For as for these things which
they have stated in their notes, about corrupting the judges, who is there who believes that
they were sufficiently ascertained or carefully inquired into by them? I see that a note was
made by the censors respecting Marcus Aquillius and Titus Gutta;—what does this mean? Were those
two the only men corrupted with bribes? What became of the rest? Did they, forsooth, condemn him
for nothing? He, then, was not unfairly dealt with; he was not overwhelmed by means of bribes;
it is not the case, as all these assemblies stirred up by Quinctius would have it, that all the
men who voted against Oppianicus are to be imagined criminal, or at all events suspected. I see
that two men alone are judged by the authority of the censors to have been implicated in that
infamy; or else they must allege that there is something which they have found out concerning
those two men which they have not found out respecting the others.
For that indeed can never be allowed, that they should transfer the usage of military
discipline to the animadversions and authority of the censors; for our ancestors established a
rule, that if in military affairs a crime had been committed by a number of soldiers, a few
should be punished by lot, that so fear might have its influence on all, while the punishment
reached only a few. But how can it be fitting for the censors to act on this principle in the
distribution of dignities, in their judgment on the character of citizens, and in their
punishment of their vices? For a soldier who has not maintained his post, who has been afraid of
the vigorous attack of the enemy, may still hereafter become a better soldier, and a virtuous
man, and a useful citizen. Wherefore, to prevent his committing offences in time of war through
fear of the enemy, the great fear of death and execution was established by our ancestors; but
yet, that the number of those who underwent capital punishment might not be too great, that plan
of drawing lots was invented.