1,54 OCTOBER TEP. M, 1907. Opinion of ths ?Zurt. Un/o? Pac/f? &�. V. Maim C/?y Cornpanic, 199 U.S. 160, '166. In ?qml/t? v. Am?s, 169 U.S. 466 (anofi? rate case), it was a?n held teat a suit against ?ndividuals, for the purpose of preventing them, as officers of the State, fr?m enforch? by the commencement of suits or by indictment, an unconstitu- tional enactment to the injury of the r?,,,hte of the plaintiff, was no? a suit ags?st a State. within the me?i,? of the Amend- ment. At page 518, in answer to the objection that the su?t was really agahmt the State, |t was said: "It is the settled doc- t?e of th?s court that a suit agsfmst individuais for the pur- pose of preventing them as officers of a State from enforcing an unconstitutional enactment .to the injury of the rights of the p?aintiff, is not a su?t against the State within the of that Amendment." The suit was to enjoin the enforcement of a statute of Nebraska because it' was alleged to be uncon- stitutional, on account of the rates being too .low to afford some compensation to the company, and contrary, therefore, to the Fourteenth Amendment. There was no special provision in the' statute as ?o rates, ms?ng it the duty of the Attorney General to enforce it, but under his general powers he had authority to ask for a manda? runs to enforce such or any other ?aw. 8ta? o/' ?Vebras?m reZ. &c. v. Tl? Frem? &�. P?,?d Co., 22 Nebraska, 313. The 6?,,! decree enjoined the Attorney General from bring-' ing any suit (page 477) by way of injunction, mandamns, civil action or indictment, for the purpose of enforcing the pro- visions of the act. The fifth section of the act provided that an action might be brought by a railroad company in the Su- preme Court of the State of Nebraska; but tMs court did not base it? decision on that section when it held that a suit of the nature of thst before it was not a suit against a State, although brought against individual state officers for the pur- pose of enjoh?Jng .them from enforcing, either by civil pro- ceeding or indictment, an unconstitutional enactment to the injury of the plaintiff,s r?ght. (Page 518.)
�
