1? OCTOBER TERM, 1907. H?.? n?-?, J.? d?enting. 209 U.S. and sought a decree against hi'in his official capacity, not otherwise. Some reference has been made to Ex parte Roya//, 117 U.S. 241, and other cases,' ?hat affirm the authority of a Federal court, under existing statutes, to discharge upon ? ? from the custody of a state officer one who is.held in violation of the Federal Constitution for an alleged crime against a State. Thcee case? ar? not at all in point in the present dis- cussion. Such a habeas corpus proceeding is ex parte, having for its object only to inquire whether the applicant for the writ is illegally re?trained of his liberty. If he is, then the state officer holding him in custody is a trespasser, and can- not defend the wrong or tort committed by him, by pleading his official character. The power in a Federal court to dis- charge a person from the custody of a trespasser may well exist? and yet the court has no power in a suit before it, by an order directed against the Attorney General of a State, as such, to prevent the State from being represented by that officer, as a litigant in one of it? own courts. The former case?, it may b? argued, come within the decisions which hold that a suit which only seeks to prevent or restrain a trespass upon �property or person by one who happens to be a stat? officer, but is proceeding in violation of the Constitution of the United State?, is not a suit against a State within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment, but a suit against the trespasser or wrongdoer. But the authority of the Federal court to pro- tect one against a trs?pass committed or about to be com- mitted by a state officer in violation of the Constitution of the United State? is vei'y different from the power now as- serted, and recognized by this court as existing, to shut out a sovereign State from its own courts by the device of .for- bidding its Attorney General, under the penalty of fine and imprisonment, from appearing in such courts in its behalf. Th? mere/,-/?/ng o! a s?/t on beha/! o! a State, b? as Attor? Genera/, cannot (this court has decided in the A?t?rs case) make that officer a trespasser and individually liable to the
�
