It may, nevertheless, be now interesting and valuable to re-examine the doctrine enunciated by Chief Justice Marshall and to inquire whether, after all, it does not embody the true and sound rule which should govern this question, particularly in view of the fact that the decisions which have departed from his reasoning have failed to indicate any definite criterion to guide us in determining when a suit against a state officer is and when it is not to be deemed a suit against the state within the true meaning of the eleventh amendment. The question must be considered as if the jurisdiction of the federal courts had never been extended to suits by an individual against a state. The controlling inquiry in a suit against a state officer ought logically to be whether the relief or remedy sought can properly be granted in the absence of the state as a party defendant; in other words, whether the state is or is not a necessary and indispensable party; and this inquiry should be determined by the result or burden of the judgment which may be entered. If, for example, the suit is to enjoin the enforcement of an unconstitutional statute regulating rates or imposing taxes, it must be presumed that the state has not authorized the wrong, that it can have no legal concern or interest in a void enactment of its legislature, and that it cannot be heard to assert any right to have its officers violate the Constitution of the United States for its benefit. If, on the other hand, the relief or remedy sought will affect the property rights or funds of the state, or compel it to pay its debts, or require the specific performance of a contract by the state, or the doing or omitting to do any act by the state itself, the court must needs hold that it is a necessary and indispensable party, and that, as it cannot be sued in a federal court for want of jurisdiction over it, the suit must be dismissed. This dismissal, however, would not be for want of jurisdiction or judicial power over the individual state officer as defendant, nor because the suit was against the state--for the state was not a party and its presence was sought to be dispensed with--but because the state was an indispensable party defendant and the suit could not proceed in its absence. The result of recurring to this view would be to simplify the consideration of many cases and reconcile much conflicting reasoning. We should then have a definite and logical criterion to guide us in cases against state officers. If the court found that the state was not a necessary and indispensable party, the issue in such cases would be narrowed to the inquiry whether the relief should be granted against the officer within established principles of equity, jurisprudence and procedure.