Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/165

 z lmr YOUNG. 09 U.S. Argument for Respondent. Fed. Rep. 199; Coneter v. Weir, 127 Fed. Rep. 897; Cov2t v. Fargo, 127 Fed. P, ep. 912; Hilcheen v. Smith, 140 Fed. Rep. 983; Smith v. A/exander, 146 .Fed. Rep. 106; Tph Co. v. Anderson, 154 Fed. Rep. 95. By leave of court, Mr. Edward B. Whitn filed a brief herein as amicus curitr, in,support of petitioner's contentions as to the Eleventh Amendment. With him on this brief was Mr. Abd E. B/ackmar. Mr. Charles W. Blmn, Mr. Jared How and Mr. J. F. McGee, with whom Mr. Frank B. Kellogg, Mr. Cordenia A. Mr. Robert E. Olds, Mr. Stiles W. Burr, M. Pierc Burly-, Mr. William D. Mitchell and Mr. William A. Lanvazter were on the briefs, for respondent: The obiections which petitioner makes against the validity of the iniunctional order re matters which nnot he inquired into on writ of ha/as corp. Where the contempt, the punishment for which is under revi ew in a habo corp proceeding, consist of the violation of an order or decree of a court, the commitment will be sus- tained unless it is found that the order or decree disobeyed wa absolutely 'void because the court wa wholly without jurisdiction or power to make it. The proceeding being in the nature of a collateral attack upon the order or judgmen which has been disobeyed, the inquiry 'is limited to the question of U.S. 731, 757; In re Wf2on, 140 U.S. 575, 583. Among the very numerous cases which deal with this ques- tion the following are most nearly in point: Ez trte Watkins, U. 8. 731, 756; I e Wi/on, 140 U.S. 575, 582; Iri re Del- gado, 140 U. 8. 586; In re Sdmeid, 148 U.S. 162; In re Fred- -/ch, 149 U.S. 70, 76; In re T!l, 149 U. $van, 150 U.S. 637, 648; In re Chapman, 156 U.S. 211; In Lnon, 166 U. g. 548: Iv re McKenzie, 180 U. 8. 536.

�