209 U. & H?,tL?, J., dissenting. mandamus case had been finally decided in the state court, the way was open for the railway company to preserve any question it made as to its rights under the Constitution, and, in the event of a decision adverse to it in that court, at once to carry the case to the bigbest court of Minnesota and thence by a writ of error bring it to this court. That course would have served to determine every question of constitutional law raised by the suit in the Federal court in an orderly way without trampling upon the State, and without interfering, in the meantime, with the operation of the raftway property .in the accustomed way. Instead of adopting that course--so manifestly consistent with the dignity and authority of both the Federal and state judicial tribunals--the Federal court practically closed the state courts against the State itself when it adjudgcd that the Attorney General, without regard to the wishes of the Governor of Minnesota, and without refer- ence to his duties as prescribed by the la;vs of tha:t State, should stand in the custody of the Marshal, unless he dismissed the mandamns suit. If the Federal court could thus prohibit the law officer of the State from representing it in ? suit brought in the state court, why might not the bill in the Federal court be ? amended that that court could reach all the district attorneys in Minnesota and forbid them from bringing to the attention of grand jm'ies and the state courts violations of the state act by the railway company? And if a grand jury was about to inquirc into the acts of the railway company in respdct of the matter of its rates, why may not the Federal court, procccding upon the same grounds on which it has moved against the Attorney General, enjoin the finding or returning of indictments against the tailway company? If an indictment was returned against the railway company, and was about to be tried by a petit jury, why could not the Fed- eral court, upon the principles now announced, forbid the jury to proceed against the railway company, and if it di?l, punish every petit juryman as for contempt of court? Indeed, why may it not lay its hands on the Governor of the State and
�
