Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/226

 HBW, J., c!m*mJS. 20G U. 8. cer is expressly charged to enforce in the only way be is an- thorizecl to proceedby bringi'ng crimlnsd prosecutions in the name of the State. This is virtually to enjoin the State from proceeding through its duly qualified and acting officers. If the food commhsioner may be enjoined from instituting such prosecutions, why may not the prnsecuting attorney, or any officer of the State clmrged with the execution of the erimlngl laws of the State? While the State may not be sued, if the bill can be sustained against its officers, it is as effectually pre- vented from proceeding to enforce its laws as it would be by an action .d?ectly against the State. This view of the case, in our judgment, is ,mply sustained by the cases above cited, and by the later case of F/tts v. McGhee, 172 U.S. 516. In so far as tb./s action seeks an injunctio int the respondent from proceeding to enforce by prosecution the provisions of the statutes of Ohio above cited, the courts of the United States are deprived of jurisdiction by the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution." In Union Trust Co. v. Stearns, 119 Fed. Rep. 790, 791,.792, 795, the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Rhode I$1and kad occasion to consider the scope of the Eleventh Amendment. The case related to a statute regulating the hours of labor of certain employ& of street railways, and im- posing a fine for. a'violation of its provisions. The court upon an elaborate rview of all the cases in this court dismissed the action. The defendants Stearns and Greenough were, respec- tively, the Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General of the State. They were not named in the act, nor charged with any special duty in connection therewith. The court said: "The purpose of the present bill, in subtance and effect, is to enjoin the State of Rhode Island from the enforcement of a penal statute. Indictments under the act are brought in the name and on behalf of the State .for the protection of the State. These defendants, the Attorney General and his as- sistant, merely represent the State in such proceedings. They are simply the officers and agents of the State. It is not as

�