Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-01-28
AGAINST CHICAGO CANAL
MIssOURI'S CONTENTION SUSTAINED
IN HIGHEST TRIBUNAL.
Decision of the Supreme Court Hand
ed Down by Justice Shiras-lhree
of the Justices Dissent.

The United States Supreme Court today
rendered an opinion in the case of the Chi
cago drainage canal, Overruling the de-
rnurrers filed in the case by the state OF
Illinois and the Chicago drainage canal dis-
trict board. The proceeding was brought oA
the state of Missouri against the state o'
Illinois and the drainage board, the emu
sought being to prevent the use of the caiai
because of its supposed pollution OF 'he
drinking water Of st. Louis.
The effect of the decision is TO sus'"i''
the contention of the state OF Missouri. "'
opinion was handed down by Justice ohlr d..
The chief justice and Justices Harlan anu
White united in a dissenting opinion
In his opinion Justice Shlras cl.eo ~ .
original bill and the demurrer IN tle cas-,
Then taking up the case, he SAID that wv
questions are presented in it. Inc mr. W. ".
these was whether the allegations Oh .he
bill disclose the case or a contIoNeiss =
tween the state of Missouri and the state OF
Illinois and a citizen thereof Wlthh tn7
meaning of the Constitution ana the sta.
utes of the United States when create an. anu
define the original JurlSGlclion 5 IL II he
court y and the second, whether II II pe
held that the allegations of the Dill 90 pre-.
sent such controversy they are . .t,,,i.
to entitle the state OF missouri u 'iie Wv"
table relief prayed for? ,;,+s
In passing upon the first OF these ponls
the court presented the result or the eNain-
ination of numerous authorities, sayins, III
conclusion: AN inspection Oh .he plii uls
closes that the nature OF the injury 11,m,
nIained of Uhe pollution of the drinking
water of the people of Missouri py the ue
nosit of the sewage of chicago lhto the
Mississippi river through the drainage canei
and the Illinois riveD is such thal an .ue- .,l.
nuate remedy can only be found IN thls
corrt at the suit of the state OF Missouri
II is true that no question of boundary IS
involved, nor of direct property rights pe-
longing to the complainant Stale. pul =.
must surely be conceded that, If the health
and comfort Of the inhabitants of state
are threatened, the state is the proper parry
to represent and defend them. ~ is
health and comfort or large comliu uliIttes ,
inhabitine those parts Of the state situated
on the Mississippi river are not alone con-
cerned but contagious and typholual JUS
eases introduced into river comiilu hlsles @
NAV spread themselves throughout lne ,el
rit0ry of the state. Moreover, substantial !
Impairment of the health and prosperity OF
the towns and cities of the state situated
on the Mississippi. including its commercial
metropolis would njuriously affect the en-
tire state.
Demurrers Not Sustained.
Continuing he said that the rellef prayed
for by the bill was not merely against the
creation of a nuisance, but also against us
maintenance. "Our conclusion, therefore,
is he went on, That the demurrers filed
by the respective defendants cannot pe sus-
tained We do not wish to be understood
as holding that in a case like the present
one. where the injuries complained OF gro"
out of the prosecution of a pupllc WORK, au-
thorized bv law a court of equity ought 10
internose by way of preliminary or inter
locutorv Injunction, when it is denied by
answer that there is any reasonable
foundation for the charges contained In the
bill. We are dealing with the case or Dill
alleging In explicit terms that damages
and irreparable injury will naturally ana
necessarily be occa stoned By acts OF the de-
PENDANTS and when the defendants nave
chosen 10 have their rights disposed or 80
far as the present hearing Is concerned
unon the assertions of this bill. we ruHy
aprea with the contention that 1t IS settled
that an Injunction to restrain nuisance
will issue only In cases where the fact OF
the nuisance is made out upon determinate
and satisfactory evidence; that II the evil
dence be conflicting and the injury pe
doubtful that conflict and doubt Will be
ground for Withholding an injunction; ana
that. where interposition by injunction IS
sought to restrain that which is apprehend-
ed will create a nuisance of which Its COM
plainant may complain, the proofs must
show such a state of facts as Will manlrest
the danger to be real and immediate. But
such observations are not relevant to the
case as it is now before us.
THE demurrers are overruled and leave
Is given to the defendant to file answers to
the bill.