The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1907-08-06

presidents II such cases IL g decree
could have been rendered entoinlng
he state from bringing suit agains,
is taxpayers. il would have operates
upon the state only through the of1-
GERS who were required D. law 10 rep
resent Il IN bringing suits For breach
II such an Injunction. these ofreefs
would be amenable to the court a
proceeding IN contempt Of It, author
!ty. and yS0uid be liable 70 punishment
therefor BY attachment and inprs-
onne+. The nature % the case. a.
supposed. Is identical with that OF the
! case as actually presented In the bill,
with the single exception hat the
State is not named as q defendant
How else can the State be forbidden
by judicial process TO bring action in
its rame, except by constraining the
conduct Of its officers. Its attorneys,
and its agents? And II ali such on
GERS. attorneys and agents are per-
sonally subjected to the process oI
the court. 50 as to forbid their acting
in its behalf, how can II be said that
the state itself is not subjected to the
jurisdiction Of the court as an actual
and real defendant?
The very object and purpose OF the
eleventh amendment were % prevent
the ~indignfty of suDjecting a state 10
the coerSive proceS of judicial tribu-
mails at the instance Of private par
- - was oaSt ~
coming nor convenient that the sew
eral States OF the Union, invested with
the large rcsiduum of sovereignty
which had not been delegated to the
United states should be
as defendants to answer compiaina
Of private persons. To secure the
manifest purpos of the constitutional
exemption guaranteed by the eleventh
amendment requires that II should be
interpreted. not literally and too mar
roWly, but fairly. and with such
breadth and largeness as effectually to
accomplish the substance Of its pur-
pose. In this spirit it must be held
to cover, not only suits brought
against a State by name. but those
also against its officers, agents and
representatives, where the state,
though not named as such, is. never
theless. the only real party against
which alone in fact the relief is asked,
and against which the judgment or
decree effectively operates
1T was accordingly adjudged that
the suits in which the injunctiOns We're
granted against the officers Of Nlr-
ginia was. in substance and in law.
one against that commonwealth or
which the circuit court of the Uni
ted States could not take cOgnfZance.
If these principles be applied IN
the present case, there is no escape
from h conclusion that, although the
State Of Alabama was dismissed as a
party defendant, this suit against its
officers is really one against the State.
As a State can act only by its officers.
an order restraining those officers
from taking any steps by means Of
judicial proceedings. in execution of
the statute, is one which Restraints the
State itself. and the suit is cOnse-
Guenily as much against the State as
If the State were named as a party
defendant CT record.
The citizen is not without effec-
tive remedy when proceeded aga INST
under a legislative enactment void for
to the supreme law of the
land; for, whatever the form of pro-
ceeding against him. he can make his
defense upon the ground Tia: the
statute is unconstitutional and void.
And hat question ear be ultimately
brought to mis- court for final determ-
nation.
Whether the owners of the bridge
We're denied by the statute fair and
reasonable compensation was q queS-
ton that could not be considered In
this case. for of such a suit the cir
cult court could not take cognizance.
1T remains only to consider the
case SO far as the fnal decree as
sumes to enioin the officers of the
state from instituting or prOsecut ng
any Indictment or criminal proceed
ing having for its object the enforce
ment of the statute. we are of ODin-
ion tina the circuit court of tho Uni
ted states sitting in equity. was with
out jurisdiction to enioin the institu-
ton or prosecution Of these criminal
proceedings commenced in the State
court"
The plaintiffs state that the toll
gatherers in their service had been in
dicted in State courts for violating the
w. xi- - 49, -
tolls. Let them appear to the indict-
ment, and defend themselves upon
the ground that the State statute is
repugnanf to the ConStitut' on of the
United States. The court is competent
to determine the question thus ra sed.
and is under a duty to enforce the
mandates Of the supreme law of the
land. And if the question is determ-
med adversely to the defendants in
the highest court of the State IN which
the decision could be had. the iudg-
ment M be r~e-examined by this
court Hpo writ Of error. That the
defendants MA be frequently tndtct-
cd con FtituteS no reason why q Fed
cfal court OF equity should assume to
Interfere with the ordinary course of
criminal procedure IN a State court.
1T appears from the record that
Glenn and Brabson were indicted in
the State court under q section of the
CiiIlllIldl Code OIL AlaDafna. Having
been arrested under these indict-
mcnts, they ued out writs of habeas
corpus upon the ground that they
were indicted for taking toll in vio-
lation of the above act. which they al
lege to be unconstitutional, and that
their arres- was in disregard of the
Injunction of the circut court. The cir
cult court discharged the petitioners
upon their own recOgnizances. 1t was
error to discharge them and thereby
interfere with their trial in the state
court. The circuit court. slit ng in
equity. was without Jurisdiction to
prohibit the institution or prosecution
Of these criminal proceedings in the
State court. Further. even if the cir
cult court regarded the act as repug-
nant to the Constitution of the Unit
ted States, the custody Of the accused
by the State authorities should not
have been disturbed by any order Of
that court, and the accused should
have been left to be dealt with by the
state court. with the right. after the
determination n that court. to prose-
cute a writ of error from this court
for the re-eyamination of the final
Judgment so far as it involves ans
privileges secured to the accused by