Summary

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black United States v. City and County of San Francisco…

To limit the prohibitions of Section 6 of the Act narrowly to sales of power for resale without more, as the City asks, would permit evasion and frustration of the purpose of the lawmakers. Congress clearly intended to require-as a condition of its grant sale and distribution of Hetch-Hetchy power exclusively by San Francisco and municipal agencies directly to consumers in the belief that consumers would thus be afforded power at cheap rates in competition with private power companies, particularly Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black United States v. City and County of San Francisco…

The equitable doctrines relied on do not militate against the capacity of a court of equity as a proper forum in which to make a declared policy of Congress effective. Injunction to prohibit continued use-in violation of that policy of property granted by the United States, and to enforce the grantee's covenants, is both appropriate and necessary. [26]
A substantial part of the City's argument rests upon its claim that the Department of the Interior in the period from 1913 to 1937 construed Section 6 to forbid no more than sale of power for resale.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black United States v. City and County of San Francisco…

However, after consideration of all these objections, we are satisfied that this case does not call for a balancing of equities or for the invocation of the generalities of judicial maxims in order to determine whether an injunction should have issued. The City is availing itself of valuable rights and privileges granted by the Government and yet persists in violating the very conditions upon which those benefits were granted.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature