?o9 U. 8. Olinion of the Court., cision of the Circuit Court of Appeah in the case of Arbue2/? v. Blackburn, ?upra, a Federal court of equity has ao jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the bill of complaint, viz., that it has no jurisdiction to re?rain the dairy and food commissioner of a State from issuing bulletins or circulars claiming that an arti- cle of food is in violation of the criminal laws of a State." And it is urged that such was the reason given by the court i?. its opinion and order dismissing the bill, and that as the de- rision of the court was right it should not be reversed, because the reason given for it in the certificate was not the correct reason. But we cannot assume that there is inconsistency be- tween the opinion and order of the court and its certificate. We, therefore, accept the latter as expressing the ground of t?e court's action. We would have no jurisdiction on this appeal unless the jurisdiction of the Ch'cuit Court was in ques- tion as a Federal court; and whether the bill presented a case for equitable relief dees not present a question of the jurisdic- tion of the court as a court of the Unite(f States. Blythe v. Hi?c?l?, 173 U.S. 501; Illi?Fis C?gral R. R. Co. v. Ada?s, 180 U.S. 28, 35. Indeed, it is urged by appellant that whether a suit is one against a State is not a question of jurisdiction, but a question on the merits, and ]lli?g?is Central R. R. Co. v. Adams, supra, is cited. That suit was brought by the railroad company against Adams, who was a revenue agent of the State of Mississippi, and the railroad commission of the State, to enjoin the latter from certifying an assessment for taxes on a railroad in which the Illinois Central had an interest and to enjoin the revenue agent from beg?nn;ng any suit br advising any of the municipalities along the line of the road .to bring suit for the recovery of such taxes. The bill was dismissed for want of jurisdiction and the- case was appealed to this court. One of the grounds for the dismissal was, as certified, "that ther? was no jurisdiction in this matter because the bill was a suit against the State of Mississippi and in .?iolatien of the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution o( the United States." We said, by Mr. Jus-
�
