The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1902-04-20

the court, speaking through Mr.. Justice
Shiras. said: 'TThe cases cited show that
such Jurisdiction has been exercised in
cases involving boundaries and jurisdie-
tion over lands and their inhabitants, and
in cases directly affecting the property
rights and interests or a state. But such
cases manifestly do not cover the entire
field in which such controversies may
arise. ard for which the Constitution has
u ovided a remedy; and it may be object
ionabe and. indeed, impossible. for the
court TO anticipate by definition what
controversies can and what cannot bc
brought within the original jurisdiction
of this court. An inspection of the bill
CiscIoses the nature of the injury COM
plained Of is such that an adequate rem
coy can only be found in this court at
the suit of the State OF Missouri 1t is
true that the question of boundary is
involved. nor of direct property rights
belonging TO the complaining State. but
it must surely be conceded, that il the
health and comfort of the inhabitants
Of a state are threatened. the State is the
proper party to represent and defend
Them. If Missouri were an independent
she could seek a remedy by negotiation.
end that falling force. Diplomatic powers
and the right to make war having been
surrendered to the general government.
Il was to be expected that upon the lat
ter would be devolved the duty of provid-
ing a remedy and that remedy, we think.
is found in the constitutional provisions
we are considering. The allegations of the
bill plainly present such case. The
health and comfort OF the large commun-
itics inhabiting these parts Of the state
situate on the Mississippi river are not
alone concerned. but contagious and ty-
rhoidal diseases introduced in the river
communities may spread themselves
fhrouehoCt the territory Of the State
Moreover. substantial impairment Ct the
health and prosperity Of the towns and
cities Of the state situate on the Missis-
sippt river including its commercial me
tropolis. would injuriously affect the en-
tire state. That suits brought by individ-
uals. each Tor personal injuries. threat
eued or received. Mould be wholly made
ouate AMI d'sproportionate remedies. re-
cures no argUu eDt'
As viii be perceived. the court there
ruled that the mere fact that a state
had no pecuniary interest in tho controv-
crsy would not defeat the original juris-
diction OF this court. which might be in
voked by the State Is parens patriaz.
trustee guardian OF representative II
en- or considerable portion Of It's citi-
zens- and that The threatened pollution
OF q he waters or river flowing be-
tween States. under the authority e one
az them. thereby putting the health and
comfort OF the citizens OF the other IN
jeopardy presented cause az action
.usticiabie under the Constitution
L. the case before Us. the state OF Kan
sas files her biH rs representing and on
heial. % her Citizens. IS Wen as in viz
dicauon % her alleged rights as an IN
.ividuai owner. AMI seeks relief "a re-
spect OF being deprived OF the waters of
the river accustomed 10 TOW through ard
across the state. ard The consequent des-
truoton of the property Of herself and
o. heC citizens and INJURY 10 the.r health
9 80 comfort The action complained q
IS state aet,oa and nor the action # state
officers it ahuse - thr-- power.
The state - Colorado contends rh1t.
- sovereign and inl suendeat state.
$40 is justified. 81 her geographical sit-
a-i5u sad material veif1rs demand Il
81 Der Judgment. in consuming Tor lez-
~ eial purposes an the waters within Der
ooun1aries, and that ~ the sources q
'he Arkansas river are ln Colorado. sh-
'uay absoiuteiy .aud wholly deprive kan
sas aHd hsr citizens % a7y use cr ans
share in the EateIs of THAI river she
SAYS that she occupies towsr5 the state
~ Kansas ms szne position that Foreign
States Occupy towards each other. al