People of State of New York v. State of New Jersey
Decision Date | 10 March 1919 |
Docket Number | No. 3,3 |
Citation | 63 L.Ed. 560,39 S.Ct. 261,249 U.S. 202 |
Parties | PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al |
Court | U.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.
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-
Fred Wolferman, Inc. v. Root
... ... 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.
... ... 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