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),
�
