The Commissioners in their sittings had seen that the counsel for the railroads did not pretend to bring forward any evidence to prove that their attack on the barrel shippers was just or proper. Although "the seaboard refiners," for whose pecuniary profit these things had been done, were not on trial, their witnesses, agents, and attorneys were in constant attendance, and kept close watch of the testimony and arguments. The Commission had its attention called specifically to the fact that the defence of the railroads on trial was being directed by the same "seaboard refiners" who had "insisted" that the railroads should violate the law. The counsel for the Erie road was frank enough to admit that it was they who had prompted that carrier in its litigation before the Commission. When the Erie appeared before the Commission to give "further testimony," its representative could not tell at whose request its application therefor had been made, and said he had known nothing about the matter until the day before. Three of the six witnesses then examined were from the offices of the oil trust, whose members had refused to come when summoned. The only subpoenas they obey are those issued from their own headquarters. The president of the oil combination's pipe lines--who is also the president of the steamship line in which its members are interested--and the vice-president of the pipe lines, and the president and the treasurer of the company which holds for the trust the monopoly of the terminal facilities, and the President of the New York, Lake Erie, and Western Railroad, and its vice-president, were all served with official notice to come and testify. But these gentlemen refused to appear. "It is for your honors," said the counsel for the refiners, suggestively, "to determine what obedience shall be paid to your subpoenas."[277] But the Commission did nothing. The defendant corporations, and their lawyers, officers, and witnesses, made no pretence of treating the Interstate Commerce Commission with anything more than a physical respect. The representatives of the railroad companies practically told the Commission that its decisions were subordinate to theirs, and that they knew better than it what its rulings meant. Witnesses refused to answer questions they found awkward, and the lawyers gave the court to understand that if it did what they did not like they would snuff it out. The Commission heard one of the refiners who was a petitioner before it assailed with coarse vituperation, described in open court as a "pestilence,"[278] because he had dared to write more than once to the railroads for the reduction of rates which would save him from destruction, and which the Commission had, not once, but half a dozen times, said the railroads ought to give to all.