lar notice will be sent to all the jobbers in Ohio, and a sufficient number will be furnished to supply all their salesmen. I might say that the following firms have agreed to accept the law as construed by this department: Andrus, Scofield & Co., Columbus; Dayton Spice Mills, Dayton; Woolson Spice Company, Toledo. W. F. McLaughlin & Co., of Chicago, have agreed to comply with the laws as soon as construed by the court. The only firm that has refused and still refuses to accept the ruling of this department, or abide by the laws of the state as construed by our supreme court, is Arbuckle Bros., of New York.

"Very truly yours,

J. E. Blackburn,

"Columbus, Ohio, February 5, 1901."

"Dairy and Food Commissioner.

Said circular letter is wholly false, in this, to wit: That complainants have not at any time refused to accept the construction of the law of Ohio as construed by the supreme court of the state; and the complainants are informed and believe that the Woolson Spice Company has not agreed to accept the said law as construed by respondent, but, on the contrary, refused, and still refuses, to accept said construction of said law, and still continues to sell coffee prepared and glazed by the processes used by it. That said circular was sent generally to jobbers and dealers in food products in the state of Ohio. That few, if any, of them had inquired of the respondent as therein stated, but said circular was sent to dealers without any such inquiry. That said circular, by falsely and wrongfully singling out complainants as alone refusing to accept the ruling of respondent to abide the laws of Ohio as construed by the supreme court thereof, necessai....y implied that, of the food products manufactured and sold by manufacturers, those made by complainants (particularly the product Ariosa) alone fell short of the standard of purity imposed by said statute; thus wrongfully and falsely implying that Ariosa is inferior in quality, grade, purity, and wholesomeness to the products of other manufacturers, whereas the standard of said Ariosa in the respects stated is at least as high as that of any like product manufactured and sold by like manufacturers. And, unless restrained by order of court, said respondent will issue other and further circulars to dealers of food products in Ohio, in large quantities, cause the same to be widely published and distributed throughout the state and elsewhere, and said subsequent circulars will be directed against the complainants alone, with intent, purpose, and effect of discriminating against complainants and their said product, and to the irreparable injury of the sale thereof, and the trade of complainants, and the good will of their business. By said circular the respondent threatens to accuse complainants and dealers in Ohio in complainants' product of a crime, and to do an injury to the property of complainants, with intent to compel complainants and the dealers in said product to cease from selling and offering for sale the same within the state of Ohio. Such prosecution is threatened by said respondent under his false and erroneous construction of said statute, is without authority of law, and will deprive complainants of their property. of the value of the product already manufactured, and the trade and good will of their business of vending said product within the state of Ohio, without due process of law. That said acts and the menaces and threats have worked, and will continue to work, irreparable injury to the property rights of complainants, and if respondent be permitted to institute or conduct proceedings or prosecutions against the vendors of said product, or be permitted to institute or conduct proceedings or prosecutions against them, will work further irreparable injury to said property rights. Said statute, construed as respondent claims it should be, is in conflict with the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, in that it would deprive complainants of their property, by prohibiting them from selling in Ohio, and dealers in and vendors of food products from purchasing from the complainants, pure food products which are not injurious to health, and will destroy the value of said product as an article of commerce, by prohibiting the sale thereof in the state of Ohio, and would deprive complainants of the just and lawful benefits accruing to them by reason of their property rights in said food product, and largely destroy the mar

ket value of existing stocks of Ariosa in possession of complainants in Ohio and elsewhere, and will deny to complainants and to dealers in said product in the jurisdiction of the state of Ohio the equal protection of the law. Ariosa is manufactured and treated according to the aforesaid process at complainants' factories in New York and Pennsylvania, and not in Ohio. After being so manufactured and treated, it is at said factory packed in said packages, and in said original packages shipped by complainants to Ohio, and sold in said original packages; and said statute, if construed as respondent claims it should be, is a regulation by the state of Ohio of interstate commerce, and is therefore repugnant to and in violation of the third clause of section 8 of article 1 of the constitution of the United States. Owing to the large number of dealers in Ariosa in Ohio who will be prosecuted if said respondent be permitted to carry out his said threats and menaces, a multiplicity of suits will arise, and thereby complainants' pr. perty rights will be determined in litigation to which complainants will not be, and could not be, parties. The interests of such dealers are in many cases not in common with, nor representative of, the interests of complainants. Therefore they are in great and imminent danger that in many such suits and prosecutions no defense will be made, either through lack of interest, or in wrongful collusion and conspiracy with respondent, to the great and lasting injury and prejudice of complainants for which they have no adequate remedy at law. Although such prosecutions shall uniformly result in the acquittal of the person charged, yet, by reason of the multiplicity thereof, said prosecutions will result in deterring many, if not all, dealers in food products in Ohio from dealing in Ariosa.

The bill prays relief as follows: "(1) From stating or charging that complainants' said food product, Ariosa, being a compound of pure, roasted coffee, mixed, treated, coated, and glazed with a preparation of sugar and eggs according to the formula and by the process herein before set forth, is an article of food adulterated within the meaning of said statute, and that the use of complainants' said process of coating and glazing the coffee, constituting the chief ingredient of Ariosa, with a preparation of sugar and eggs, as hereinbefore more particularly described, constitutes a violation of said statute, and that the importation of said Ariosa into Ohio, or the selling of or offering for sale the same, constitutes a violation of said statute; (2) from charging the complainants herein, or any of them, or said firm of Arbuckle Bros., or any dealers in Ariosa, with violating said statute by selling or offering for sale Ariosa, or with adulterating food. in violation of said statute, by reason of the aforesaid treatment and coating of the coffee forming an ingredient of Ariosa with a preparation aforesaid; (3) from charging the complainants, or any of them, or said firm of Arbuckle Bros., with violating the said statute by adopting and using said process of coating above described, or by selling or offering for sale Ariosa so glazed; (4) from charging any dealer in Ariosa with the possession, offering for sale, or sale of an adulterated food product, within the meaning of said statute, in having in their possession, offering for sale, or selling Ariosa so glazed; (5) from menacing and threatening any dealer in Ariosa so glazed with prosecution for having in his possession, offering for sale, or selling such Ariosa; (6) from instituting or commencing against any person, partnership, or corporation having in his, their, or its possession, offering for sale, or selling, Ariosa, any action, suit, proceeding, or prosecution based upon the treatment and coating of the coffee forming an ingredient of said Ariosa with a preparation of sugar and eggs, according to the formula and by the process more particularly above described; and (7) that your orator may have such further relief as to the court shall seem equitable and proper in the premises."

The complainants filed an amendment to the bill as follows: "(20) The wrongful acts which said respondent threatens to do, and, unless restrained, will do, as in complainants' said bill of complaint alleged, will make unmarketable in Ohio, and to a very large extent impair and destroy the market value of, the large stocks of Ariosa which complainants now have on hand in Ohio, and will, to a large extent, deprive them of their said business, and the good will thereof, in Ohio, and greatly injure, if not wholly destroy, the value of the same, and enable complainants' competitors, selling in Ohio

coffees treated by processes similar to, but not identical with, complainants' said process, to obtain complainants' said business, which can only be regained after long time and at great expense; and complainants will be put to other great expense in defending their said property rights in Ohio. And if, pending the final determination of this cause, said respondent shall be permitted to commit the threatened wrongs, the same will, as complainants are informed and believe, damage complainants to the extent of more than one hundred thousand dollars,-an amount largely in excess of respondent's ability to respond in judgment,-and thereby complainants will suffer irreparable injury unless a preliminary injunction shall be granted herein." John De Witt Warner and Clarence Brown, for appellants. Walter F. Brown and E. B. Dillon, for appellee.

Before LURTON and DAY, Circuit Judges, and WANTY, District Judge.

DAY, Circuit Judge, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

As the circuit court dismissed the bill, it is unnecessary to consider the testimony offered in support of the application for a temporary injunction. The matter to be reviewed is the sufficiency of the bill and amendment to warrant the intervention of a court of equity to restrain the defendant as prayed. An analysis of the bill shows the claim to be that respondent, the dairy and food commissioner of the state of Ohio, is proceeding, upon an alleged false and erroneous construction of the statutes of Ohio, to prosecute persons in Ohio dealing in the complainants' product known as "Ariosa," and is giving out the statement that this product is sold in violation of the laws of the state. The act passed March 20, 1884 (2 Bates' Ann. St. Ohio, §§ 4200-4 to 4200-8), provides against the adulteration of foods and drugs, makes it an offense within said state to manufacture for sale, offer for sale, or sell any article of food which is adulterated, within the meaning of the act; and the term "food," used therein, includes all articles. used as food or drink by man, whether simple, mixed, or compound. It is further provided in the act that food shall be deemed to be adulterated, among other things, "if it is colored, coated, polished or powdered, whereby damage or inferiority is concealed, or if, by any means, it is made to appear better or of greater value than it really is." It appears that the coffee of the complainants is coated, after roasting, with a compound of sugar and eggs, for the purpose, as alleged in the bill, of retaining the full strength of the coffee, "preventing the absorption of any injurious or noxious gases or flavors, and settling the same when prepared for consumption"; thus bringing Ariosa within the terms of the Ohio law, which provides that the act shall not apply to mixtures or compounds recognized as ordinary articles or ingredients of articles of food "if each and every article sold or offered for sale be distinctly labeled as a mixture or compound with the name and per cent. of each ingredient therein, and are not injurious to health." It is claimed that notwithstanding Ariosa is thus labeled with a statement of the elements of the compound, and is not injurious to health, the food commissioner is threatening proceedings, and is claiming that the same is within the prohibition of the sixth clause of the statute above quoted, making it an offense to coat an article of food, whereby damage or inferiority is concealed, and the same made to appear better

or of greater value than it really is. It is urged that this statute, "construed as respondent claims it should be," is in conflict with the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, as it deprives the complainants of their property, by prohibiting them from selling it in Ohio, and dealers from selling the same in that state, notwithstanding the same are ordinary articles of food and not injurious to health, and will destroy the market value of the product, and deny to the complainants within the jurisdiction of Ohio the equal protection of the laws. The argument is that conceding, for this purpose, that the statute is constitutional when properly construed and enforced, the respondent's wrongful construction thereof results in an infraction of the constitutional rights of the complainants. This alleged wrong construction, when analyzed, amounts to this: The complainants claim that their compound is not within the terms of the statute. The food commissioner wrongfully claims that it is. Upon this branch of the case the question is, may a court of equity entertain a bill to inquire into this matter, and, if it finds that the complainant is right in its contention, enjoin the food commissioner from instituting proceedings under the laws of Ohio? The jurisdiction of courts of equity has never been carried to this extent in authoritative decisions. On the contrary, the supreme court, in more than one instance, has denied such jurisdiction to a court of equity. The rule is thus stated by Mr. Justice Gray in Re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200-211, 8 Sup. Ct. 482, 488, 31 L. Ed. 402, 406:

"The modern decisions in England, by eminent equity judges, concur in holding that a court of chancery has no power to restrain criminal proceedings unless they are instituted by a party to a suit already pending before it and to try the same right that is in issue there. Attorney General v. Cleaver, 18 Ves. 211, 220; Turner v. Turner, 15 Jur. 218; Saull v. Browne, 10 Ch. App. 64; Kerr v. Corporation of Preston, 6 Ch. Div. 463. Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence, affirms the same doctrine. Story, Eq. Jur. § 893. And in the American courts, so far as we are informed, it has been strictly and uniformly upheld, and has been applied alike whether the prosecutions or arrests sought to be restrained arose under the statutes of the state or under municipal ordinances. West v. Mayor, etc., 10 Paige, 539; Davis v. Society, 75 N. Y. 362; Tyler v. Hamersley, 44 Conn. 419, 422, 26 Am. Rep. 479; Stuart v. Board, 83 Ill. 341, 25 Am. Rep. 397; Devron v. First Municipality, 4 La. Ann. 11; Levy v. City of Shreveport. 27 La. Ann. 620; Moses v. Mayor, etc., 52 Ala. 198; Gault v. Wallis, 53 Ga. 675; Phillips v. Mayor, etc., 61 Ga. 386; Cohen v. Commissioners, 77 N. C. 2; Waters-Peirce Oil Co. v. City of Little Rock, 39 Ark. 412; Spink v. Francis (C. C.) 19 Fed. 670, and 20 Fed. 567; Suess v. Noble (C. C.) 31 Fed. 855."

In the later case of Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U. S. 148, 19 Sup. Ct. 119, 43 L. Ed. 399, the same rule is recognized and enforced. Mr. Justice Shiras, at page 169, 172 U. S., page 127, 19 Sup. Ct., and page 399, 43 L. Ed., speaking for the court, says:

"No case can be found where an injunction against a state officer has been upheld where it was conceded that such officer was proceeding under a valid state statute. In the present case the commonwealth's attorney, in the prosecution of an indictment found under a law admittedly valid, represented the state of Virginia; and the injunctions were therefore, in substance injunctions against the state. In proceeding by indictment to enforce a criminal statute, the state can only act by officers or attorneys, and to enjoin the latter is to enjoin the state. As was said in Re Ayers, 123 U. 51 C.C.A.-9

S. 443, 497, 8 Sup. Ct. 179, 31 L. Ed. 216: 'How else can the state be forbidden by judicial process to bring actions in its name, except by constraining the conduct of its officers, its attorneys, and its agents? And if all such officers, attorneys, and agents are personally subjected to the process of the court, so as to forbid their acting in its behalf, how can it be said that the state itself is not subjected to the jurisdiction of the court, as an actual and real defendant?'"

Upon the authority of this case and others decided in the supreme court, it seems clear that this action cannot be maintained consistently with the eleventh amendment to the constitution, withholding the judicial power of the United States from suits in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or citizens or subjects of any foreign state. In Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 270-287, 5 Sup. Ct. 903, 29 L. Ed. 185, quoted with approval in Re Ayers, supra, it was said "that the question whether a suit is within the prohibition of the eleventh amendment is not always determined by reference to the nominal parties to the record." In the Ayers Case the suit for injunction, which the court held could not be entertained, was brought against the attorney general and treasurers of counties, cities, and towns in Virginia, just as the present case is brought against Joseph E. Blackburn, dairy and food commissioner of Ohio. The injunction sought is against the prosecution of suits in the Ohio courts which are about to be instituted by Blackburn, not in his individual capacity, but as an officer of the state. By the terms of the statute the dairy and food commissioner is an officer of the state expressly charged with the enforcement of all laws against frauds and adulterations or impurities in foods, drink, or drugs, and unlawful labeling in the state of Ohio. It is made his duty by statute to prosecute, or cause to be prosecuted, any person or persons, firm or firms, corporation or corporations, engaged in the manufacture or sale of any adulterated article or articles of food or drink, or adulterated in violation of or contrary to any laws of the state of Ohio. I Bates' Ann. St. Ohio, §§ 409-7, 409-8. It is also provided that food so coated as to conceal damage or inferiority shall be deemed to be adulterated. Paragraph 6 of section 42c0-6, 2 Bates' Ann. St. Ohio. What, then, is the object of the injunction sought in this case? It is no more or less than to restrain the officer of the state from bringing prosecutions for violations of an act which such officer is expressly charged to enforce in the only way he is authorized to proceed, by bringing criminal prosecutions in the name of the state. This is virtually to enjoin the state from proceeding through its duly qualified and acting officers. If the food commissioner may be enjoined from instituting such prosecutions, why may not the prosecuting attorney, or any officer of the state charged with the execution of the criminal laws of the state? While the state may not be sued, if the bill can be sustained against its officers it is as effectually prevented from proceeding to enforce its laws as it would be by an action directly against the state. This view of the case, in our judgment, is amply sustained by the cases above cited, and by the later case of Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U. S. 516, 19 Sup. Ct. 269, 43 L. Ed. 535, in which the subject is fully discussed by Mr. Justice Harlan. In so far as this action seeks an injunction against the respondent from proceeding to