It was in vain that the expert pointed out omissions of property and facts which he thought "had not been clearly shown in the agreement as to facts," and afterwards other matters he had discovered. After the defeat of the State he prepared an affidavit containing additional facts. He employed an attorney in the preparation of this affidavit and a petition to the court to have the case reopened. His purpose was "to get another chance at this trial." "To get another trial?" "Anything." "Another hearing?" "Anything." Anything to prevent the miscarriage of this last attempt to "round up" the men he had been trying for nearly twenty years to bring to justice. The Attorney-General would not present this petition. After this, still before the final decision, he saw the Attorney-General again to renew his pressure for a change of policy. Three times he saw the Attorney-General to lay his additional facts before him, and urge that a different method of conducting the case be tried.[326] Some of the new points he raised the Attorney-General referred and deferred to the company he was pursuing, and "we showed him how they were fully included in the statement rendered by us to the State, and he (the Attorney-General) expressed his entire satisfaction with every point raised." Others of the new points the Attorney-General declared to be "immaterial."[327] The Attorney-General showed no wish to bring proof into the case of any facts except those furnished by the people being sued. Although the decision of the lower court had been a warning that the theory on which the State had gone into court was bad, and that the amount of taxes to be recovered depended on the amount of tangible property in the State, he refused to use the right he acknowledged he had--to call other witnesses, to put the men who had made the agreed statement of facts upon the stand, and cross-examine them.