209 U.S. H?RL?, J., dis?ntin?. spirit of the Amendment, and in In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443, it was ruled upon full consideration that the Amendment covers not 0nly suits against a State by name but those a?so a?ainst its officers, a?ents and representatives where the State, though not named as s?zh, is nevertheless the only rcal party a?ainst which in ?act the relic! is asked, and a?ainst which j?Igment or &ores el?estively operates. And that construction of the Amendment has since been followed." In the present case, the State, although not named on the record as a party, is the real party whose action it is sought to control. There are other cases in this court in which the scope and meaning of the Eleventh An.a. endment were under considera- tion, but they need not be cited, for they are well known. They are all cited in In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443, 500. "The vital principle in all such cases," this court said in the Ayers case, "is that the defendants, though professing to act as ofli- cers of the State, are threatening a violation of the personal or property rights of the complainant, for which they are personally and individually hable," or cases in which the otticer sued refnasd to perform a purely ministerial duty, about which he had no discretion and in the performance of which the plaintiff had a direct interest. The case before us is al- together different. The statutes in question did not impose' upon the Attorney General of Minnesota any special duty to see to their enforcement. In bringing the mandamns suit he acted under the general authority inhering in him as the chief law officer of his State. He could not become personally liable to the.railway company simply because o! his bringin? th? mandamus su/t. The Attorney General stated that all he did, or contemplated doing, was to bring the mandamus suit. The mere bringing of such a suit could not be-alleged against him as an individual in violation 'of any legal.. :'right of the rail- way company or its shareholders. In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443, 496. The plaintiffs recognized this fact and hence did not proceed in their suit upon the ground that the defendant was. individually liable. They sued him only as Attorney General,
�
