284 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



Is it a defense to an alleged nuisance that the defendant was on the 

 ground first ? He may contend that he built his brick kiln, when all the 

 surrounding land was vacant and thereafter the plaintiff voluntarily 

 purchased and built on ground adjoining the kiln. This alleged de- 

 fense is spoken of as " coming to a nuisance." Most of the cases, how- 

 ever, hold that this makes no difference. The injury arises only when 

 the plaintiffs enjoyment is interfered with, but if he can not build a 

 house, then the defendant would be in effect permitted to destroy the 

 value of the plaintiff's property. If he must leave his land vacant it is 

 worthless or at least its value is greatly impaired. 



Assuming that the law is clear and that if the defendant is doing 

 certain acts he is maintaining a nuisance, the plaintiff is always con- 

 fronted by the necessity of proving by legal evidence that such acts are 

 being done. This is often a difficult task. Ordinarily the defendant 

 has large interests at stake and fights desperately to the last ditch. 



The extent of the task of establishing by legal evidence the existence 

 of a nuisance is shown in a recent case in which the question was 

 whether one state could be enjoined from interference with the riparian 

 rights of another state. 



The state of Missouri brought suit against the state of Illinois to 

 prevent the discharge of the sewage of Chicago by means of an artificial 

 channel into the Des Plaines Eiver, whence it entered the Illinois Eiver 

 and then the Mississippi. If this was a nuisance, by what law was it to 

 be decided, that of Illinois or Missouri? The United States Supreme 

 Court held that it could decide such controversies between states. 

 Otherwise there would be no means of determining contests between 

 states which in the absence of federation would be decided by war. But 

 the court held that the rules applicable to private riparian owners did 

 not necessarily apply between states and that the injury must be greater 

 than a private injury to warrant relief. Missouri contended that the 

 daily discharge of 1,500 tons of poisonous filth into this channel caused 

 great injury to the public health in the state of Missouri since St. Louis 

 and other cities took their water from the Mississippi Eiver. Missouri 

 showed that the number of deaths from typhoid fever had largely in- 

 creased after the opening of the Chicago drainage canal. Missouri also 

 showed by the presence in increased numbers in the Illinois Eiver of 

 the Bacillus coli communis, which it was agreed was an index as to 

 the organic matter in the water, that the contamination was increased, 

 but Illinois denied that injury to health had been caused, and so both 

 sides conducted experiments to show the duration of life and capacity 

 for travel of the Bacillus typhosus. It was conceded that typhus, cholera, 

 dysentery, anthrax and tetanus are water-borne diseases and that it was 

 practically impossible to discover the bacilli of typhoid in running 

 water. It was proved by means of floats that the journey from Chicago 



