OCTOBICl? T]?LM, 1907. alleged to be unconstitutional, but under the authorRy of which, it was sverred, they were committing or were shout to commit ?m? ?cg?c wro? or ? to the injury of the plaint?'s ri?,hts. There is a wide d?fference between a suit a?a?nst individasls, holding official positions under a State, to prevent them, under the sanction of an .unconatitut[on?] statute, from committing by some po?tive act a wrong or trespass, and a suit against offw?rs o! a $tatz rn?dy to t?st thz ams?v?ioaal?,l el a s?,e.stat?, in th? e?lorcemem el which ? o?.?s ? act o? by Iorr? iudicial process i? the com? o! t/m 8/a/?. In the present case, as we ]?.ve s?id, neither of the state officers named held any speeisl relation ?o the particular statute sBeged ?o be unconstitutional. They were not expressly direet?,d to see to its enforcement. If, because they were I?w officers of the State, ,, ease could be made for the purpose of t?sting the eonatJtutionality of the statu?e, by an injunction suit brought sgs?ust them, then the eonatitu- tiona, lity of every act ? by the legislature conid be t?ted by & suit s4?inst the C?overnor and Attorney Geners], based upon the theory t]?,t the former as the exseutive of the State was, in s genersl-sense, eba?,ed with the execution of all its l?ws, s.ud the l?tter, s,s Attorney Oeners,], might ?eprseent th, e State in litigation involving the enforcement of its statutm. T]?t would be s very convenient wsy for .obt*inlng s,' speedy judieial determln?tion 'of q?lest?on8 of .co?stJ?utJonad l?w which may be r?i by individusl,, but it is s-mode which cannot be sppLied t? the .States of the Union eonais?ent?y with the fundsmental principle t?t they esonot, without their assent, be bmdght in?o any eou? st the suit of privsta persona. If their offi?rs commit sets of tresl?ms or wrong to the citi- zen, they may be individually proeseded against for such trespasses or wrong. Under the view we take of the question, the citizen is not without effective remedy, when proceeded ss?sinst under s legislative enactment void for rep-?ney to the supreme law of the land; for, w]mtever the form of proeeeding a?Lust him, he eau ra?ke his defense upon.the
�
