Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/151

 209 U. 8. 8yU&bua. While the courts cannot oontrol the xerci of the disoretion of an executive officer, an injunetion preventln uoh officer rom enforcir an Unconsti. tuUonsl s,tute i not an interference with Iris discretion. The Attorney General of the State of Minn/ota, under his oommon lw power snd the state statutes, has the general suthority imposed upon him of enforcin constitutional statutee of the State and is a proper party defendant to s suit brought to prevt the enforcement of & gate statute on the Eround of it unconstitutionality. While a Federal court cannot interfere in a criminal ce already pendin in & state court, sad while, ss &  role,  court of equity cannot en- join criminal proeeedings, thoee rules do not apply when imoh proceedings aze brought to enforce sa alleged unoonetitutional state etarote, after the uncotitutionaltty thereof has become the subject of inquiry in  auit pandin in s Federal court whieh h first obtained jurisdiction thereover; snd under such eircumstance the Federal court has the right in both civil �d orlmtna]  to hold and maintain suoh jurisdiction to the exclusion of all otler courts. While .la.E a state o/]/cer who h no oonnection with the enforcement o an act sllel to be unconstitutional �pty defendsat is marely m.I.-in. him a prty a  representative of the'State, and theby amount to .ki the State a party within the prohibition of the Eleventh Amend- met, individuals, who, as officers of the 8tat, se clothed with some duty in  to.the enforcnet of the laws of the State, and who threaten and re about to oommenoe an action, either civil or criminal, to enforce an unoontitutional etai statute my be enioined from so doin by i Under such conditions a re involved in this case the Federal court may jo/n an individual or  tate officer from enforcing s state statute on acoount of its unconsi}tutionality, but it may not restrain the state court from ating in any case brought before it either of �civil or criminal nture, or prevent any investigt/on or actio by  d jury. An injunotm by & Federal court sJnst s state court would violate the whole heme of this Govemment,.snd it doee not follow that because an indiAdual may be enjoined from doin certain thins  eot may be No lsquaie reaedy t hw, suffient to prevent  court of equity from act- i, exis in i ce'where the enforcemt of an unconstitutional stat rate statute would require the oomp]{ntn% to' e/rry ii.,hidi a. eoll- fisctory rate if it oomplied with the statute and ubject it to exoessive pedti in ee it did not comply therewith and its validity was finally While  common eartier sued at oommon law for penalties under, or on in- dictmet for violation of, a state rate statute might interpo s a delete the unecetitutionality of the tatut oa aooount of the oonfcatory eharaoter of the rs, res l:mecrlbed, e. jury cannot intelligently pa upon �ueh a matter; the proper method is to determine the constitutionality of the statute in  wur of equity in whioh t opinic of experts may be

�