Case Name: Wisconsin et al. v. Illinois et al.; Michigan et al. v. Same; and New York et al. v. Same
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1932-12-19
Citations: 287 U.S. 578
Docket Number: No. 5; No. 8; No. 9
Parties: Wisconsin et al. v. Illinois et al.; Michigan et al. v. Same; and New York et al. v. Same.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 287
Pages: 578–579

Head Matter:
No. 5, original.
No. 8, original.
No. 9, original.
Wisconsin et al. v. Illinois et al.; Michigan et al. v. Same; and New York et al. v. Same.
Argued December 5, 6, 1932.
Order entered December 19, 1932.

Opinion:
Upon consideration of the return of the defendants in the above-entitled causes to the rule issued October 10, 1932, requiring them to show cause why they have not taken appropriate steps to effect compliance with the requirements of the decree of this Court in these causes dated April 21, 1930 (281 U. S. 696), and of the argument had thereon,
It is ordered that these causes be referred to Edward F. McClennen, Esquire, as a Special Master, with directions and authority to make summary inquiry and to report to the Court on or before April 1, 1933,
(1) as to the causes of the delay in obtaining approval of the construction of controlling works in the Chicago River and the steps which should now be taken to secure such approval and prompt construction;
(2) as to the causes of the delay in providing for the construction of the Southwest Side Treatment Works, and the steps which should now be taken for such construction or, in case of a change in site, for the construction of an adequate substitute;
(3) as to the financial measures on the part of the Sanitary District or the State of Illinois which are reasonable and necessary in order to carry out the decree of this Court.
[This order also authorized the Special Master to employ clerical help; to fix times and places for taking evidence; to issue subpoenas to witnesses, including those of his own selection, and to administer oaths. There were other provisions as to the printing and hearing of his report; as to the-fixing and charging of his pay and allowances; and permitting another appointment by the Chief Justice in case of a failure to accept or a vacancy during recess.]
Messrs. Henry N. Benson, Attorney General of Minnesota, Gilbert Bettman, Attorney General of Ohio, and Raymond T. Jackson, with whom Messrs. John W. Reynolds, Attorney General of Wisconsin, Herbert H. Naujoks, Assistant Attorney General, Herman L. Ekern, and Paul W. Voorhies, Attorney General of Michigan, were on the brief, for plaintiffs. Messrs. William Rothmann and Joseph B. Fleming, with whom Messrs. Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General of Illinois, and Frank Johnston, Jr., were on the brief, for defendants.