Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/214

 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. HnA, g., dissenting. 209 U. 8. to the jurisdiction of the court by process served upon its Governor and Attorney General, according to the precedents in such cases. No J'sey v. New York, 5 Pet. 284, 288, 290; Kentud v. Dennison, 24 Ho. 66, 96, 97; Rule 5 of 1884, 108 U.S. 574. If a decree could have been rendered enjolnlng the State from bringing snits against its taxpayers, it would have operated upon the State only through thz oo's who by the present delendants, its Attorney Genera/, and t/ Common- wea/th's attorneys lor t soz-a/wunt/es. For a breach of such an injunction, these officers would be amenable to the court as proceeding in contempt of its authority, and would be liable to punishment thereof by attachment and imprisonment. The nature of the ce, as supposed, is identical with that of the case as actually presented in the bill, with the single ex- coption that the State is not named 'as a defendant. How else an t $tat b /odd by 'ud-/a/ process to br/ng act/o in its name, excpt by coastraining the conduct o! its oeers, its attorneys, and  oentst And il all such ors, attorns, and ants are prsonally subicted to the process o! the court, so as to !orbid their acting in  behall, how can it b said that tl Sto itsel! is not subeted to the iurisdiction o! th court as an actua/and rco/ &!r/antt" Further: "The very object and purpose of the Eleventh Amendment were to prevent the indignity of subjecting a State to the coercive process of judicial tribunals at the instance of private parties. It was thought to be neither becoming nor convenient that the sev- eral States of the Union, invested with that large residuum of sovereignty which had not been delegated to the United States, should be summoned as defendants to answer the com- plaints of private persons, whether citizens of other Stes or aliens, or that the course of their public policy and the administration of their public affairs should be subject to and controlled by the members of judicial tribunals without their consent, and in favor of individual interests. To secure the manifest purposes of the constitutional exemption guaran-

�