484 OCTOBER TERM? 1907. Opinion oi the Court. 209 U.S. their attorneys, except that the question of jurisdiction was argued on the motion for preliminary injunction, it appearing to the court from the face of the bill that this suit is, in effect? a suit against the Stats of Michigan within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and that, therefore, this suit does not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy properly within the jurisdic- tion of a Federal court. '? The court expressed its reason for its action in an opinion as follows: "Upon examination of the authorities cited upon the argu- ments had in this cause upon the matters above related, it is clear that the case of Arb?k/e v. Blackburn, Dairy and Food Comm?sio?v ol Ohio, 113 Fed. Rep. 616 (C. C. A.), is conclusive against the jurisdiction of a court of equity over the mattsrs set forth in the bill. It is argued in behalf of complainants that the ease at bar is differentiated from that decision of the Court of Appeals in the case iust cited. It is not perceived that there is any substantial difference in the facts of thc two cases which would exclude the application of Arbuckle v. B/ackburn. That case is conclusive that this court has no jurisdiction to enter- tain a suit of this nature, and the only order which can be made in this case, notwithstanding the entry of the order pro con?e?so, is one for a dismissal of the bill for want of iurisdiction." �Arbuckle v.' Blackburn was appealed to this court, but the appea! was dismissed, on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was" 'dependent entirely upon the opposite parties to the suit or controversy being . citizens of different States,' and the decree of the Circuit ?)?rt of Appeals was final." The questions passed on by the latter court were not considered or decided. 191 U.S. 405. The Attorney General of the State, who appears as counsel for the appellee, does not contend that this is a suit against the Stats. He says: "Counsel for defendant did not claim in the Circuit Court, and do not now claim, that this proceeding is a suit against the State. It is our contention that under the de-
�
