A severability clause "provides a rule of construction which may sometimes aid in determining that intent. But it is an aid merely; not an inexorable command."

But a provision, inherently unobjectionable, cannot be deemed separable unless it appears both that, standing alone, legal effect can be given to it and that the legislature intended the provision to stand, in case others included in the act and held bad should fall.

While we have jurisdiction of the issue, we deem it appropriate that we should leave the determination of the question to the state court.

Some years ago this Court struck down as unconstitutional state statutes making arbitration of labor disputes mandatory.

In other words, for determining legislative intent, the severability clause "is an aid merely; not an inexorable command."

As the question of separability was a state question, the decision of that court thereon is conclusive here.

A statute bad in part is not necessarily void in its entirety. Provisions within the legislative power may stand if separable from the bad

To determine that the statute shall be allowed to stand, the court must find, that standing alone, legal effect can be given to the parts which are constitutional, and that the legislature intended that statute to be severable.

The right of workers, parties to a labor dispute, to strike and picket peacefully to better their condition does not infringe any right of the employer.

Whether the severability clause would be so applied as to remove this particular constitutional objection is a question which may be more appropriately left for adjudication by the Oklahoma court.