He promised, with tears in his eyes, that he would stand by her. It should never be said, he cried, that he had wronged the widow of his fellow-refiner. "He agreed that I might retain whatever amount of stock I desired. He seemed to want only the control. I thought his feelings were such that I could trust him, and that he would deal honorably with me." This was the last she saw of him. He promised to come to see her during the negotiations, but did not do so. He promised to assist and advise her, but did not do so. He declined to conduct the negotiations with her in person as she requested, "stating to her," he said, in giving his version of the affair to the court, "that I knew nothing about her business or the mechanical appliances used in the same, and that I could not pursue any negotiations with her with reference to the same; but that if, after reflection, she desired to do so, some of our people familiar with the lubricating-oil business would take up the question with her.... When she responded, expressing her fears about the future of the business, stating that she could not get cars to transport sufficient oil, and other similar remarks, I stated to her that though we were using our cars, and required them in our own business, yet we would loan her any number she required, or do anything else in reason to assist her, and I saw no reason why she could not prosecute her business just as successfully in the future as in the past." This assurance to his widow-competitor that he would let her have cars was, of itself, enough to justify all her alarm, and show that there was no hope for her but in making the best surrender possible. It was proof positive that he did control the transportation, that the well-defined report that no one but he and his could get their business done by the railroad was true. Permission to go upon the highways by the favor of a competitor is too thin a plank for even a woman to be got to walk. Withdrawing from direct connection, but managing the affair to the end as he testifies, he sent back to her the agent she had refused to talk with. Negotiations were accordingly resumed perforce with this agent. He submitted to his principals a statement in her behalf of the value of the property, but did not waste time over the form of letting her see it, or consulting with her before submitting it in her name. This statement she never authorized, never heard of, and never read until it was produced in court against her.[114]