Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/186

 Opbli d the (urt. conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any mtudty from respons/b/lity to the supteme authority of the United 8tates. See I re Aye,, mu, page 507. It would be an injury to complainant to Barass' it with a mult/pllcity of suit or !it.tion generally in an endeavor to enforce pen- nities under an unconstitutional enactment, and to prevent it ought to be within the juriediction of a court of equity. If the question of unconstitutionality with reference, at least, to the 'Federal Constitut/on be first raised in a Federal court that court,.as we think is shown by the authorities cited here- after, has the right to decide it to the exclus/on of all other courts. The question remains whether the Attorney General had, by the law of the State, so far as concerns tse rate acts, any duty with regard to the enforcement of the same. By his ofclal conduct it seems that he regarded it as a duty con- nected with his o/See to compel the company to obey the com- mod/ty act, for he commenced proceedings to enforce such obed/ence immed/ately after the injunction. hsued, at the risk of being found guilty of contempt by so doing. The duties of the Attorney General, as decided by the Su- preme Court of the State of Minnesota, are created partly by statute and exist partly as at common law. $/a/e em re/. Yoj, N. W..Hep. 269. In the above-tired caseit was held that the Attorney General might institute, conduct and maintain all suits and proceedings he might deem necessary for 'the enforce- ment of the laws of the State, the preeervation of order and the protection. of public rights, and that there were no statu- tory restrictions in that State limiting the duties of the.At- tomey General in such case. Section $ .of chapter 2'27 of the General Laws of Mi,-,esota, 190 (same law, I &q, Revised Laws of nota, 1905),

�