Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 35
Evan T. Sage, PhD professor of latin and head of the department of classics in the University of Pittsburgh, Ed.

16. Sulpicius had now recovered, and so both came to Ephesus. Minnio apologized for the king's inability to be present, and in his absence the discussion began. [2] Then Minnio opened the debate with a prepared speech. “I see, Romans,” he said, “that you employ the plausible pretext of liberating Greek states, but your actions are inconsistent with your words, and you lay down one rule of conduct for Antiochus but yourselves follow another. [3] For how are the people of Zmyrna and Lampsacus more Greek than the men of Naples or Rhegium or Tarentum, from whom you exact tribute, from whom you exact ships in accordance with treaty-stipulations? [4] Why do Syracuse and other Greek cities of Sicily receive every year a praetor with the imperium and the rods and axes? Assuredly you make no other assertion than that you have imposed these conditions upon cities that have been conquered in battle.¹ [5] Learn from Antiochus that the case is the same with Zmyrna and Lampsacus [p. 49]and the cities which are in Ionia or Aeolis. [6] Conquered² in war by his forefathers³ and made tributaries and vassals, he restores them to their ancient status; therefore I wish that he be answered on these points, if this is a discussion based on equity and not a search for a pretext for war.” [7] To this Sulpicius replied: “Antiochus has acted modestly, who, if there is nothing else to be said on his behalf, has preferred that anyone else should say this rather than himself. [8] What likeness is there in the status of the states which you have mentioned? From the people of Rhegium and Naples and Tarentum we demand what they owe in accordance with the treaty from the time they came under our sovereignty, with one unbroken continuity of right, always recognized, never interrupted. [9] Pray, can you say that as those peoples have changed the treaty neither through themselves nor through anyone else, so the Asian cities, when once they came into the possession of Antiochus' forefathers, have remained in the [10??] continuous possession of your empire, and that some have not passed under the power of Philip, some into the hands of Ptolemy, and some have enjoyed liberty with none to challenge them? [11] For if the fact that they have once been slaves, constrained by the injustice of the times, is to confer the right of reasserting control and forcing them into slavery after so many generations, how does this differ from saying that our labours have been fruitless, in that we have freed Greece from Philip and that his descendants may again demand Corinth, Chalcis, Demetrias, and the whole state of the Thessalians? [12] But why do I plead the cause of [p. 51]these cities, which it is fairer [13??] that both we and the⁴ king should learn from their own pleadings?”⁵