OCR Text |
Show 640 INTERSTATE ADJUDICATIONS Wisconsin v. Illinois 278 U.S. 367 (1929) The first of these bills, filed July 14,1922, by the State of Wisconsin, was amended October 5, 1925, the States of Minnesota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania becoming co-plaintiffs. The amended bill sought an injunction restraining the State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago from causing any water to be taken from Lake Michigan in such manner as permanently to divert the same from the lake. There was a further prayer, that if the Sanitary and Ship Canal should be used as a navigable waterway of the United States and be subject to the same control on the part of the United States as other navigable waterways, the defendants should be restrained from per- manently diverting any water from Lake Michigan in excess of the amount which the Court should determine to be reasonably required for navigation in and through said Canal and the connecting waters to the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers, without injury to the navigable capacity of the Great Lakes and their connecting waters. It was also prayed that the defendants be restrained from dumping or draining into the canal any sewage or waste in such quantity and manner as excessively to pollute and render the canal, the Chicago, Des Plaines, and Illinois Rivers, unsanitary and injurious to the people of the plaintiff States navigating said waterways. To the amended bill the State of Illinois filed a demurrer and the Sanitary District filed its answer, which included a motion to dismiss. The States of Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Louisiana, by leave of Court, became intervening co-defendants and moved to dismiss the bill. The demurrer was overruled and the motions to dismiss were denied, without prejudice. 270 U.S. 634. The intervening defendants and the State of Illinois filed their respective answers. The States of Mississippi and Arkansas were permitted to intervene as defend- ants, and adopted the answers filed by the other interveners. The State of Michigan, on March 8, 1926, filed its bill in this Court against the State of Illinois and the Sanitary District, for the same relief; and the defendants filed their answers on June 1,1926. On October 18, 1926, the State of New York filed its bill in this Court against the State of Illinois and the Sanitary District for the same relief; and on April 18,1927, it was ordered that the answer filed by the defendants in the Michigan suit should be accepted and treated as their answer to the bill of New York, other than the third para- graph. 274 U.S. 712. On May 31, 1927, this paragraph was stricken out, without prejudice. 274 U.S. 488. On June 7,1926, the first cause was referred to Charles E. Hughes, Esq., as Special Master, to take the evidence and report the saiaae to this Court with his findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recom- mendations for a decree, the parties in the Michigan case being granted leave to participate. 271 U.S. 650. Similarleave was granted on Novem- ber 23,1926, to the parties in the New York case. 273 U.S. 642. After hearings, the master made his report, in which he concluded: (1) That a justiciable controversy was presented; (2) that Illinois and the Sanitary District had no authority to make or continue the |