<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi001.perseus-eng3:9.33.3-9.34.10</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi001.perseus-eng3:9.33.3-9.34.10</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text><body><div n="urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi001.perseus-eng3" type="edition" xml:lang="eng"><div n="9" subtype="book" type="textpart"><div n="33" subtype="chapter" type="textpart"><div n="3" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> Now, however, a dispute arose through that family which seemed marked
							out by destiny to be the cause of quarrels with the plebs and its
							tribunes. Appius Claudius had now been censor eighteen months, the
							period fixed by the Aemilian Law for the duration of that office. </p></div><div n="4" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> In spite of the fact that his colleague, C. Plautius, had resigned, he
							could under no circumstances whatever be induced to vacate his office.
							P. Sempronius was the tribune of the plebs who commenced an action for
							limiting his censorship to the legal period. </p></div><div n="5" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> In taking this step he was acting in the interests of justice quite as
							much as in the interests of the people, and he carried the sympathies of
							the aristocracy no less than he had the support of the masses. </p></div><div n="6" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> He recited the several provisions of the Aemilian Law and extolled its
							author, Mamercus Aemilius, the Dictator, for having shortened the
							censorship. Formerly, he reminded his hearers, it was held for five
							years, a time long enough to make it tyrannical and despotic, Aemilius
							limited it to eighteen months. </p></div><div n="7" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> Then turning to Appius he asked him: “Pray tell me, Appius, what
							would you have done had you been censor at the time that C. Furius and
							M. Geganius were censors?” Appius Claudius replied that the
							tribune's question had not much bearing on his case. </p></div><div n="8" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> He argued that though the law might be binding in the case of those
							censors during whose period of office it was passed, because it </p></div><div n="9" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> was after they had been appointed that the people ordered the measure to
							become law, and the last order of the people was law for the time being,
							nevertheless, neither he nor any of the censors subsequently appointed
							could be bound by it because all succeeding censors had been appointed
							by the order of the people and the last order of the people was the law
							for the time being. <note anchored="true" n="14" resp="ed" place="unspecified">Appius' argument is this: The Aemilian Law only
								restricted the censorship of Furius and Geganius, because whilst
								their election was tantamount to one “order of the
								people” the Aemilian Law was a second “order of the
								people” superseding the first. But in all subsequent
								elections there was only one “order of the people,”
								viz. the election itself, and therefore the original law which fixed
								the duration of the office at five years resumed its
								validity.</note>
						            </p></div></div><div n="34" subtype="chapter" type="textpart"><div n="1" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p>This quibble on the part of Appius convinced no one. Sempronius then
							addressed the Assembly in the following language: “Quirites, here
							you have the progeny of that Appius who, after being appointed decemvir
							for one year, appointed himself for a second year, and then, without
							going through any form of appointment either at his own hands or at any
							one </p></div><div n="2" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> else's, retained the fasces and the supreme authority for a third year,
							and persisted in retaining them until the power which he gained by foul
							means, exercised by foul means, and retained by foul means, proved his
							ruin. </p></div><div n="3" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> This is the family, Quirites, by whose violence and lawlessness you were
							driven out of your City and compelled to occupy the Sacred Mount; </p></div><div n="4" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> the family against which you won the protection of your tribunes; the
							family on whose account you took up your position, in two armies, on the
							Aventine. </p></div><div n="5" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> It is this family which has always opposed the laws against usury and
							the agrarian laws; which interfered with the right of intermarriage
							between patricians and plebeians; which blocked the path of the plebs to
							curule offices. </p></div><div n="6" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> This name is much more deadly to your liberties than the name of the
							Tarquins. Is it really the case, Appius Claudius, that though it is a
							hundred years since Mamercus Aemilius was Dictator, and there have been
							all those censors since, men of the highest rank and strength of
							character, not one of them ever read the Twelve Tables, not one of them
							knew that the last order of the people is the law for the time being?
						</p></div><div n="7" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> Of course they all knew it, and because they knew it they preferred to
							obey the Aemilian Law rather than that older one by which the censors
							were originally appointed, simply because the former was </p></div><div n="8" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> the last passed by order of the people and also because when two laws
							contradict each other the later one repeals the earlier. </p></div><div n="9" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> Do you maintain, Appius, that the people are not bound by the Aemilian
							Law, or do you claim, if they are bound by it, that you alone are exempt
							from its provisions? That law availed to bind those arbitrary censors C.
							Furius and M. Geganius, who gave us a proof of the mischief which that
							office could work in the republic when, in revenge for the limitation of
							their power, they placed among </p></div><div n="10" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> the <foreign xml:lang="lat">aerarii</foreign> the foremost soldier and
							statesman of his time, Mamercus Aemilius. It bound all the succeeding
							censors for a hundred years, it binds your colleague C. Plautius, who
							was appointed under the same auspices, with the same powers as yourself.
						</p></div></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>