"They absolutely refused." "Was this refusal since the Interstate Commerce decision in your case?" "Yes, sir; since that decision."[436] It might have been thought this would have been enough--hauling the tank itself free; furnishing the flat-cars free for many tanks; carrying free a quarter to a half, "or more." But there was more than this. The railroads paid the combination for putting its tank-cars on their lines. For every mile these cars were hauled, loaded or empty, the roads paid it a mileage varying from 3/4 to 1-1/2 cents. This mileage was of itself a handsome revenue, enough to pay a profit of 6 per cent. on its investment in the cars. But when Rice asked what the railroads would charge him for hauling back his empty tank-cars, he was not told that he would be paid for their use, as others were. He was told that he would be charged "generally a cent and a half a mile," or, "we make the usual mileage charge on return of empty tanks." "This last statement," the Interstate Commerce Commissioners say, "was not warranted by the facts."[437] The vessel which contains the oil of the combination "receives a hire coming and going," Mr. Rice's lawyer said before the Committee of Congress on Commerce; "that which contains Rice's oil pays a tax." When Rice tried to sell his oil on the Pacific coast he found that if he shipped in tank-cars he would have to pay $95 to bring the empty car back, which others got back free. The representative of the oil combination was questioned about all this by the Interstate Commerce Commission. "Are you allowed mileage on tank-cars?" "No, sir." "Neither way?" "Neither way."[438] But the railroad officials again could not "blind-bill" him as far as this. Asked what mileage they paid him, they replied: "Three-quarters of a cent a mile."[439] When the freight agents who did these queer things at the expense of their employers--_i.e._, their proper employers, the stockholders--were put on the stand before the Interstate Commerce Commission to explain, they cut a sorry figure. "It was an oversight," "a mistake," said one. Another could only ring confused changes on "I think it is an error.... I cannot tell why that is so.... It is simply an error.... I cannot tell."[440] There were never any errors, suppositions, oversights for Rice.[441] Referring to this, the Commission says, caustically: