1?0 O?I?OBER TERM, 1?07. 'R ? .f j.,? ?09U. 8. a?a/?/t? u,?. I ?---,,t conceive hew the Igoeeeding ngs?mt the Attorney General of Virgio'ni', could be deemed a suit ?nst that State, and yet the proce?.ing ? the Attorney Gen- eral of ]?in ?n?ot? ? not to be deemed & suit ngah?t Minmmota, when the object s?l effect of the I,,tter proceeding was, beyond �ll question, to shut that 8t?e entirely out of its own courts, and prevent it' through its law-officer from invoking their jurisdiction in a special matter of public concern, involving olf?al duty, about which the State desired to know the views of its own judiciary. In my opinion the decision in the A?ters caze determines this case for the petitioner. More directly in point, perlmp?, for the petitioner Young is the case of F/tts v. MeGbee, 172 U.S. 516, 528, 529, 530. T!mt ?uit was brought by the receive.rs of a railroad company ngainst the Covernor and Attorney General of Alal?ma. Its object was to prevent the enforcement of the pmvi?ons of an ? statute prescribing the maximum rates of toll to be charged on ? certain bridge ?cro? the Tennessee River. The statute impoecd ? pen<y for e?ch time that the owners, lessees or operators of the bridge demanded or received any higher rate of toll than was predcribed by it. The relief asked was an injunction prohibiting the Governor and Attorney General of the State ?nd all other persons from instituting any proceeding ng?inst the complainants, or cither of them, to enforce the statute. An injunction, as prayed for, w?s granted. In the progre? of the cause the solicitor of the district in which the case ?vas pending was m?de a defendant and the injunction was extended to him. By amended plead- ings it was made to appear that the ?ollgatc keepers at the public ci'ossing of the bridge were indicted for collecting tolls in violation of the statute. In the progress of the cause the plaintiffs dismissed the case as to the State, and the cause was discontinued as to the Governor. But the c?se wa? heard upon the motion to dismiss the bill upon the ground tlmt the suit was one &gainst the State in violation of the Constitution of the United States.
�
