The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-01-29
TIE DEMURRERs ovERRULED.
Action of the Supreme Court in the
Chicago Drainage Canal Case.

The Supreme Court yesterday oyeTruled
the demurrers interposed by the State OF
Illinois and the Chicago Sanitary Drainage
Board to the complaint filed by the State
of Missouri in that court, as an original
proceeding seeking an injunction against
the use of the canal intended to drain the
sewage of the city of Chicago by way of
the Desplaines and Illinois rivers into the
Mississippi River.
The bill was fled by the State of Mis-
souri,. through it's executive and law off,
GERS. said Mr.. Justice Shiras, announcing
the opinion and judgment of the court,
against the State of Illinois and the Sani-
tary Drainage Board, whose existence was
authorized by act of the Illinois Lesisla
ture. asking for an Injunction against the
use of the canal for the purpose named.
The ground upon which the bill rested
was that by the depositing of sewage Of
Chicago in the Mississippi River the health
of the cities of Missouri along the river
were placed in jeopardy. and other injuries
sustained such as the loss OF stock de-
prived Of their source OF drink. AID the
interference with the water supply OF cit
les and towns along the banks OF the river
Demurrers were filed by both the State Of
Illinois and the Drainage Commission
raising these questions:
Was the State Of Missouri proper par
ty to the complainant? The court, said Jus
tice Shiras was of the opinion that it was
and that it properly represented in the bill
its inhabitants.
Was Illinois a proper and necessary de-
PENDANT to proceedings relating only to
acts Of the board of drainage commission
ers2 In a case Of this kind. said the court.
involving efforts to maintain the operation
of public works authorized by its legisla-
ton, Illinois had right to be heard and
to interpose a demurrer TO the bill Hay-
ing this right the State was properly made
a party to the suit.
Mr. Justice Shiras, in conclusion. said:
"Our conclusion, therefore, is that the de-
murrers filed by the respective defendants
cannot be sustained. We do not wish to
be understood as holding that in a case
like the present one. where the injuries
complained Of grow out of the prosecution
OF a public work, authorized by law,
court of equity ought to interpose by way
Of preliminary OF interlocutory 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 OF a bill alleging in
explicit terms that damages and irrepara-
bic injury will naturally and necessarily
be occasioned BY acts OF the defendants
and when the defendants have chosen to
have their rights disposed of, so far as
the present hearing Is concerned upon the
assertions of this bill We fully agree
with the contention that 1t is settled that
an injunction to restrain a nuisance viii
issue only in cases where the fact of the
nuisance is made OUT upon determinate and
evidence; that il the evidence
be conflicting and the injury be doubtful.
that conflict and doubt will be ground for
en- injunction; and that. where
by injunction is sought to
restrain that which is apprehended will
create a nuisance Of which its complainant
may complain, the proofs must show such
a state of facts as will manifest the dan
ger to be real and immediate. But such !
observations are not relevant to the case /
as II is now before US.
THE demurrers are overruled and leave !
is given TO the defendant to file answers |
10 the bill"
For Justices Harlan. White and himself !
Chief Justice Fuller entered a vigorous !
dissent. The case. in their opinion. was I
not such one as was intended by the /
TO give the Supreme Court |
over controversies between /
States. But in any event the demurrers
should be sustained at present, without |
prejudice TO the right of the State OF /
Missouri later to proceed against the !
irainage commission, il the developments |
justified that course.
The result of this decision will be TO |
continue the case in the court for further |
replication. ard he
alIing of testimony. The latter will prob
IDLY be by commissioner or commission
o be appointed by the court.