?z lmr? YOUNG. ?09 U.S. Argument for Respondent. Fed. Rep. 199; Coneter v. Weir, 127 Fed. Rep. 897; Cov2t? v. Fargo, 127 Fed. P, ep. 912; Hilche?en v. Smith, 140 Fed. Rep. 983; Smith v. A/exander, 146 .Fed. Rep. 106; T?ph Co. v. Anderson, 154 Fed. Rep. 95. By leave of court, Mr. Edward B. Whitn? filed a brief herein as amicus curitr, in,support of petitioner's contentions as to the Eleventh Amendment. With him on this brief was Mr. Abd E. B/ackmar. Mr. Charles W. Blmn, Mr. Jared How and Mr. J. F. McGee, with whom Mr. Frank B. Kellogg, Mr. Cordenia A. Mr. Robert E. Olds, Mr. Stiles W. Burr, M?. Pierc? Burly-, Mr. William D. Mitchell and Mr. William A. Lanvazter were on the briefs, for respondent: The obiections which petitioner makes against the validity of the iniunctional order ?re matters which ?nnot he inquired into on writ of ha/?as corp?. Where the contempt, the punishment for which is under revi ew in a hab?o? corp? proceeding, consist? of the violation of an order or decree of a court, the commitment will be sus- tained unless it is found that the order or decree disobeyed wa? absolutely 'void because the court wa? wholly without jurisdiction or power to make it. The proceeding being in the nature of a collateral attack upon the order or judgmen? which has been disobeyed, the inquiry 'is limited to the question of U.S. 731, 757; In re Wf2?on, 140 U.S. 575, 583. Among the very numerous cases which deal with this ques- tion the following are most nearly in point: Ez t?rte Watkins, U. 8. 731, 756; I? ?e Wi/?on, 140 U.S. 575, 582; Iri re Del- gado, 140 U. 8. 586; In re Sdmeid?, 148 U.S. 162; In re Fred- ?-/ch, 149 U.S. 70, 76; In re T!?l?, 149 U. $?van, 150 U.S. 637, 648; In re Chapman, 156 U.S. 211; In L?non, 166 U. g. 548: Iv re McKenzie, 180 U. 8. 536.
�
