Furthermore, there was not in this appropriation either as to the compensation fund or the administration fund, the requisite certainty as to amount to comply with Section 63. Menefee v. Askey, 107 P. 159, 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 537; State Board of Dental Examiners v. Pollock, 125 Okla. 170, 256 P. 927; Colbert v. State, 86 Miss. 769; State v. Cole, 81 Miss. 174. John H. Holloman, of Columbus, and J.A. Lauderdale, Assistant Attorney-General, for appellees.

All doubt, where there is doubt, will be resolved in favor of its constitutionality. City of Pond Creek v. Haskell, 21 Okla. 711, 97 P. 338; Monroe v. McNeill, 122 Okla. 297, 255 P. 150; State Board of Dental Examiners v. Pollock, 125 Okla. 170, 256 P. 927; Dies v. Bank of Commerce, 100 Okla. 205, 229 P. 474; Wallace v. Gassaway, 148 Okla. 265, 298 P. 867; McCullock v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L.Ed. 579; Sweet v. Rechel, 159 U.S. 380, 40 L.Ed. 188, 16 Sup. Ct. 43.

It seems to be the universal rule that acts of the Legislature will not be held invalid unless they are clearly in conflict with some constitutional provision, and that all doubt, where there is doubt, will be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of the act. Board of Dental Examiners v. Pollock, 125 Okla. 170, 256 P. 927; Stout v. State ex rel. Caldwell, 36 Okla. 744, 130 P. 553, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 884, Ann. Cas. 1916E, 858. It seems to be the contention of the plaintiffs in the case in the district court of Atoka county that chapter 282, Session Laws 1929, is void for the reason that the same is a revenue measure.

The universal rule is that the acts of the Legislature will not be held invalid unless they are clearly in conflict with some constitutional provision, and that all doubt, where there is a doubt, will be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of an act. State Board of Dental Examiners v. Pollock, 125 Okla. 170, 256 P. 927. Every presumption will be indulged in favor of the constitutionality of a statute.

In Reeves v. State, 36 Okla. Cr. 186, 253 P. 510, this court had under consideration the constitutionality of the Medical Practice Act (Laws 1923, c. 59), and there held a statute similar to the one in controversy in the case at bar as within the legislative power and therefore constitutional. In State Board of Dental Examiners v. Pollock, 125 Okla. 170, 256 P. 927, the Dental Act (Comp. St. 1921, §§ 8701-8727), was challenged on 11 different grounds, the last being that the act was unconstitutional because no fund had been specifically appropriated by the Legislature for the operation and maintenance of this board. The Supreme Court held this objection not tenable and the act constitutional.

This contention cannot be sustained. See Ex parte Ambler, 11 Okla. Cr. 449, 148 P. 1061; State Board of Dental Examiners v. Pollock, 125 Okla. 170, 256 P. 927; Coulson v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 403, 127 P. 1090; Wilson v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 493, 129 P. 82; Gobin v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 201, 131 P. 546, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1089; Jackson v. State, 22 Okla. Cr. 338, 211 P. 1066; State ex rel., etc., v. Board, etc., 31 Wn. 492, 72 P. 110. There is some contention made that the court admitted incompetent evidence.

The nature and extent of the qualifications required must depend primarily upon the judgment of the State as to their necessity. " See also, Semler v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 294 U.S. 608, 55 S.Ct. 570, relating that a state may prescribe qualifications that are reasonably necessary to regulate the practice of dentistry. "The State Dental Act" was in part upheld as constitutional in the case of State Board of Dental Examiners v. Pollock, 256 P. 927, 125 Okl. 170, which provided in the Syllabus: "The universal rule is that acts of the legislature will not be held invalid unless they are clearly in conflict with some constitutional provision, and that all doubt, where there is a doubt, will be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of an act." See also Thrasher v. Board of Governors, Okl., 359 P.2d 717, relating to and upholding the constitutionality of "The State Dental Act.

As stated in the case of Shaw v. Grumbine, supra, the Court held: "The universal rule is that the acts of the Legislature will not be held invalid unless they are clearly in conflict with some constitutional provision, and that all doubt, where there is a doubt, will be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of an act. State Board of Dental Examiners v. Pollock, 125 Okl. 170, 256 P. 927." It is, therefore, the opinion of the Attorney General that your first question be answered in the affirmative, in that the Legislature may abolish the distinction between permanent and temporary employees and authorize the President Pro Tempore of the Senate to designate which of those employees are to be permanent and which ones are to be temporary.