The Madison daily leader. [volume] (Madison, S.D.) 1890-current, 1901-01-29
St. LOUIS WINS
.,cAcO IN THE FIRST
oEF as THE DRAINAGE
CANAL FIGHT.
,e.uaeERs ARE ovERRulec

suprcme Court Decided
w." ne plaintiff Has > Good Case
Question Of Whether the
' e Nuisance Now Goes to
.,e for . Final Set
Element.
.an Jan. 2?.-The United
"as'''" ..,.ne court has rendered an
s'a.' ,a, IN the case OF the eh'easo
opil'o" NAL overrulinE the demur'
dTal"N7 n the case by the state OF
Te's a.d the Chicago drainage
l',a lansJ district board The proceeding '.,'
'a''', ,roaeht BY the state OF MISSOURI
SaS -. state OF Illinois and the
ass'". hoard. the end sought being
.'4 invent the use OF the canal be
/" = - supposed pollution OF the
'''' 49,. water Of st. Louis. The ef'
'''' -. decision Is to sustain the
'' on,.pt.on Of the state OF Missouri.
w. ..,,,an vas handed down by Jus,
,a.iras the chief justice and JUS
" Harlan and White united In a
lsseniiug opinion.
III M aptuton Justice Shiras cited
=. or,elnal bill and the demurrer In
=. ca... Then taking up the case. he
...,,bat two questions were presented
Ill, Tht drst OF these was "Wheth.
n. alteeations OF the bill disclose
~ case II a controversy between the
49,. ~ Missouri and the state OF I'LL
,oi. and a .,!zen thereof within the
r.apiag ef the constitution and tn"
s,r,es ot the United States which
,....e AMI deiinc the original jurisdic.
,o- 3. tits court and the second: !:
.v..,s.~ II I, b. held that the allie.
r,,o-. of the bill do present such Il
far,.,3essy they are sufficient io en-.
n. ~ sta.e of Missouri 10 the relief
,ralei IL
Tra tn first az these points. the
to.-t m seatei tie result OF the cN
q
Ayl.g n Conclusion
An Injunction the Only Remedy.
An Inspection OF the bill discloscs
that ,ae haiur" Of the injury com
Jla.nei II the pollution OF the drink
ing water ~ people Of Missouri by the
deposit Il tn sewage OF Chicago into
til Mississippi river through the
tralnaee canal and the Illinois rivcr)
Is such that an adequate remedy can
only be found in this court at the suit
G u" STATE II Missouri. II Is true
that no question Of boundary Is in.
VOWED. Tor ~ direct property rights
belonging 10 the complainant state.
bli II met surely be conceded that.
u u" health and comfort OF the inhab-
Nahts Of state are threatened. the
sldle n proper party tn represent ani
s"'eAd them. The health and comfort
'! lafs" communities inhabiting those
paf'S 81 tAe state situated on the Mis-
f'Ns'pNi liver are not alone concerned
'I' contagious and typhoidal diseases
'""oi4e'a into river communities may
'~'aa themselves throughout the ter
'''o'l y the state Moreover substan'
"'' impairment of the health and pros
'"'t' q the towns and cities OF the
''"'' situated on the Mississippi. in
"'NihS is commercial metropolis
Nolli ihinriously affect the entire
state
-, "'S' 'lssing tho contention that the
N"s not on its merits cntitlc the
.'''" % Missouri to the relief prayed
~ Justice Shiras took up the argu
T. ''"' mat tho drainage complained o,
o"9 pfoolematical or contingent
am asked
;, ~ y b. gravcly cont onded tha,
"'' ar" no preventive remedies b,
,rt VI injunction or otherwise against
~, inflicted or experienced. bu,
,o., would appear to be the natura
=, ~ acts Of the defendant. which
d. "'''nits or avows II to be his int. n
"0n TO commit?"