Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/197

 09 U./I. HULtN, ,l., dissent, in. act of April 18, 1907. The court likewise enjoined the defend- ant Young, "as Attorney General of the State of Minnesota," from "taking or instituting any action, suit, step or proceed- ing to enforce the penalties and remedies specified in said acts or either thereof, or to compel obedience to said act or com- pliance therewith or any part thereof." A like injunction was granted against the defendant shippers. On the next day, September 24, 1907, the State of Minne- sota "on the relation of Edward T. Young, Attorney Gen- eral," commenced an action in one of its own courts against the Northern Pacific Railway Company--the only relie! sought being a mandamns ordering the company to adopt, publish, keep for public inspection, and put into effect, as the rates and charges to be maintained for the transportation of freight between stations in Minnesota, those named and specified in what is known as chapter 232 of the Session Laws of Minne- sota for 1907. That was the act which it was the object of the Perkins-Shepard suit in the Federal court to strike down and nullify. An alternative writ of mandamns, such as the State asked, was issued by the state court. The institution, in the state court, by the State, on the rela- tion of its Attorney General, of the mandamns proceeding against the railway company having been brought to the at- tention of the Federal Circuit Curt, a rule was iued against the defendant Young to show cause why he should not be purdshed as for contempt. Answering that rule, he alleged, among otlier' things, that the mandamns proceeding was brought by and on behalf of the State,. through him as its Attorney General; that in every way possible he had objected to such jurisdiction on the ground that the action was com- menced against him solely as the Attorney General for Minne- sota in order to prevent him from instituting in the proper courts civil actions for and in the name of the State to enforce or test the validity of its laws; that there is no other action or proceeding pending or contemplated by this de!endant against said railway company, except said proceedings in mandarnus

�