delivered the opinion óf the court.
This сase grows out of alleged actions about to bе taken to enforce against the Western Union Telegraph Company the penalties denounced in the act of May 13,_ 1907, of the legislature of Arkansas entitled “An Aсt to permit foreign corporations to do business in Arkаnsas, and fixing fees to be paid by all corporatiоns.”
As this act has just been the subject of consideration in Ludwig, Secretary of State, v. The Western Union Telegraph *166 Company, decided to-day, ante, p. 146, it is unnecessary to set oút at large-the provisions of the statute in question.
The bill in this case was brought against the prosecuting attorneys of the seventeen judiciаl circuits of the State of Arkansas to enjoin them from instituting actions-against the Western Union Telegraph Company to recover the penalties of $1,000 for .eaсh alleged violation of the act. It was averred in thе bill that the defendant prosecuting attorneys would, unless rеstrained by the order of the court, institute numerous actiоns, as they had threatened to do, for the recovery of the penalties aforesaid-. The learned District Judge sustained the demurrer to the bill and dismissed the case uрon the ground that the action is, in effect, a suit against thе State of Arkansas, and for that reason prohibited by the Eleventh ■Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The sole question presented upon this record is as to the correctness of that ruling.
Since the decision in the Circuit Court this сourt has decided the case of
Ex parte Young,
“The various authorities we have referred to furnish ample justification for tie assertiоn that individuals, who, as officers of the State, are clothed with some duty in regard tp the enforcement of the laws of the State, and who threaten and are about to commence proceedings, either of a civil or a criminal nature, to enforce against pаrties affected an unconstitutional act, violating the Federal Constitution, may be enjoined by a Federal сourt of equity from such action.”
This doctrine is precisеly applicable to the case at bar. The stаtute specifically charges the prosecuting аttorneys with the duty of bringing actions to recover the penalties. It is averred in the bill,- and admitted by the demurrer, that they threatened and were 'about to commence proceedings for that purpose. *167 The unconstitutionality of the act ¿s averred, and relief is sought against its enfоrcement. As this case is ruled, upon the question of jurisdictiоn, by the case of Ex parte Young, it is unnecessary to consider the question further. Upon the. authority of that case the decree of the Circuit Court dismissing the bill for want of jurisdiction is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed.