teed by the Eleventh Amendment requires that it should be interpreted, not literally and too narrowly, but fairly, and with such breadth and largeness as effectually to accomplish the subetance of its purpose. In this spirit it must be held to cover, not only suite brought against a State by name, but those also against its offw. ers, agents and representatives where the $?te, though not named as such, is ?evertheless the only real parfi d against which ? in [act the ?'elis! is asked I and againat which the ? or dec? effectivel F operates. But this is not intended in. any way to impinge upon the principle which jnstifie? suits against individual defendants, who, under color of the authority of unconstitutional legislation by the State, are guilty of personal trespasses and ureon?s, nor to forbid suits against officere in their official capacity either to arrest or direc? their official action by injunction or mandamus, where such suits are authorized by law, and the act to be done or omitted is purdy ministerial, in the performance or omission of which the plaintiff has a legal interest." It is said that the A?ters case is not applicable here, because the orders made by the Federal Circuit Court had for their object to compel Virginia to perform its contract with bond- holders, which' is not this case. But that difference between the Ayers case and this case cannot affect the principle in- volred. The proceeding against the Attorney General of Virginia had for its object to compel, by indirection, the per- formance of the contract which that Commonwealth was alleged to have made with bondholders-such performance, on the part of the State, to be effected by means of orders in a Federal Circuit Court directly controlling the official action of that officer. The proceeding in the Perkins-Shepard suit against the Attorney General of Minnesota had for its object, by means of orders in a Federal Circuit Court, directed to that officer, to control the action o! that State in reference to the enforcement of certain statutes by judicial proceilings com- menced in its own courts. The relief sought in each case was to control the State b? contro///nq the conduct o! its law-offvcer,
�
