Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/176

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

OCTOBER TERM, 1907. The case before the. ?t Court proceeded lipon the theory that the orders-and acts heretofore mentioned would, i? enforced, violate rights of the compl?in,nts protected by the latter Amendment. We l. hlnlr thst whatever the rights of complainants may be, they are ls,?gely fountled upon that. Amendment, but & decision of this esso does not require an ew*mlnation or deei?on'.of. the question whether its ?doption in any w?y altered or limited the effect of the earlier Amend~ ment. We may assume that each exists i? full force, and that we must give to the Eleventh Amendment all the. effect it naturally would have, without cutting it down or rendering its m?,m!n? any more narrow tlum the lsa?uage, fairly inter- preted, would warrant. It applies to a suit brought at&lust ? State by one of its own citiseus as well as to a suit brought by a citizen of another State. H? v./?/?mo, 134 U.S. 1. It was-?topted alter the decision of this eourt? in holm v. (?eor?/a (1705), 2 Dull. 419 where it was held that State might be sued by ? citizen of another State. Since that time there have been re,my cases decided in this court involv- ing the Eleventh Amendment, aanong them being 0?m v. U,?/ted $ta? Ba,? (18?4), O Wheat. 7?8, 846, 8?7, which ?eld that the Amendment applied only to tho?e suits in which the State wa? a party on the record. In the subsequent case of ?o? o! ? v. Mad,?o (15?), I Pet. 110, 1?2, that holding was somewhat enlarged, and Chief ,lustice Mar- shall, delivering the opinion of the court, while cith!g 0shorn v. Un/ted $? Ban/c, ?u?ra, ?id that where the claim was made, as in the case then before the court, against the Governor Georgia a? governor, and the demand was made upon him, not personally, but offcinlly (for moneys in the treasul, y of the State and for slaves in possession of the state government), the State might be considered as the party on the record (pa?e 12,3), and therefore the suit could not be maintained. Dav/? v. ?u!/, 16 Wall. 203, 220, reiterates the rule of 0?- bo? v. Uni?d $? Banjo, so far as concerns the right $4 en- join a state officer from executing a state law in conflict with