river-improvement called for is one of formidable cost. About the time of the opening of the canal, the State of Missouri, by its Attorney-General, moved in the Supreme Court of the United States for leave to file a bill of complaint against the State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago, the purpose of which was to enjoin the defendants from discharging the sewage and noxious filth of the Sanitary District of Chicago into the Mississippi River by artificial methods. The complaint alleged that unless the relief sought is granted the water of the Mississippi, which is used for drinking and other domestic purposes by many thousands of inhabitants of the State, will be polluted, and that the public health will be endangered. The Court granted leave to file the bill. The defendants then interposed a demurrer, claiming that the controversy, not being in reality between two States, but between two cities, was one over which the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction. On the 28th of January, 1901, the Court rendered its decision, overruling the demurrer to its jurisdiction. The effect of the opinion is that the Drainage Canal attorneys now must answer the complaint that the sewage and noxious filth of the sanitary district are contaminating the waters of the Mississippi River at St. Louis. No evidence of the facts will be taken in court. On the request of the parties to the suit, a commission will be appointed to take testimony and make a report. CHICAGO UNIVERSITY: Dedication of the Yerkes Observatory. See (in this volume) YERKES OBSERVATORY. CHICKASAWS, United States agreement with the. See (in this volume) INDIANS, AMERICAN: A. D. 1893-1899. CHIH-LI, The "Boxer" outbreak in. See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JANUARY-MARCH). CHILE: A. D. 1894-1900. The questions with Bolivia and Peru concerning Atacama, Tacna and Arica.