14.
[32]
But some treaties are in existence, as for instance those with the Germans,
the Insubres, the Helvetians, and the Iapidae, and with some of the
barbarian tribes in Gaul in which
there is a special exception made that no one of them is to be received by
us as a citizen of Rome. And if
the exception prevents such a step from being lawful, it is quite evident
that it is lawful where there is no such exception made. Where, then, is the
exception made in the treaty between us and the city of Gades, that the Roman people is not to
receive any one of the citizens of Gades into their citizenship? Nowhere. And if there were
any such clause, the Gellian and Cornelian law would have annulled it which
expressly gave to Pompeius a power of giving the freedom of the city to
anybody whatever. “The whole treaty,” says the
prosecutor, “is such an exception, because it was ratified with
solemn oaths.” I can excuse you if you do not know much about the
laws of the Carthaginians, for you had left your own city; and you were not
able to examine our laws very strictly; for they prevented your having any
opportunity of instituting such an examination by a public sentence.
[33]
What was there in that enactment which was
passed concerning Pompeius by Gellius and Lentulus in their consulship in
which any exception appears to have been made of treaties which had been
ratified by an oath? For first of all, nothing can be ratified in such a
manner except what the burgesses or the common people have so ratified. In
the second place, such ratifications are to be accounted sacred, either
because of the form of ratification itself, or because the invocation of the
gods and dedication of the law,
* * * or else, because of some punishment to which the life of that man is devoted who acts in contravention of it. What argument, then, of this sort can you allege with respect to our treaty with the city of Gades?1 Do you assert that that treaty was solemnly ratified by the devotion of the life of any offender against it, or by any invocation of the gods to uphold the law? I assert that nothing was ever submitted to the burgesses or to the common people with respect to that treaty [I assert that no law was enacted, and no punishment appointed.] When, therefore even if it had been enacted that we were not to receive any man as a citizen, still that would have been ratified which the people enacted subsequently, nor would any exception have appeared to have been made by that expression, “If anything had been formally ratified by an oath,” do you venture to say that anything is formally ratified in this way, with respect to which the Roman people has never come to any decision at all?
* * * or else, because of some punishment to which the life of that man is devoted who acts in contravention of it. What argument, then, of this sort can you allege with respect to our treaty with the city of Gades?1 Do you assert that that treaty was solemnly ratified by the devotion of the life of any offender against it, or by any invocation of the gods to uphold the law? I assert that nothing was ever submitted to the burgesses or to the common people with respect to that treaty [I assert that no law was enacted, and no punishment appointed.] When, therefore even if it had been enacted that we were not to receive any man as a citizen, still that would have been ratified which the people enacted subsequently, nor would any exception have appeared to have been made by that expression, “If anything had been formally ratified by an oath,” do you venture to say that anything is formally ratified in this way, with respect to which the Roman people has never come to any decision at all?
