¶1 (concurring).
¶2 I concur on the ground that there is evidence to support the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendant. This judgment, in effect, holds that the Director of the Department of Registration had discretion to determine whether in fact Arizona would or could grant reciprocity to a Utah naturopathic practitioner; that it was not bound by Exhibit B. Also that the Director had the power to determine whether the educational and examina-tional requirements were equal to those of Utah in the light of the fact that the statutes of Arizona exempted certain applicants from the taking of both the basic science tests and the professional tests by a grandfather clause.
¶3 (concurring).
¶4 I concur in the result upon the ground that reciprocal relations here involved are a matter of agreement between the proper departments in Utah and Arizona. Here, while Arizona had offered to reciprocate, it does not appear Utah had accepted the offer.
¶5 (concurring).
¶6 I concur in the result. While the certification of Dr. Call by the Arizona State Board stated that such Board agreed *436 to reciprocate the action of Utah in admitting an Arizona practitioner to practice in Utah, nevertheless subsequent to receipt of such certificate, correspondence between individual members of the two state boards revealed that it was doubtful that the Arizona Board could, or perhaps clear that it could not, under the Statutes of Arizona, grant reciprocity to a Utah practitioner. This for the reason, as stated in such correspondence, that the Arizona law, relative to granting licenses to practice naturopathy, requires examination in the basic sciences, while that of Utah does not. In view of such fact, the Utah Board was justified in refusing a license to appellant.