Meanwhile the Attorney-General marched gayly to another defeat of his client--the people--going into court with no other ammunition than the facts furnished by the men he was suing. He did not put his expert, nor the Auditor-General, nor his assistant, nor the men on whose information and affidavits the estimate had been made of taxes due, nor any one else on the stand. He was "perfectly satisfied," he says, "that these facts were true," and that the company were "in good faith doing exactly what they undertook to do--namely, to furnish me with all the information that was necessary to establish the Commonwealth case."[324] His method was as singular with the argument as with the testimony. He insisted, in opposition to the opinion of Auditor-General Schell, that such a corporation must pay taxes on all its capital stock, whether it represented property in the State or out of it. The court decided against him. It held that it was taxable "only on so much of its capital stock as was represented by the business and property of the company within the State." As to what the amount of this property and business within the State was the court took the facts furnished by the delinquent itself, as they were the only ones presented to it by the Attorney-General. The amount originally charged for taxes by Auditor-General Schell, who had forced the fighting, was $3,145,541.64. The Attorney-General, on his mistaken theory of the law and on the facts volunteered by those he was suing, had "split the difference" and sued for only $796,642.20. The court cut this down to $33,270.59, and on appeal this was still further reduced to $22,660.10.[325] This decision was not final or conclusive as to either the State or the company, both of whom afterwards sued out writs of error. The expert, who had been pushed to one side, at once determined to take what steps he could to reopen the case and mend the fortunes of the State. The moment the decision was announced he telegraphed the Attorney-General again for another conference, and was told to come to Philadelphia. He told the Attorney-General that he thought "the hope of the State to get the largest amount of money was to get a rehearing and let us have an oral examination." But the "satisfied" Attorney-General refused to do anything but carry the same argument and the same agreement of facts up to the Supreme Court. He refused to move for a new trial, and not only told his expert so, but told the "trustee" so. The trustee, by one of those coincidences which prove how much better it is to be born lucky than rich, happened to have come at the same time to stay in the same hotel with the Attorney-General.