(dissenting).
Relied on by the majority herein is the well recognized principle that, “If the unconstitutional portions of an act are so interrelated and connected with the constitutional parts that they cannot be separated without destroying the intention manifested by the legislature in passing the act, the entire act is void.” I am convinced that such principle is not applicable to this cause.
To my mind it is clear that in adopting the legislation under consideration the Legislature intended only to authorize this plaintiff to sue, and to litigate his claim against, the state pursuant to the provisions of Section 35, Article 3 of the Louisiana Constitution. The objectionable Section 4 thereof (assuming that it is invalid) was inserted, as an incidental matter, merely to set forth the manner in which any future judgment in plaintiff’s favor might be paid. Surely in adopting that section there existed no intention of nullifying the other provisions of the legislation. And this being true it seems proper to conclude that the Legislature would have granted the authority to sue and litigate in the absence of the invalid Section 4. Therefore, in my opinion such section should be regarded as mere surplusage and wholly unnecessary for the accomplishing of the purpose the Legislature had in mind.
In keeping with this view are the following observations contained in Lewis v. State, 207 La. 194, 20 So.2d 917, 921:
“Statutes passed in furtherance of provisions of the character of those imposed by Section 35 of Article 3 of the Constitution are remedial in their nature and should be liberally construed. * * *
♦ * * * * *
*331“In the act itself the Legislature, speaking for the State, declared in no uncertain terms that it was willing for Miss Lewis to sue the State, and for. the State to be sued and stand in judgment on the matter of her claim for the damages she alleged she sustained at the hands of the State’s'agents or employees in a state institution. It is inconceivable that in granting Miss Lewis the right to prosecute her action against the State the members of the Legislature intended to neutralize her right and to enact legislation that would be manifestly in contradiction of the constitutional provision and of no legal force or effect whatever. It is the duty of this Court, if it may do so consistently, to interpret a legislative act in a way that will uphold its constitutionality rather than to strike it with nullity. * * * ”
I respectfully dissent.