This proceeding was instituted for the purpose of annulling an award of the Industrial Accident Commission against the petitioner, requiring it to pay to the treasurer of the state of California, for the benefit of the “subsequent injuries fund” the sum of $300. The proceeding was instituted and the award made under an amendment by the legislature of 1929 to the Workmen’s Compensation, Insurance and Safety Act of 1917 (Stats. 1929, p. 420), - which for the sake of brevity will be hereinafter referred to as the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The *211 amendment so far as it applies to the questions presented in' the present proceeding is designated as section 9 (b) (10) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and reads in part as follows:

The facts upon which this proceeding is predicated are, briefly stated, that one W. Pitts, while employed as a laborer on August 14, 1929, at Oakland, California, by Eex Floor Company sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of his employment, which injury caused the death of said employee on the same day; that at said time said employer’s insurance carrier for workmen’s compensation was the petitioner herein, the Commercial Casualty Insurance Company; that at the time of said injury and death said employer and employee were subject to the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1917, and the amendments thereof; and that said W. Pitts did not leave any known dependents at the time of his injury and death.

Acting upon the purported authority conferred upon the Industrial Accident Commission, by section 9 (b) (10) (d) of said act as amended in 1929, the Industrial Accident Commission by and through its secretary filed with itself an application for adjustment of claim against the petitioner herein. At the hearing of said application said Commission found the facts as hereinbefore stated, and upon the facts so found made the award which the petitioner herein seeks to have annulled by this proceeding.

There is no dispute as to the facts and no claim is made that the Commission in the proceeding before it, which resulted in the making of said award, did not strictly follow and comply with the provisions of said section of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

*214 The principal contention made by petitioner relates to the constitutionality of section 9 (b) (10) (d) of said act which purports to confer upon the Industrial Accident Commission jurisdiction to entertain proceedings and to make awards like the proceeding and award involved herein.

Petitioner relies upon the ease of Yosemite Lumber Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 187 Cal. 774 [20 A. L. R. 994, 204 Pac. 226 ], in support of the contention that the Industrial Accident Commission is without authority to entertain this proceeding. In that case this court had under consideration an act of the legislature of 1919, which purported to provide for the creation of a fund known as the “Industrial Rehabilitation Fund” (Stats. 1919, p. 273). This act provided that where a valid compensable injury was suffered by an employee leaving no dependents' that the employer must pay into said fund the sum of $350. Said statute, like the statute of 1929, provided that the Industrial Accident Commission might institute proceedings before itself for the collection of said sum in the same manner as in any other industrial accident claim. The validity of the act of 1919 was attacked on the ground that the legislature was without authority to confer upon the Industrial Accident Commission jurisdiction to determine any dispute, except ■ a dispute between an employer and his employees or the dependents of his deceased employees. The court sustained the ground of attack made by the petitioners therein, and in doing so held that the power to determine whether or not the liability imposed by the provisions of said statute existed against an employer was a judicial power; that the sole authority of the legislature to confer judicial power upon the Industrial Accident Commission was derived from section 21 of article XX of the' Constitution as amended in 1918; that said section of -the Constitution gave to the legislature authority to create a tribunal with judicial power to settle disputes arising between employers and their employees, or the dependents of deceased employees; that the liability imposed by said statute upon the employer was a liability, not to any of his employees or the dependents of any employees, but was a liability to the starte, and the dispute, which the proceeding before the Industrial Accident Commission was brought to settle, was a dispute between the employer and the state, and *215 the court concluded its opinion on this branch of the case with the following words: “Our conclusion is that section 21 of article XX, as amended in 1918, did not authorize the legislature to impose a liability on an employer to pay money to the state for the purposes specified in the act of 1919. It follows by necessity that said section gives no authority to the legislature to confer upon the Industrial Accident Commission jurisdiction to determine any dispute that may arise concerning the liability of employers sought to be imposed by said act of 1919.”

We can see no escape from the logic of this decision. That ease is identical in principle with the proceeding before us. In each case the liabilty sought to be imposed upon the employer is not one in favor of his employee nor the dependents of any deceased employee. In each case the jurisdiction to determine this liability is attempted to be conferred upon the Industrial Accident Commission. We feel bound by this authority not only by reason of the rule of stare decisis, but on account of the manifest soundness of the decision.

Respondent further contends, however, that there is a marked difference between the objects and purpose of the statute of 1919 and those of the statute of 1929; that in the 1919 statute the fund therein provided for was to be expended for the purpose of vocational re-education and rehabilitation of persons disabled in industry in this state; that the subsequent injuries fund provided for in the amendment of 1929 is to be used for the purpose of paying special additional compensation to employees sustaining permanent disability by reason of industrial injuries, who at the time of such injuries were already partially permanently injured by reason of injuries previously received. The point made by respondent is that the 1919 legislation sought to impose a liability upon an employer, not for the purpose of compensating employees, but for their re-education and rehabilitation, while the amendment of 1929 creates a liability solely for compensating employees. Respondent concedes that the compensation provided for in the amendment of 1929 is not wholly for the employees of the particular employer upon whom the liability is imposed, and that it may be expended in payment, in part or in whole, as compensation to em *216 ployees, who are not, and who never had been in the service of the employer making said payment, but respondent contends that a fair and reasonable construction of section 21 of article XX of the Constitution permits legislation of this character. In this connection respondent calls to our attention the particular language of the Constitution which is in part as follows: “The legislature is hereby expressly vested with plenary power, unlimited by any provision of this Constitution, to create and enforce a complete system of workmen’s compensation by appropriate legislation.” Had the language of the section of the Constitution stopped with the above quotation therefrom, we would be inclined to agree with the contention of the respondent. But the above quoted words of the section are immediately followed by the additional words, “and in that behalf to create and enforce a liability on the part of any or all persons to compensate any or all of their workmen for injury or disability, and their dependents for death incurred or sustained by said workmen in the course of their employment, irrespective of the fault of any party”. The above provision of this section of the Constitution, both that quoted and relied upon by the respondent and the latter part thereof which we have quoted, must be read together, as the two parts form but one complete sentence. As so read, we think that the intent of the framers thereof is clear and unambiguous, and that they intended by this amendment of the Constitution to limit the power of the legislature in enacting a Workmen’s Compensation Act to provide for the compensation by the employers of their own employees, and that any legislation which exceeds these limits is beyond the power of the legislature, and, therefore, void. This same question was considered and passed upon by this court in the case of Yosemite Lumber Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., supra, as will appear from the reading of the following excerpt therefrom:

Subsection (d), therefore, of section 9 (b) (10) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended in 1929, which attempts to confer upon the Industrial Accident Commission the power to entertain this proceeding, is void beyond the power of the legislature to enact.

It does not necessarily follow, however, that the whole amendment of the act of 1929 is also unconstitutional. By the express terms of the statute enacting this amendment, it is provided that if any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause or phrase of the act be held unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of said act. Subsection (10) (d) of said section (9) (b) is not so related to the other portions of said section, that its invalidity will in any way affect the other portions of said section. Petitioner concedes that .the first sixteen lines of section 9 (b) (10) are valid and they should be sustained by the courts. It contends, however, that all the balance of subdivision (10), and particularly subsection (c) thereof, should be declared unconstitutional by us in this proceeding. In this we cannot agree. Subsection (c) of said subdivision (10) is not before us, and whatever we might say in this proceeding in regard to its validity would be a mere expression of opinion and of no binding effect *218 hereafter. We, therefore, expressly refrain from an expression of opinion as to its constitutionality.

For the reasons hereinbefore expressed, the award of the Industrial Accident Commission against petitioner is annulled.

Richards, J., Seawell, J., Waste, C. J., Langdon, J., Preston, J., and Shenk, J., concurred.