140 OCTOBER TERM, 1?07. for l?spond?t. 209 U. St. That the injunctional order, for violation of which the pe- titioner was adiudged in contempt, was not void for want of jurisdiction, and could not be ignored or disobeyed with im- punity, as an absolute nullity, and is not subject to collateral attack in any form of proceeding, see Illinois Central v. Adarnz, 180 U.S. 28. As to what matters are open for review upon a writ of habeas . corpus is Hkewise a question of procedure; and the principles invoked in the Adam? caze are equally applicable to either question. The case involves a Federal question sufficient {o sustain juris4i.'etion upon that ground alone. The penalty provisions of the law attacked are violafive of the Fourteenth Amendment; as to this see Cotting v. Kan- ?az City Stock Yaniz Company, 183 U.S. 79, 99-102; Con- solidated ?as Company v. Mal?, 146 Fed. Rep. 150; Ez parte Wood, 155 Fed. Rep. 190. The rates fixed are confiscatory and the legislation is there- fore unconstitutional and void under the Fourteenth Amend- ment. Haztings v. Ames, 68 Fed. l?ep. 726. Neither the suit itself, nor the injunction at?inst petitioner is within. the prohibition of the Eleventh Amendment. .Thedoctrine of Fgtt? v. MeGbee, 172 U.S. 516, if held ap- plicable to the facts of the present case, '?s not supported by any other decision of this court, is inconsistent with the uni- form current of authority, and has been overruled by later decisions of this court.' Davis & Farnum M/g. Co. v. Los An- gales, 189 U.S. 207, 218; Dobb?as v. Los Angeles, 195 U.S. 223, 241. F?ttz v. McGhee is also inconsistent with the subee? quent case of P?ut v. Star, 168 U.S. 537, and?ther still more recent cases. The case of In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443, is not in point and dom not support the doetrine of F/ltz v. McGhze in any direct sense. The distinction between the case of In re A?ter? and cases like the caee at bar has been clearly drawn by this court itself in the case of Pennoyer v. McC'oanau?hy, 140 U.S. 1, 9, 10.
�
