OCR Text |
Show Mississippi River Litigation Missouri v. Illinois 180 U.S. 208 (1901) In January 1900, the State of Missouri filed in this court a bill of complaint against the State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago, a corporation of the latter State * * *. In March 1900, came the defendants and filed a demurrer to the bill of complaint * * *. On November 12, 1900, the case came on to be heard on bill and demurrer, and was argued by counsel. Mr. Justice Shiras, after making the foregoing statement, de- livered the opinion of the court. This cause is now before us on the bill of complaint and the demur- rer thereto. The questions thus presented are two: First, whether the allega- tions of the bill disclose the case of a controversy between the State of Missouri and the State of Illinois and a citizen thereof, within the meaning of the Constitution and statutes of the United States, which create and define the original jurisdiction of this court; and, second^ whether, if it be held that the allegations of the bill do present such a controversy, they are sufficient to entitle the State of Missouri to the equitable relief prayed for. The question whether the acts of one State in seeking to promote the health and prosperity of its inhabitants by a system of public works, which endangers the health and prosperity of the inhabitants of another and adjacent State, would create a sufficient basis for a controversy, in the sense of the Constitution, would be readily an- swered in the affirmative if regard were to be had only to the language of that instrument. "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be mader under their authority, ... to controversies between two or more States, between a State and citizens of another State. . . . In all cases,... in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction." Constitution, Article 3. As there is no definition or description contained in the Constitu- tion of the kind and nature of the controversies that should or might arise under these provisions, it might be supposed that, in all cases wherein one State would institute legal proceedings against another, the original jurisdiction of this court would attach. 703 |