Infectiousdiseasea as determInedby a generalexamInation and Wassermanblood test.*tir. X. J. Dartez, IGay

20, 19S9, ?age 4

The persons followingthat profession tire presentlyrequiredto hjve a Kasseraanblood test once a year. The Xidland Ordinance will require another such test six months frox the dnte of the last one.

The oourts of this and other states are wont ti sustain any reasonable munioipal regulationfor the protectionof health and the preservjtion

of the lives of our citizens. This is true, thou&h the municipal regulationgoes furtherthan state regulation. See 43 Corpus Suris p. 220 axxl

Gulf C. k.9. P. R'. Co. v. Calvert, 32 SK 246, e-or refused. For other authorities holdingthat.a city may enlargethe requirements of a statutewhere the regulation moves In the same directionati not oounter to the state.law, and that suoh regulation ie consistent wit&the state law, see Olson v. Plattville91 A.L.R. 308 and Spitlerv. 'km of b¶uneter 115 A.L.R. 1395. lkour oIv

lkonthe attemptedregulation Is oonsistent ,iththe purpose of'the legislature to proteotihe publIa health from the '. dangers of.skin inieotione,scalp dletiases or any other oontagiouediseases. It go68 further than the state law, but moves in the same direation, ndt.oouuterto it,. axl has a co&mendable purpose.

taken to sietents physical Wails our state law& have not Uderregulateportera, they *'regulate asto barbers and aometologists and. require examinations

of those peraom. This

_ .. . _ -._ attemptearegulation 18 a Ilealth meaeure ana tne requiremat of blood teeta of portershandling the tools or supplies of a .ahop.Is a reasonable one. It should be a ~timulueto the present efforts of State Health Authorities, to eradicate socialdiseases.Sr. X. J. Dartez, 6tay 20, 1939, Page 5

~.e are faced with another test of this atteropted

regulation. Does it invade a field reserved to itself by our legislature by reason of state legislationupon this mtter?

The ordinanceunder consideration is designedas a health measure. The power of a city to pass ordinancesfor the protectionof health after the state has passed similar laws seems to rest upon their conformity with the state law upon the m+~ subject. See Mantel v. State, 117 SW 855.

The aity or Mldland has *posed no sort of tax upon the barbers Or cosmetologists$ it **Zlk8S** PO f'8~Uir8IU8at Of mDY?al

CharacterOp Of th8~trad8name Used and it does not~att8m& to PSS UpOU.the GOIQeteUOy Of the per&Xl tO~mCtiO8 the prOi8SsiOL Those matters 'are left to the controlling

State Boards authorizedby statute to determine those facts. **w8** do IlOt b8li8V8 that the 18gi8latU8 by 8MOting al-tic18 734a and aI%iOle 734b Of Our &HLa) COf38~iUt8ild8d t0 or did usurp the exolussivs power to protsot the publio health in barber and beauty shops. 98 attempted regulationis not ~violative Of stat8 regulation,but is in harmon8yrith it.

.It la the opinfoa of this depar$ment that seotlon 4a or the City Ordinanceor Midland, Texas as submittedlx& yoUr letter or April 27, 1939 is a valid regulationand IP obligatory **Up&l** the p8rtXOUEi

WIRd therein.
Toum vary truly ATTOBKgY GEt?XRAL

OF TECAS 

### (signed)

BY