The San Francisco call., 1899-04-11
The ATTORNEY Generars report reads

The Attorney Generals S report reads
Referring to question No l, l should
say that the board may legally adopt
the entire Blackstock resolution re-
scinding the action of the former
board while the suit now against the
the law or in any order made by the
court that would prevent such action
upon the part of your body.
Referring to question No. 2, would
say that inasmUch as the resolutions
In question appear to be separable, in
that they involve two propositions
one looking to % per cent reduction
of freight rates in general, the other
per cent upon grain rates-and the
board itself having acted upon them
separately, and the court having held
that the respondents (the Board Of
TO have the grain rates considered
separately from the 20 per cent reduc-
ton on other freights," I am Of the
opinion that your honorable body may
'rescind the 25 per cent resolution
without resembling the entire resolu-
tion of the former board"
Referrius to question No. 3, wherein
you ask IL it would be ito the legal
advantage of the State of California
resolution of the old board" I would
say that advantage, according to
the photographers. means ito obtain
a gain or vantage over the other
would, therefore, mean ito obtain a
gain or vantage in point of law over
the other party" A rescission of the
resolution in question would destroy
the cause that gave birth to the pend
ing suit. and with the destruction OF
the cause the suit itself must fall, ex-
cepting as to the matter of costs.
The direct result, therefore, of the
i to-, IL
tion of the present litigation. 1t could
scarcely be said that the State of CAL
ifornia would thereby obtain a gain
or vantage in point of law" In fact,
litigation would leave the parties
thereto precisely as they are now, so
far as the law Is concerned. l am,
therefore, of the opinion that no ''le-
gal advantage would accrue to the
State by a rescission of the resolu-
tion to which you refer.
Referring to question No. 4, I would
say that under the order of the court
as at present existing your honorable
body is prevented from serving or en-
forcing any rate upon grain transpor-
tatlon that would involve a reduction
of per cent of such rates as they
existed on October u, 1895. Until this
order shall have been modified or set
aside it must be obeyed by your hon
orable body.
Referring to question No. 8, 1 beg to
state that the question of costs Is q
matter for determination by the court
upon a consideration of all the facts
and conditions relating to such ques-
ton. There is no statutory rule gov
erning the matter of cost in suits in
equity in the Federal courts, their tax
alton being left to the chancellor who
tries the cause. 1t is, therefore. inn
possible to state at this time what the
judgment as to costs would be under
the conditions named in your letter.
The report of w. w. Foote and
Robert Y. Hayne is more elaborate thar
hat of the Attorney General, but they
10Th agreed in the salent features OF
he case.
On motion of Blackstock the entire
natter was laid over for the next regu-
ar meeting. E. B. Edison wished tc
xplain his vote when the BlackstocE
were adopted. He stated
hat his affirmative vote at that time
vas for the sole purpose of moving a
consideration of the rscinding resolu.
ions. Before adjournment and before
,oting for the postponement of the
,rain rate matter he obtained an ora
-uarantee from the two other members
f the commission that he would be al.
owed to call for reconsideration al
he next meeting.
Tuck, W. II. Fitzgerald as Guy of Gis
,orne, Josephine Bartlett as Dame Dur.
len and Carolyn Daniels as Annabel
OpnbeI1r7o