(dissenting).
I am of the opinion that our decisions in Bull v. King, supra, and Freeman v. Goff, supra, should be overruled as against the trend of modern authority and that we should adopt what has been designated as the “rule of severability.” Thereunder, an enactment of the legislature, some minor section of which contains a material variation from that signed by the Governor, would not be held invalid as to those sections to which the variance had no relation, and which therefore could be fully executed on the basis of the specific language thereof. Under this rule, if applied in the instant case, L. 1955, c. 857, with its numerous provisions designed to streamline and modernize many of our state departments, would for the most part become operative, and the vast amount of time, study, and effort expended by our legislature as well as by the experts consulted in drafting the bill would not be lost. Certainly, those sections of the bill which are unrelated to the sections in which the variance has been discovered cannot be said to have failed to meet the constitutional prerequisites for the enactment of legislation. See, Rice v. Road Impr. Dist. 142 Ark. 454, 221 S. W. 179; Ford v. Plum Bayou Road Impr. Dist. 162 Ark. 475, 258 S. W. 613; Gwynn v. Hardee, 92 Fla. 543, 110 So. 343; People ex rel. Honore v. Olsen, 222 Ill. 117, 78 N. E. 23; People ex rel. Brady v. LaSalle Street T. & S. Bank, 269 Ill. 518, 110 N. E. 38; State ex rel. Williams v. Robb, 163 Kan. 502, 183 P. (2d) 223; Berry v. Baltimore & Drum Point R. Co. 41 Md. 446, 20 Am. R. 69; State ex rel. Casper v. Moore, 37 Neb. 13, 55 N. W. 299; Cancilla v. Gehlhar, 145 Ore. 184, 27 P. (2d) 179; In re House of Representatives, 45 R. I. 289, 120 A. 868; State ex rel. Attorney General v. Platt, 2 S. C. 150, 16 Am. R. 647; City of Nashville v. Browning, 192 Tenn. 597, 241 S. W. (2d). 583; State ex rel. Board of Commrs. v. Wright, 62 Wyo. 112, 163 P. (2d) 190.