The court seems to have overlooked this obvious fact
in Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad Company v. Mis-
souri Railroad and Warehouse Commission.* In that case,
a petition for removal to the federal court, on the ground of
diverse citizenship, of an action brought under a statute by
the State railroad and warehouse commissioners for an in-
junction to compel obedience to an order, was denied by the
State court on the ground that it was a suit by the State;
the decision was reversed on writ of error by the supreme
court. The court was evidently under the influence of
Justice Brewer's queer idea that the governmental interest of
a state in the enforcement of its laws is not such an interest
as to make it a party to a suit.*^ This idea was evolved to
meet a conceived necessity of explaining a case like Reagan
V. Farmers Loan and Trust Company, to enjoin suits to
enforce rates, as not a suit against the State. But the
proper explanation of such a case is not that the State
has not sufficient interest to be a party ,• but that, despite
such interest, the agents of a State may be restrained
from violating constitutional rights.^ The idea of Justice
Brewer is negatived by the everyday fact of criminal
proceedings by the state to enforce its laws, and especially
by such cases as In Re Debs,® in which the state brings
suit in equity to enforce its governmental rights and

»2oo U. S. 273.
« 16 Wall. 244,

» 185 u. s. 373.
* 183 u. s. 53.
•Previously expressed by him in Reagan v. Farmers L. & T. Co.,
154 U. S. 362.
