16.
But if this treaty, which the Roman people, with the authority of the senate
with the recommendation and decision of antiquity in its favour approves not
only by its tacit inclination, but also by its open expression of opinion,
had been also sanctioned by its votes, what reason was there, from the words
of the treaty itself, why it should not have been lawful to receive a
citizen of Gades into our city? For
there is nothing else provided for in the treaty except that there be a
pious and everlasting peace. What has that to do with the rights of
citizenship? That also is added which does not occur in every treaty:
“Preserve, with all courtesy and respect, the majesty of the Roman
people.” And that expression carries this force with it, that it
shows that the people of Gades is
the inferior party in the treaty.
[36]
First
of all, the very description of word used “Preserve”
which is a form that we are more accustomed to use in laws than in treaties
is an expression of one giving a command, not of one addressing an entreaty.
In the next place, as the majesty of the one people is ordered to be
preserved and no mention is made of the other, most certainly that people is
placed on the higher footing and in the superior condition whose majesty is
defended by the sanction of the treaty. And in respect of this the
interpretation of the prosecutor is quite undeserving of any reply, who said
that the expression “with courtesy and respect,” meant
the same as “respectively” just as if he were explaining
some ancient and nearly obsolete word. Men are called courteous, kind,
affable, pleasant. “
A man who courteously points out the way to a wanderer:
”—good-naturedly, not sulkily;—“respectively” has surely no connection with the rest of the sentence, or with the subject. [37] And, at the same time, it is a perfect absurdity for a provision to be made in the treaty that they should “respectively” preserve the majesty of the Roman people; that is to say, that the Roman people is to wish its own majesty to be uninjured. And if it were so now, as it cannot be, still the fact would remain, that provision had been made for our majesty, but none at all for theirs. Can our majesty then be preserved with good feeling by the people of Gades, if we are not able to tempt the men of Gades by rewards to be anxious for its preservation? Can there, in fact be any majesty at all, if we are prevented from availing ourselves of the consent of the Roman people to confer on our commander-in-chief the power of distributing honours and kindnesses as a reward of virtue?
”—good-naturedly, not sulkily;—“respectively” has surely no connection with the rest of the sentence, or with the subject. [37] And, at the same time, it is a perfect absurdity for a provision to be made in the treaty that they should “respectively” preserve the majesty of the Roman people; that is to say, that the Roman people is to wish its own majesty to be uninjured. And if it were so now, as it cannot be, still the fact would remain, that provision had been made for our majesty, but none at all for theirs. Can our majesty then be preserved with good feeling by the people of Gades, if we are not able to tempt the men of Gades by rewards to be anxious for its preservation? Can there, in fact be any majesty at all, if we are prevented from availing ourselves of the consent of the Roman people to confer on our commander-in-chief the power of distributing honours and kindnesses as a reward of virtue?