?z?mrgeYOUNO. 1? 10m'ty by whom it can be performed. Though not nomln,?lly a party to the record, it is the ? and only party in interest, the nominal defendants being the officers and agentp of the State, !roving no personal interest in the subject-matter of the suit, and defending ordy o? reFresent9?g t? State. And the things required by the decrees to be done and performed by ? ?re the very things, which when done and performed, constitute a pedorn?ce of the alleged contract by the State. The State is not. a?ly the re?l party to the controversy, but the real p?rty a?nst which ?elief is sought by the suit, and the E?eventh .?-?m?t to the Constitution of the United Sta?z, which declares that 'the judk?al power of the United States shall not he construed to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or pr?ecuted against one of the United States by ciCi?ns of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State.'" .?in: "If this case is not within the elam of thoze forbidden by the constitutional guaranty to the States of immunity from suits in Federal trib?*n?l?, it is diffi- cult to conceive the frame of one which would be. If the State is mm?ed as a defendant, it can only 'be reached either by meene or 6n?i process through its officers and agents, and a judgment a?a?nst it could neither be obtained nor enforced, except as the public conduct and government of the ideal political body called a State could be reached .and affected through its official reprezentatives. A judgment. against these latter, in their official and representative capacity, command- ing them to perform official functions on behalf of the State according to the dictates and decrees of the court, is, if any- thing can be, a judicial proceeding against the State itself. If not, it may well be asked, what would constitute such a proceeding? In the prs?ent cases the decrees were not only aga?t the defendants i? th?/r o/?/a/capac/t?, but, that there might be no mistake as to the nature and extent of the duty to be performed, also against their successors in office." Is it to he said that an order requiring the Attorney General of a
�
