Case Information

*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

AUSTIN

floaorable George F’. Cor

State Xeelth Offloor

mlrtln, T8X88

D8ar Sir:

of ma108 aad. cmulgatod by Hsalth under thm eotioo 5 of the $ubdlvislon (9) of +otlon 6 of tha hot then ProVl688: -any permit lmmml ln~ aoaordanoe wlth tho pro- vlelans mrry bs revoked by the State Health Offloer upon proof vlolatlon any of the proviaionr 0r *2 Ronorable Oeor&s --. COX, pago 2

this hot. . . ."

Your latter of October 24, 1940, requests 6 leg*1 opinion frooP tbla DoperWent a6 to whether the state Xealth Officer would be authorized revoke the permit of an operator who has vloiated rul46 promulgated by the State Board of Health under the rula-mekl~ power of the Boer4 in Section 5. You alao ask what procedure net out above ehould ba followed by the state Health Cffloer doing so.

The purpose of empowsrlng the State Board of Haalth to promulgate rule6 and regul6tlona was ‘to enable the more ef- fective enforcamant of the Rot which ~64 enactad under the State*8 police power the protaotlon of health and for ~avaation of tha spread of dlaeaaa. of the $ot 1s that any psraon en- A vital requfrensnt

g6sged in tha business of manutaaturlng, ranovat- lng bedding ahall obtain a permit the Depsrtmsnt of Realth and shell register eny &srmloldal prooeaa used such bualneaa and aeoure the approv61 of the Depertment of auoh prooaaa.

The permit provlelons of the Aot era emong those touching which the State Board of Bealth waa ampowerad to pro- muleate and regulatlona. That oompllenoe thar6wlth la required of the permittoe lndloated by tha languaga sub- aeoticn (b) Seotlon 6 whloh l uthorlzea a ranawel permit -upon aubmiaalon moor oomvllanoa with pro- oontlnued this AOt in4 tha regulation6 vlilona of-the Degertmant.*- (Bnpharle oura) -~

Tha validity of leglolatlon whloh Oont6re rul6-meking powera upon admlnl6tr6tlv6 ha* bean conaiatently upheld aganaiaa by our oourta.

In San Antonlo v. Joaea, 28 Tar. 33 (quoted wfth ap- proval in O’Brien v. ~Unemmn, 112 Tex. 264, 247 8. X’. 270).

wan daolarsd by the 9uprme Court of Teraat say grant authority aa well aa

“The La~lalature give oomands, and a&a done under it6 authority are aa valid as if dons in obedlenoe to its commanan.

Nor a statute, whore complete l xeoution an4 appll- oetlon to the aubjectslattsar la, by its provlalona, meda to depend on the aaaant of 6ome other boQy, a Aalegatlon laglolatlve power. The dlaoretlon &or6 *3 Honorable Oaorge 1%. cox, fgge 3

to the eraroloe of the power conferred by law, but not to maks ths lew itsslf. The law, in such c4668, may depend ror its praotloal efflolenoy on the sat of some other body or lndlvlAua1; still auoh sot, but from in not &erlved lagla- authority.* latlve

It wae llkewlaa etated by the San Antonio Court of Civil AppeSlS Tuttle v. Wood, 35 5. X. (2d) 1001, (writ error refussd)r

*It is true. of Course thst the Legislature cannot dalegate to an aAmln~atratlvs board the power to make a law praaorlblllg a penalty, but It equally true it oompdxmt Leglalatura for to author126 a ooauaiaaim or board oraatad that; purpose to preaorlba dutlea aaaertain oondltiona law say operata ln imposing a upon whioh an axlstlng penalty and in affeQtuatlng in ths ;lurpoae daalgned la 1~ pursuance of this au- enaotlng law.

thority thet railroad oomlaalonm, publla utility a~leaeione, sanitary oomutiasioaa, health liveGtock boards and like ag;enoiee exerolae their iunotlona and admlnleter and enforce laws ralatlng their In their varg natQr6 such aev*ral aepertmentm. lara muat be flaxlble order to glte thraP pr~otloable &ppllaetfon to tha Elvarae oondltlona whloh adat wlthln the savers1 states."

In Re Rahrar, 140 0. S. 554, it war said by Xr. Chief Justiae Puller:

'The power of the mtata to impose raatrafaj;m anA burden:: upn parsons and property in 0onaerve- tlon and promotion of ths public health, good order and prosperity la a pomr cri&~~lly end almya bo- to the states, not a~rranderad by them to longing the general government, nor direotly reetralnad the Constitution of the United States, ain4 eeaentlally *xclu*lv4."

Sam also the oaaaa of Rash &ardware Company v. tcorria, 105 Tar. 817, 146 Y. :f. 874~ Henry v. Wate, 260 8. 3. 19Or Ex Part6 xhlte, 1QR ti. 3. 5331 FJebbla v. Hew York, 291 U, S. 502.

335 Honorable George w. Cox, Faga 4

It is the opinion of this Department that a vlola- tion of the promulgated by tha State Board of Health in accordance with Seotion 5 the Aot, by a person engaged in the bualnesa of manufacturing, or renovating bedding would constitute a Violation of any of the provlslone of this AOt" within the purview of Subdivi- slon (e) of Ssctlon 6 of the Aot, and upon proof such, the gtate Health Officer would be authorized to revoke a permit theretofore laeued to such operator.

The Aot does not provide any particular procedure for the State Health Offloer to follow in the revooatlon a permit. The State Board of Health is, however, authorized by Qeotion 5 of th& hot to "make . . . general rules and regulations provlalone of prooedure ror carrying into efreot all the

of this Act". la our opinion the Board should promulgate reaaoueble rules whereunder the permittea would be given notlos and a hearing before the State Health Offloar prior to the revocation of a permit. This would in- volve the giving of notice to the permittee of the exlatenoe evldanoe before the State Health Officer of violations the permittee of the rules and regulations promulgated'by Board, togather with the right of the permittee to a hearing berora Offloer at the time designated. If at such hear- ing is establlahed that of the Board, the permittea has violated rules and regulation6 the State Health Orflcer would be authorized to revoke the permit.

Yours very truly ATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS