# -.. . s 37t

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS**to** the St&e **law, makea** **additional** requirementsan4 repActlon8. In other WQX-&J, the State law aay8 that
en Individualzag follow the oaaupationof **barbering** in Toxae upon amplianae with certain epeoifledm&Mtions aa to lioense,payment of oertatn feb(l, display of certifioateof liaenee,phyricul fitness aud eta.; nhnrcas, the %m Angelo ordinance 6age 

### tbat YOU 

### eanxbot follow this oaaupati.on In San An@10 althoughmu 

### have complied with all requirementa of the State law,rithout secur1n.g

an eddltionnl license fmn; the oity end payl~g additional fees therefor.

As hearing on suoh a situation,we quote fraa the followingce~ee a~ indicated. TX Parts Prewer, 168 EX 1068, **a&**pap3 1069:

189, Yhere Is no inhibition in the ocnstltutl@n or laws of this staterhlah till pmrent the alty frax deali% with a matter **with** which the state laws do not dealwhere th'b'j-- xepo\vs ccnfe&drcnhe alty....* P underscoring ours I.
The Cltp of 3ouatrnvs. Richter, et al, 187 53'8

"Thhe term of the ordinance of the olty have been heretorare set out. Tha effeat of it.8 provisions is to prohibit, under penalty or rine, any plwber, who boa reoslvsd this liaense from the board of emminers under the provisions 

## 0rthe statutes, from exeruising t!-e privileges ~lven him by the statutes,unleas he twther i-$ves the bond provided by the ordlnanae and reaelves a further llasnao from the City of Ruston, issued by the oity en~hear..

.. We think It is too olear for argument that the ordinance In quOSti0a is Inoc-sintentwith the ntntute rarerred to."
!.?essaohusettn

Bonding k InnuranaeCompany, et nl VE. ‘;’

aKay, 10 SK 2nd 770, et pay? 7711

"In u surrlmental brief, arrallents urmaa ilrndmentalerror thot the ordfnanoe in plumberm to exeoutea yestlon, requlrlng $3,000bond in order to procure a lloense to carry on their business in the oitf of Dallaa, Is unoonstitutlonaland void, and that thereiore said bond **ereouted** puBJuan% thsrrto la of no foroe and effect. Uo think their crontentinn

in **this rsspeot**  Is **ala0 Rood.**  In Articles 1076 to 1061, R. 8. 1925, the IeSlsloturehas requl.red that- plumbers In oitJoe

and towns of mre than 5,000 lnhabltante be liconeed before they ean **operate,** and has undertaken to mgulsto the manner inwhich such lioanse ahall be issued. !Fha statute ltsol?does not provide for any bond to be ereoutedas a prerequisfte to the eonCcurt or Civil A>psals, in IIouston v. Rlohter, 147 SW 169. This holdingwas aCain erpreaaly recognized in Xydlas Amsemont Co. v. City of Houston (Tex.Civ. rp.1 185 SW 416. See, alao, Pariah v. YrfChht 4 Tex. Civ. App.) Z93 SW 659. And this general law of the state applies tc the city of L\Rllas, irrespeotive of the provisions of its speoial charter. 3~~1s ve. Eolland (Tex. Civ. Apy.1 168 SK 11; I'arrish

VS. %+ht, supra. Said ordinanoa lr,>osinC

additlcnal turdcns to those requ:red by the otute ~RW upon plmhers within that city was lnconslatontwith and in confliot with the state law, end was thereicrevoid. It follows then thet oaid bond Given pursunt to suoh ordinance **~58** likcwloevoid."
xydias A!!use~:rnt

CWyany VG. City **or** "owtotl, lR5 ,,' 415, at j-ace 420:

"Thetrue rule is, xs?;cre the state lawEion. Ralph Logan,Page A

speaks, the olty ordinance muat be ellent: whers the stats law Is silent,the oity mwt 8peak.”

See ala0 the oaaen of !.kutel vu. State, 117 X 85.S and Robinson **v8.** City ai Qalveaton, 111 8W1070.

mdlnanee,Wo eonolude, therefore, that the 6an welo

In Its requirement ot an eddltional **llamao**
‘rcnathe CItp of San Angelo and of tha payment of addiAonal fee8 to the City of San melo, Invadesa field lflcgialationalready usurped by the Legislatureof 'exae.

It **18 Si@lifiOOilt,**  and oonclu8Ive on Its Inalidity, In these portioulars, that the mqulrementa of he ordinanoedo not enlarge upon and add to the requireenta of the state statute In apeclflomatter8 pertalnl~ o the protection of the pub110 health. In 8eotIons (a) nd (b), the health requirementalreedy enaoted Into tate law, and subject tc l nforcsnent by the paliee dsortnent of the City of San Arieslo, are made a part of ho ordinance es~touohlag such Eattsrs. The ordlnanoe lzply retgilns a barber to have an addItIonal lleenee
ram the City of San W,elo, and to pay an aCdltlona1 ee, to-wit, $1.50 for **three** months; %!J.OOfor sixmonths; 5.00 for twelvemonths.

'Underthe deCIBIOnB oi tha oourta of Tam, eet It above, It **is** cur opinion that thcns provleloaea? the rdlnanceare olearly invalid.

Fe now ccncider Secticn 5 of the ordinanoewhich ,&d883 

## r0ii0nrs:

"It shallbe unlawful and an offense for the cwner,manager, proprietor or person in ohnrge or nny barber shop to Temit or ailow any suoh shop tc razaIn open for husInsss or to permit or allow ths prnctioe of barbering in **said** shop on Sunday or at any othor tims, except between the hours c:f0~00 o'clook A. ?f. and 9:00 o~olock I'.!.!. cn taturdcys and between the hours of E:OO olclock A. 1:.and 6:OO o'olook 2. Y. cn ot!:er dey3 In thnweek."Hon. Ralph Logan, Paage5

In this uonneotlon,may no point oat rtrrt that the **ordinance** treatsor the houn **within** which 8 barber ehopmay remain open, and **dosn** not treat as to thehours 4 barberpay **work** in suoh shop. Henoe, the mlidlty or regulation, suggested by gou..in ;lour brie, with rersrenoe to thehours women and Ohlldrenmay work, would not cmem to be analagous. The courtr in the oarsa later to be noted &early make this distlnotion.

There 18 no 8tate statute regulatlne the hours la whioh 8 barber ehopmay remain open. Nalther havewe been**able** to find Ln our reoe8roh a Texas oaae pearing on this questionas pertaining to barber *hop.

IVlth mrerence to euch an ordinanoe toaohing pool halls, the court in the oam of Ex Ferte Brewer, eupra, eaya:

*There is no inhibition in the oolutitatlon or lavie

or this statewhich will prerent the alty rrom dealingwith thematter with whiah the state laws do not dealwhom the pollee power Is conferredupon the oity,and the stat.8 in its 1~15,having **fixed** no hours of olorlng ror pool halls, it being a subJoot or **regula** tion, such houramay be regulatedby the **city** within reaeonablelir.lta.*

The court, in this quotation,touohm upon the two questions involved in any legislationor **an** oocupatlon aa to the houra it shall remain o5"II: (1). It suoh ocoupation 18 a subjaotor regulation; 2) If the regulation la reaeonable. The auawer to these questions involvea large rleld or the law.

KO qhote from Folume 30 Or Terar TuriSprUdenOe at pagea 120, 121, 122 and 123:

Wenerally apeaking,mnicigal oorpomtiona have the right, under the police 

### power, to safuguard the health, corrirortand general welfare or their citizens by suoh reasonnble rogulationeae are necessary for that ptipoe8. The police power is not an arbitrary one; it has lte llmltatlono.Thus it ie aubjeot to the limitationsimposed by the constitution upon every gower of government, andwill not be periiittad

to invadeor lmpalr the rundaffiental libertiesor the citizen. Also, it 16 founded In publicnecessityand only public)n.Ralph Logan, Fake 6

necessity can

## justiry its sreroise. It Is oofmensuratewith, but does not exoeed, the duty to provide 

## r0r the real needs 

## 0r the people in theirhealth, sarety, oomfort and oonvenlonoo aa oomlatently as may be with privets

### proparty righta. The interest of the pub110 gsnerally, aa dIstInguIshedrmm those or a particular olaes, mat require the Interfere&me.

*A11 property la held aubjeat to the valid exera:ss of the polled power;nor are regulationsuhconatItationalfierelybecause they operate as a restraint upon private rights 

## 0r persons or propertyor ~111 result in lose to individuals. The Infllotfoa of auoh 1068 is not a deprivationof propertywithout dua procere 

## or law; 

## the exertion

## 0r the pollee power upon subject8 lying within its eoope, In a proper and lawfulrminer, is due procrm 

## 0r law

. . .. But the pollee power is eubordinnte to the right to acqufre and own property, and to deal with it and use it 81)the owner ohooaea, so long as the use harm nobody. It may be invoked to abridge the right of the oltlzens to use his private property when euch uso 

## will endanger public health, 

## at3r8ty’,coarortor welfare, - and onlywhen this eltuatlon arises.

. .. ‘The police power authorizes only such aeasurea as are reasonable; to be valid aa an ererolse of this power, an ordlnanoemust be reasonable in its operation upon the persona whoa It effects and met not be unduly opprer

## 8lW - that la, it must appear that themeana adopted are reasonablyneoeesary and epproprlata 

### ror the aocompllsfmentof a legitimate objeat ralllngwithin the doslaln of the polfao power.fl
These rany conslderattona,aa pertaining ,to arber shops, have never been rezolved by a Texas oourt, ooking to other jurisdictionswe find the greet weight f authorityholding legislationregulating open houre or barber shops to be invalid. ‘::e shall brierly review hese.Hen.Ralph Logsn, Faw 7

The Su~rara Court of I?lnneeota, ln 1938, in the cesa of State vs. Johunnos, 259 XT 557, held swh
an ordinance unconstitutionaland oaf4 and aavial& tlve of the due Croccaa clauoos of the State and 2bderal constltutlons,the ccurt saying%

wElght tlreo have such otilnanoesboon berore the courts of last roscrt in thts oountry and aeven tlmos have they been held lnv8lltl

as unjustifiableattempts to exeraism the polioo power.'
The Guprmc Court of~!lohlgan, in l9S7, 

### la.the
ease of Eanea YS. the City of Detroit, 279 Yloh. 551, 272 5W 896, in holding suohan ordfnanoe imall says:

"By the urnat weight of authorltlos, the ordinance at bar, so far as It fixes open houre for barber shops, is not aithln 

### the police power md, in that particular, la raid."
The Euprene Ccurt at ?:ashln@on; in lo?&, in the ease of Patton vs. Clty of Ellllnghsm, 38 Pea. 2nd 364, holde suoh an ordlnaaoeunreasonable,arbitrary and void, the ocurt rerarklngthat suchan ordlnanoedoea not regulnte the business of barberlna, but dlotaterr its operations.
The 2uIqvre Ccurt of Rhode Island, in 1858 in the oese of Anltranovs..Earbero, 1 Atl. 2nd LOO, hoida such leglsletlon &vzonstitutionolsaying;

wx':e hav0, therefore, determined to r0uow the decisions of those ocurto, representing the great aelgl:tof authcrlty,which has dsolded that legislationof the type before us 1s in violation of the approI:rlate Frovlslcns of the Fedora1 and State Constitutions."
The Cu>:re::o

Court of Vyomlng, in 1929; in the
ease of State vs. City of X.sranle, leglslatlonnot to ?~e 275 Pao. 106, held euah a reasonable exerolse or the power to llcsnse, regulate and controlbarber shops and thererore invalid.Uon. Ralph Lomn, Page 8

The Supreme Court of I'isslsalppiDivieionA, in 1931, in the c~ee of Kid&t vu. Johns, 137 80. 509, held suah legislation to be en unreasonableereroise of the FOliOa power.

The Supreme Court cf Louisiana, in 1950, in the ~830

## or.clty 0r Alexandriavs. Eall, 131 So. 7W, 171 La. 595, held auoh an aot unoonstltutlolul.

Xe have eldlar c?eclslons by the Supreme Co& of Colorado lh the aaae of City an4 County of Denver vs. Sohnid, 52 Fao. 2ne SE& in 1935; by the Suprosm Court of Caltiornle, in 1935, In the case of tinloyTV. Playerr, 40 Fee. 817; by the Suy,rer?e Court of Georgia, in 1927, in the oaae of Chairea et al VS. the City oi **Atlanta,** 164 Ca. 755, 139 FX 559; by the Supreme Court of Torntssaee, fn 1959, in the case or State v8. Greaeon at al 124 SW 2nd 253; end by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1638, in the ease OklahomaClty.vs. Johnson, 02 Pee 2nd 1057.

Finally, we note the oylnlon of the Supreme Judlolal Court of l'ascachueetto, in re Opinion8 of the JustIces, 14 XT 2nd 933:

The questions relate to a pending bill which regulates the hours

## or opening and oloalrq of barber shops by provlBl.ng that they ahell not be open earlierthen 0~00 o'olock in the ~fore-noon, nor renlaln open later than 6100 o'olook in the aiternoon,durlngpart of the yesr and 7~00 o'clock in the afternoon during onoth?aP

part

## 0r the **ymr,** exoept that on Eaturdayn end the evcnlng beiore eaoh lege.1 holldyy theymy remin open until 9:00

.... The preolse point involved in theao questlenshave nrfeen in other jurlsdlotlone. The groatweiE;htof nuthority, in both soundness 

## 0r remming an4 nmber 

## or eoclslons, holds thnt l~~lalatlcncf this nature violates the provislrm of state an4 iederal constltutiom.* (Citfneoesc:sfrm t?.e vp.rIoue Jurlsdfotlans. )
Jurisdictionaholdirq the oppositevlaw, lneotmr as we havr been able to aroertalnme represents4 in theIfOIl. r?alphIo.pm, Fsge 9

follouln$ c5ses:

Seldman vs. Ci.nclnnatl, 20 Fad, Sup. 531; Faloo vs. Atlnntio City, 99 I?. J. 1. 19, 121

### A. 610; Zilsonvs. Zenssvllle, 150 Ohio Stats 2S6 199 IZE18'1. The letter tprocases hold that ouch legisktion la not unreasonable,hae n real and substantialrelation to public health,morelo 

### and safety 

### and isa validexamcise of thd po1loe povrer, end 

### Is oonstltutlon~l.
The case of S4ldxenvs. Clnolnnatl, 20 Fed. Sup. 531, oitcd by you in your briai, ~48 a deolslon oi tha Federal District Court of Ohlowhere the Gupxmme Court of Ohio, in the oasu of Wilsonvs. City of !&menville supra, had held suoh legislationto be valid end oonst tutional. i 

### Further,the oourt a8 stated at page 542 of the opinion Indulged erary presmytloa 

### in favor of the oonstltutionalltyof the legislationand further, that It had not beon "tahown beyond a rationaldoubt" that such legislationviolated 

### any of the Frovislons oi the constitution

## 0r the United States.

lie are unable to prediot how thu oourtfd of Texaewill aonstrue 

### a provision such ae that a? the ordinance at hand. Preoedents establishedby our oourte in passing upon similar le2lslatlonpertainingto other businesses or ocoupetlonsare of littlehelp because of the facts and circumstasccspeouliar to eaoh business or occupation. As said by the court in the case of the State vs. Johannes, supra:

"Ifvi4wei- to atteqt tc formulate a ccmprehensivedefinition of uhat my ormay not be a proper exercise of the police **powur,** w4 muld be oonfrontedwith a task oi almcst inourmcuntablediffioulty. It has been eald that the pomr Is inaapobleor derlnition."
It is believed,however, that the zajorltyview Is hasad upon scuscflr reasoni~nC

4s Illustrated in the following sxerpts frm the opinion of the Yassachusette :luprcne

Ju~iolal Court:
The occupation @,I being. a barber is an anoient and lawful business. Farber shcpe ar4 not ohnoxious, but are oomcr;ly regarded es inc?ln~onsable

under Fresent conditions... Their rclatlcn to the *uhlic is such as toHon. Ralph lo&an, Page 10

rendar them amenable to legislativeragulatlon to thn end that thosewho frequentthean for the service there renderedmay be proteoted from oormunioabledieeases,unhsalthful praotloes,and unsanitaryaondltlona so far as prootloable.... The proposedbili does not in term shorten the hours of labor ci barbers. It does not purport to do that. It merely limits the houre during which barber shopsmay be kept open.... We are 

### unablefo psr44lvs how the llmltationaof the proposed bill are founded upon any reasonable relation between the sots forbiddenand the pmrotion of the public health or the publicplorala. Parber shopsmay **be** aubjeotadto **mfplation** for proteotlon of the pub110 health **and**morals. The proposed bill oontainano rules **drdgnated** to proreote olennliness,or to Inaura sanitation of barber shops. Provieions to aooompllah such ends is found In the power to pmrulgate reasonablereg0utions by the Icoard at lie&atrution of barbers, in the atetutea already rererred to and In the rl@t of lnapsotlonof **bar** ber shops.,.. Shorteningthe houra duringwhiah barber shoPa may be kept open would not faollltats the inspeotion of barber shopa. Thers 18 ample opportunity for inspection of barber nhopewithout olosing them. Ths suSgestlon that the prop@sed statutewould 'furtherProteot the publio againat, communicablediseases by conserving the energy of Jcrsonsworking therein end n;lvlnK them a reasonable mount of tim to attend to proper sanitetim thsrcsin,* seems almcst ianolful. 'Th441ergy such to be conserved is not obvious, nor is the proteatlon of the public from comunlcable diseases.... There ore'msny barber shopa in the Comzonxeelthcprrated by the proprietor without hels. It might well be a greathardship for suah harbor not to confcrm to the need8 cf his oustor.era

as to the hours of koepln(: hi8 shop

open. It mi.ShtInterfera to a great extent wfth his business end his Income to complywith the hours prescribed by the proposed bill.... TheEon. Ralph **l.ogsn,** FM8 3.3

propoead bill rlole~tsa

_ fundamental,oonstitu-

_ timal guarantees 88 deprlvln&parsons ot liberty end ppropetiy without dUB p~WOes8 of law end as denying peraone the proteat~on of libertyend property eooording t0 &ending laws. It impose8 limitations thatare unto+ rtltutlollal."

You ara thereiore respeotfully**advised** that It
1; s the opinion of this department that Emotion S of the rdlnnnae of the City of San Angelo,regulet%ng the &ourswltb!nwhiah barber shopsray xemln open, 1s un00nstitutlonal.

X0 trust this amwsrs your lnqulry satfataotorlly, and ra?aln
Vary truly your8