YOUNG. a State would be subject to all suitz; In tlmt ease, it claimed that the State was indebted to the complainant ttpon a money d?r?,?d. The political or ?overnmental powe? of the State were in no w?y involved. However, be this as it may, the deals'on in the Ch/sho/rn was ba?ed upon the positive langua? of the Constitution. The Eleventh Amendment restored not only immtmity of ?he States from suit, but secured the same immunity to each department of a State which under the Constitution thereof wa? made independent of the judiehi power. The authority of the Attorney General to prosecute or de- fend a suit in which the State is concerned is nee-,?oily im- plied from the nature of his office and he.may bring an aetion where the wrong or injury complained of affects the public. 4 Cye. 1(Y28-1031; Hu?t v. RIt. Co., 121 Illinois, 638; Or/o? ?. serfs, 476; Peo? v. 0a/dand, 118 California, 234; Attlt. (?n/. v. Detro/t, 26 Michigan, 262. The Attorney General of Minnesota is, therefore, an execu- tive offcer of the State second to none in the character and importance of his duties. The name and power of the State, ?o far as their use in litigation is concerned, are co?nM to his discretion, subject to control by no other officer, exeept in ? cases not material here. ?qtat? v. ?"ra?, 48 Minnesota, 497. Under the statutes of ?finnesota, the Attorney (?eral is not required to institute cr?mhod proceedln?.except on the request of the Governor. Criminal proceedln? are in the first insta. n. ce instituted by the attorneys for the �?'ious counties, who have the right, however, to call on the Attorney Geaeral for ?nce. But when any cr?mlnil ? reaches the Su- 10reme Court of the State, it comes into the excludve charge of the Attorney General. Therefore the i?ljunot?on issued in the Circuit Court interferes with the ?dmlnktration of the c?mlnal laws of the State. Such interference is beyond the power of a court of equity, except where the criminal ease is
�
