Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/176

 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. The case before the. t Court proceeded lipon the theory that the orders-and acts heretofore mentioned would, i enforced, violate rights of the complin,nts protected by the latter Amendment. We l. hlnlr thst whatever the rights of complainants may be, they are ls,gely fountled upon that. Amendment, but & decision of this esso does not require an ew*mlnation or deeion'.of. the question whether its doption in any wy altered or limited the effect of the earlier Amend~ ment. We may assume that each exists i full force, and that we must give to the Eleventh Amendment all the. effect it naturally would have, without cutting it down or rendering its m,m!n any more narrow tlum the lsauage, fairly inter- preted, would warrant. It applies to a suit brought at&lust  State by one of its own citiseus as well as to a suit brought by a citizen of another State. H v.//mo, 134 U.S. 1. It was-topted alter the decision of this eourt in holm v. (eor/a (1705), 2 Dull. 419 where it was held that State might be sued by  citizen of another State. Since that time there have been re,my cases decided in this court involv- ing the Eleventh Amendment, aanong them being 0m v. U,/ted $ta Ba, (184), O Wheat. 78, 846, 87, which eld that the Amendment applied only to thoe suits in which the State wa a party on the record. In the subsequent case of o o!  v. Mad,o (15), I Pet. 110, 12, that holding was somewhat enlarged, and Chief ,lustice Mar- shall, delivering the opinion of the court, while cith!g 0shorn v. Un/ted $ Ban/c, ura, id that where the claim was made, as in the case then before the court, against the Governor Georgia a governor, and the demand was made upon him, not personally, but offcinlly (for moneys in the treasul, y of the State and for slaves in possession of the state government), the State might be considered as the party on the record (pae 12,3), and therefore the suit could not be maintained. Dav/ v. u!/, 16 Wall. 203, 220, reiterates the rule of 0- bo v. Unid $ Banjo, so far as concerns the right $4 en- join a state officer from executing a state law in conflict with

�