209 U. 8. H?nT,,s, J.', dizenting. violated." He dieclaimed any intention to treat the court with disrespect, and stated that he had been actuated alone by the desire to have the law properly administered. He was, nevertheless, adjudged guilty of enntempt, was required forth- with to dismiss the suit he had brought, was fined $500 for contempt of court, and committed to th? custody o[ thz marsha/ until the fine was paid, and until he purged himself of his contempt ?j dismissing the suit in the stat? court. The Attor- hey General then applied directly to this court for a writ of �habeas corpus, which was granted, and upon hearing he was released by this court from custody. The order for his dis- charge recited that the suit in which the injunctions were granted was "in sube?ance ami in law a suit against the State of Vh'ginia," and "within the prohibition of the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution;" that it was one "to which the judicial power of the United States does not exter?d;" that the Circuit Court was without jurisdiction to entertain it; that all its proceedings in the exercise of jurisdiction were null and void; that it had no authority or power to adjudge the Attorney General in contempt; and that his imprison- ment was without authority of law. In the opinion in the Ayers case the court said: "It follows, therefore, in the present case, that the personal act of the petitioners sought to be restrained by the order of the Circuit Court, reduced to the mere bringing of an action in the name o? and for the Sto?e against taxpayers, who, although they may have tendered tax-receiv- able coupons, are charged as delinquents, cannot be alleged against them as ?.n individual act in violation of any legal or contract rights of such taxpayers." Again: "The relief sought is against .the defendants, not in their individual, but in their r?'esentative capacity as offsets o! th? $?t? o! Virginia. The acts sought to be restrained are the bringing of suits by the State of Virginia in its own name and for its own use. If the State had been made a defendant to this bill by name, charged according to the allegations it now contains--supposing that such a suit could be maintained--it would have been subject
�
