That que?tlon is, whether the suit in the Circuit Court of the United States was, a? to the rel?e! sought against the Attornetl General o! Minnesota, forbidden by the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, declaring that "the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizer? or subjects of any foreign State." That exami- nation, I may say at the outset, is entered upon with no little embarrassment, in view of the fact that the views expres? by me are not shared by my brethren. I may also frankly admit embarrassment arising from certain views stated in dissenting opinions heretofore delivered by me which did not, at the time, meet the approval of my brethren, and which I do not now myself entertain. What I shall say in this opinion will be in substantial accord with what the court has hereto- fore decided, while the opinion of the court departs, as I think, from principles previously announced by it upon full consid- eration? I propose to adhere to former decisions of the court, whatever may have been once my opinion as to certain aspects of this general question. The plaintiffs in the suit referred to, Perkins and Shepard, were shareholders of the Northern Pacific Railway Comicany and citizens, respectively, of Iowa and Minnesota. The de- fendants were the railway company, Edward T. Young, Attorney General of Minnesota, the several members of the State Railroad and Warehouse Commission, and certain per- sons who were shippers of freight over the lines of that railway. The general object of the suit was to prevent compliance with the provisions of certain acts of the Minnesota legislature and certain.orders of the State Railroad and Warehouse Com- mission, indicating the rates which the State permits to be charged for the transportation of passengers and commodities upon railroads within its limits; also, to prevent shippers from bringing actions against the railway company to enforce those acts and orders.
�
