‘Manes, 1946) ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS 163 ‘original enactment appears to have been an amendment to Section 13 of the Med- ical Practice Act in 1913 (Stats, 1913, p. 722, Ch. 354) where it was provided chat 2 certificate to practice as 2 physician and surgeon might be issued © an applicant possessing a cervficaze entitling him to practice as such "issued either by che medical ‘examining board, or by any other board or officer authorized by the law to issue a certificate entitling such applicant to practice medicine and surgery, either in the District of Columbia, of ia any state or cetritory of the United Seates,* * *." The reference in the provisions of said code and easliee enactments places the "erritory” included in such definition in che same category as “any state” and the District of Columbia, Under the principle of ejusdem generis the word “territory” so used takes fon color and character from the words used with it in the same sense, (Blats Brew- ing Co. v. Collins, 69 A.C.A. 885.) In view of che time of enactment of che original refecence to “territory” ia this connection and the decisions and literarure thereon as ser forth herein, T con clude that the “territories” concemplaced by Section 21, as it is ro be read with Section 2310 of the Business and Professions Code, was intended in ies “srice and technical sense,” i.e, to mean and refer ro areas which hed been incorporated into the United Seates so as to have acquired the status of an “inchoate” state, and was ‘not intended co refer co any and all areas over which the United States might exer- cise seveteigary or jurisdiction of more of lest degree. Ie is my opinion, therefore, that for the purposes of reciprociey licensure under Section 2310 er seg. of the Business and Professions Code you ace authorized to consider and act upon certificates or liceases issued by the appropriate licensing suthorities of che Territories of Alaska and Hawaii, in addition to the District of Columbia and che states of the United States, bue may not consider such cerifcares issued by licensing agencies of any other areas under the jurisdiction of the United States, e.g Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Panama Canal Zone, Guam, Midway, Sarnoa, ec. Opinion No. 46-61—March 14, 1946 ‘SUBJECT: CALIFORNIA APPRENTICE STANDARDS ACT REQUIRES EM- PLOYER AS WELL AS EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION FOR CARRYING OUT APPRENTICE TRAINING UNDER THE ACT. PREPARED FOR: DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, SAN FRANCISCO, PREPARED BY: R. I. CHAMBERLAIN, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ‘Your leer of February 11 presents cwo questions as follows “L. Under the Shelley-Maloney Apprentice Labor Standards Act of 1939 (Labor Code of California Secs. 3071 co 3090), can an apprentice ship taining program be approved without « joint commintee beingATTORNEY GENERALS OPINION established for 0 company, when che le! compa eanents app has collective thet procedure? 2, Can an apprenticeship training program be similarly approved n the employer organization does rot want to participate in a joint ployee organiza committee snd states that itis agreeable to hav’ tion operate the program?” formation of local ot State employer and employee over the ech establishment, end chat Section 3075 of dhe Labor Code provides for to be selected by joine apprenticeship. comm organizations, in any trade in the State or in a city or trade 118, apprenticeship training needs of sich such joine apprenticeship commivee sholl be composed of an equal sumber of cmnployer and employee represencatives Section 3076 outlines the functions of euch commiees. ion 3079 provides that every aps established under he i provisions of the code shall be approved by ¢ int apprenticeship com- Ie hu spears char « joint commit is an important and, we believe, neces: sary link in the escablishnent 2nd carrying on of an epprenticeship program under the Californi Code, and itis eur opinion thar the Council should not approve a plan thar does nor provide for a State or | joint commiste, In answer co your second question, we are of che opinion that both employer and employce participation is sequized if progres w proved, and, therefore, that employer participetion is necessary We do not wish ro be understood as holding thae apprentices may not be teained under a program that d for that does e ion participation, itis only when itis the desire of the ‘operacors of the progrim to bring the some under he provisions of the California “Apprentice Labor Standssds Act thet itis necessary that the procedure of the act be conformed to. Programs operating outside of the act are noc prohibited by Cali: fornia la the a 15 not provice for a joint commi bave employer or Opinion No, 46-53—March 15, 1946 SUBJECT: BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION ACT DOES NOT PROHIBIT ‘STOCK DIVIDEND BASED ON SURPLUS RESULTING FROM A PRIOR REDUCTION OF STOCK. PREPARED FOR: BUILDING AND LOAN COMMISSIONER, SAN FRAN- CISCO, PREPARED JOHN J. DAILEY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ‘You requested our opinion regarding the application of a particular provision of Section 4,01 of the Building and Loan Association Act with respect (0 & pro- ppossl you seceived from an association for approval for the distribution of = stock