25.
[70]
For he who thinks the civil law is to be despised, he is tearing asunder the bonds, not only
of all courts of justice, but of all usefulness and of our common life; but he who finds fault
with the interpreters of the law, if he says that they are ignorant of the law, is only
disparaging the men, and not the civil law itself. If he thinks we ought not to be guided by
learned men, then he is not injuring the men, but he is undermining the laws and justice. So
that you must feel that nothing is to be maintained in a state with such care as the civil
law. In truth, if this is taken away, there is no possibility of any one feeling certain what
is his own property or what belongs to another; there is nothing which can be equal to all
men, or is the same in every case.
[71]
Therefore in other
disputes and trials, when the question at issue is, whether a thing has been done or not,
whether what is alleged be true or false; and when false witnesses are sometimes suborned, and
false documents foisted in; it is possible that sometimes a virtuous judge may be led into
error by a seemingly honourable and probable pretence; or that an opportunity may be given to
a dishonest judge, of appearing to be guided by the witnesses, or by the documents produced,
though in reality he has knowingly given a wrong decision. For questions of law there is
nothing of this sort, O judges: there are no forged documents, no dishonest witnesses; even
that overgrown power, which has sway in this state, is dormant with respect to cases of this
sort; it has no means of attacking the judge, or of moving a finger. For this can be said to a
judge by some man who is not so scrupulous as he is influential; “Decide, I pray
you, that this has been done or planned; give credit to this witness; establish the
genuineness of these documents;”—
[72]
but
this cannot be said, “Decide that if a man has a posthumous son born to him, his
will is not thereby invalidated; decide that a thing is due which a woman had promised without
the sanction of her trustee.” There is no opening for transactions of this sort, nor
for any one's power or influence; in fact,—and this gives questions of law a more
important and a more holy character,—a judge cannot be corrupted even by a bribe in
cases of this sort.
[73]
That very witness of yours who dared to
say “that he had been seen to do . . .” in a case where he could by no
possibility know even of what the man was accused—even he would not venture to
decide that a dowry was due to a husband which the woman had promised without the consent of
her trustee. Oh admirable principle, and worthy of being maintained by you on this account, O
judges!
This text is part of:
Search the Perseus Catalog for:
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.