OCR Text |
Show -99- tributaries of the Mississippi constituting a "Lakes-to-the Gulf Waterway" which only incidentally aided the Sanitary District in disposing of its sewage* Canada, unable and doubtless unwilling to become a party to this liti- gation, joined the controversy in effect on the side of the lake States by renewed and more vigorous diplomatic protests at Washington against the Chicago diversion and by unofficially lending aid in the preparation of evi- dence. The Court appointed Honorable Charles Evans Hughes as special master ^93c much testimony was taken before him and finally his report was made l93^ sus- taining the claims of the lake States, establishing as fact the lowering of the level of the Great Lakes by the Chicago diversion with resulting serious injury to navigation and to riparian property in the lake States, for the primary purpose of sanitation and only incidentally for the promotion of navigation between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi. To this report the de feated States promptly took exceptions, which were elaborately argued and sup- ported by briefs abounding in fact, law, rhetoric and prophecy In the number of States before the Court and the magnitude of interests involved, this was and still is the greatest controversy over sovereign rights in American waters which the Court has ever been called upon to consider But the decision ^^+ true to precedent, was disappointing in scope. It was decided that Congress has not authorized diversion of water from Lake Michigan for a Lakes-to-the Gulf Waterway or for purposes other than the main- tenance of navigation in the Chicago River as a part of the Port of Chicago; Sup. Ct. 713, 50 L. Ed. ll60 (1906), supra, footnote #l42 ^ Wisconsin v* Illinois, 271 U.S. 634, 46 Sup. Ct. 35U, 70 L. Ed. 1132 (June 7, 1926). "^Srisoonsin v. Illinois, 1+8 Sup. Ct. 123, 72 L. Ed. 1015 (Nov. 23, 1927). 1^Visbonsin v. Illinois, 278 U.S. 367, I4.9 Sup. Ct. 163, 73 Lo Ed. U2& (1929)* Among other things the Court saidf "It is further argued by complainants that while the power of Congress extends to the protection and improvement of navigation, it does not extend, to its destruction or to the creation of obstructions to navigable capacity. This Court has said that while Congress in the exercise of its power may adopt any means having some positive relation to the control of navigation and not otherwise inconsistent with the Constitution, United States v. Chandler- Dunbar Co., 229 U.S. 53* 62, it may not arbitrarily destroy or impair the rights of riparian owners by legislation which has no real or substantial relation to the control of navigation or appropriateness to that end* United States v. River Rouge Improvement Co., 269 U.S. Ij.ll, J4.I95 Port of Seattle -v. Oregon & Vtfashington R. R.s 255 U.S. 56, 63. . . . "The intervening States on the same side with Illinois, in seeking a recognition of asserted rights in the navigation of the Mississippi, have answered denying the rights of the complainants to an injunction. They really seek affirmatively to preserve the diversion from Lake Michigan in the interest of such navigation and interstate commerce though they have made no express |