The sun., 1908-03-24

legal proceedings Of a complicated and un-
usual character and involving questions Of
vast importance TO all employees and ohncers
Of the company. a. well a. TO the company
itself. The question that arises Ia whether
there is q remedy that the parties interested
may resort 10 by going into a Federal court
= equity IN q oase involving q violation Of
the Federal Constitution and obtaining a
judicial investigation Of the problem, and
pending It's solution obtain freedom from
suits, civil or criminal. by q temporary in
junction; and II the question be finally de.
cided favorably to the contention Of the com.
pany permanent injunction restraining all
such actions or proceedlnss.
This inquiry necessItRtes an examination
Of the most material and important objection
made 10 the jurisdiction Of the Circuit Court,
the objection being that the suit is in effect
one against the State OF Minnesota and that
the injunction issued against the Attorney
General Illegally prohibits State action,
either criminal or civil. to enforce obedience
TO the statutes Of the State
In the lower court, says tue opinion. the
case had proceeded on the theory that the
rights Of the stockholders protected by the
WOhlu NlOlhhNhll VI
the rates were enforced.
A decision in the case, however. did not
require a decision Of the question whether
the adoption Of that-amendment In any way
| altered or limited the effect OF the Eleventh
Amendment prohibiting a suit against a
State.
"We may assume says the opinion,
that each exists in full force and that
we must give TO the Eleventh Amendment
all the effect II naturally would have, with
out cutting 1t down or rendering its meaning
any more narrow than the language fairly
| interpreted would warrant. II applies
to a suit brought against a State by one
Of its own citizens, as well as a suit brought
| by a citizen OF another State. II was
adopted after this court, in 1893, had held
| that a State might be sued by citizen Of
| another State
Since then many cases had been before
| the court in which that amendment was
! involved and excerpts from several Of them
4 are given in the opinion. While none OF
| them exactly covers the case at bar, says
| the opinion, yet they serve TO illustrate the
principles upon which they had been de-
| oided and they furnished ample justification
| for the assertion that individuals who as
officers OF the State were clothed with some
| duty in regard TO the enforcement OF the
| laws Of the State and who threatened and
we're about TO commence prOceedings
either OF a criminal or a civil nature, ia
| enforce against parties affected an uncon-
stitutional act involving the Federal Con.
| stitution might be enjOined by Federal
court Of equity from such action.
As to whether the restraining order
was void because 1t attempted TO control
the Attorney General in the exercise OF
| his discretion the opinion says that no
| interference with his discretion was shown
| in this case
The general discretion regarding the en-
| forcement OF the laws when and ~ he deems
| appropriate is not inteHered with by an
! injunction which restraints the State Officer
| from taking steps toward the enforcement
! Of an Unconstitutional enactment to the
! injury Of Oomplainants, In such case nc
affirmative action Of any nature is directed
and the officer is simply prohibited IRON
doing an act which he had no legal night tC
| do An Injunction TO prevent him IRON
doing that which he has no legal right TO dc
is not an interference with the discretion
Of an officer
If the act which the Attorney Genera
! seeks TO enforce be a violation OF the Fedora
Constitution the officer in proceeding unde'
such enactment comes into conflict with
the superior authority Of that Constitution
and he Is in that case stripped OF his ofncla
| or representative character ana ~ SUI
iected in his person to the consequences
Of his individual conduct, The state ha'
no power TO impart to him any immunity
| from responsibility 10 the supreme Au
thority Of the United States. =.
Justice Harlan delivered a vigorous dis
sent. The action Of the Federal Court II
laying violent hands upon the Attorney
! General of Minnesota and forbidding MN
under penalty Of being fined and lmpris
oned, 10 represent his State in its oWr
| courts on it's own business was to his mlnc
entirely wrong.
That principle, if it should be firmly e.
( tabHshed, would work a radical chang'
in the governmental system. II would IN
| aupIrate new era in the American ludlch
system and enable the subordinate Fedora
courts to supervise and control the oiiicla
action Of the States as II they we're de
Tendencies or provinces. IL would piac'
the States Of the Union in condition OF III
feriority never dreamed Of when the Con
sttution was adopted or when the Eleventh
Amendment was plade part oil the 81
preme law Of the land,
He could not suppose that the wise mel
who framed the Constitution ever though
the time would come when subordlnat
Federal court, having no power TO compel
State in it's corporate capacity to appea
before it as a litigant would assume u
deprive a State Of the right to be repre-
sented in its own courts by its regular la'
! officer