People of State of New York v. State of New Jersey

Decision Date10 March 1919
Docket NumberNo. 3,3
Citation63 L.Ed. 560,39 S.Ct. 261,249 U.S. 202
PartiesPEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Charles E. Hughes, Maurice B. Dean, William A. McQuaid, and William J. O'Sullivan, all of New York City, and Merton E. Lewis, of Rochester, N. Y., for People of State of New York.

Messrs. Adrian Riker, Robert H. McCarter, and Chandler W. Riker, all of Newark, N. J., and John W. Wescott, of Camden, N. J., for defendants.

Mr. Chief Justice WHITE.

This cause came on to be heard at this term and was argued by counsel; and it appearing that the suit was begun by bill filed October 17, 1908, that answer was filed January 24, 1909, and that the cause was put at issue by replication filed November 8, 1909; that the taking of testimony was begun on June 26, 1911, and closed on June 27, 1913, more than five years before the final argument of the cause in this court; and the court deeming it proper that additional and supplemental proofs should be taken for the following purposes:

It is ordered that the defendants may proceed with all convenient dispatch to take the testimony of not exceeding three sanitary or engineering experts, deemed by them best qualified, concerning the following subject-matters:

(1) Any practicable modification of the proposed system of sewage disposal of the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners, either as to construction, arrangement, or operation, and the nature and character of sanitary or engineering appliances that may be added thereto or introduced therein, in order to lessen the alleged polluting effect of the effluent upon the waters of New York Harbor.

(2) Any practicable plan of sewage disposal or treatment capable of being applied to the sewage of the city of New York and the several boroughs thereof in order to lessen the alleged polluting effect of said sewage upon the waters of New York Harbor.

(3) Additional testimony (to the extent reasonably practicable within the time herein limited) as to the present degree of pollution of the waters of New York Harbor, including those parts affected or to be affected by the proposed Passaic Valley sewerage system and by the sewage of the city of New York; and the change, if any, in the degree of such pollution since the time to which the testimony heretofore taken relates.

The taking of the above testimony by the defendants as stated in paragraphs 1 and 2, including also any testimony which said defendants...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Fred Wolferman, Inc. v. Root
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 8 Septiembre 1947
    ... ... state restrictions. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 ... U.S ... line. Society of New York Hospital v. Hanson, 185 ... Misc. 937, 59 N.Y.S. (2d) 91; ... ...
  • United States v. CERTAIN LANDS, ETC.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • 5 Mayo 1945
    ... ... As was said in United States v. State of North Carolina, 136 U.S. 211, 10 S.Ct. 920, 922, 34 L ... ...
  • State of South Dakota v. Collins
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 17 Marzo 1919

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT