? U. 8. H?,aL,?S, J., di?entln?. Whether the Minnesota statutes are or are not violative of the Constitution is not. as already suggested, a question in this habeas 'corp? proceeding. I do not, therefore, stop to con- sider whether those statutes are repugnant to the Constitution upon the' ground that by their necessary operation, when enforced, they will prevent the railway company from con- testing their validity, or upon the ground that they are con- fiscatory and therefore obnoxious to the requirement of due process of law. While the argument at the bar in support of each of these propositions was confessedly of great force and persuasiveness, those points need not be now examined. I express no opinion about them. Their soundness may, how- ever, be conceded for the purposes of this discussion. _Indeed, it may be assumed for the purposes of this discussion that these state enactments are harsh and intemperate and, in some of their features, invalid. But those questions are wholly apart from the present proceeding. If we now consider them we must go out of our way in order to do $o? We have no evi- denes in this proceeding, as to the effect which the statutes, if enforced, would have upon the value either of the railway property or of the bends or stocks of the railway company. The question of their validity has not been finally decided by the Circuit Court, arid we have not before us even the evidence upon which its preliminary injunction xvas based. The essen- tial and only question now before us or that need be decided is whether an order by the Federal court which prevents the ?(ate from being represented in its own courts, b?, its chief �? law officer, upon an xssue involving the constitutional validity of certain state enactments, does not crnake a suit against the State within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment. If it be a suit of that kind, then, it is conceded, the Circuit Court w� vathour juns?ictxon to fine and ?mpnson the petitioner and he must be. discharged, whatever our views may be as to the validity of those state enactments.? This must neess- sarily be so unless the Amendment has less force ?nd. a more restricted meaning now than i[ had at the time of i?s adop-
�
