confession constituted a plea of "Guilty." But how were they to be dealt with? The Law of Caius Gracchus said that no Roman citizen was to be condemned to death without the command of the People. The democratic exposition of that law was that, given a citizen, no amount of treason short of physically appearing in arms against the State could constitute an enemy. The view of the Senate was that a man who from inside the walls co-operated with insurgents was really and truly an enemy, and a more dangerous one because he was posted in ambush. The common-sense answer to the question seems to be that suggested by Cato's speech as reported by Sallust (above p. 147). If the peril from outside had been over, there would have been no public need for the execution of these men, and under those circumstances their rights as citizens would have revived, as they did in fact in the case of the four criminals[1] who were included in the sentence of the Senate, and who escaped immediate seizure; but while Catiline was still threatening the commonwealth with a dangerous army, his confederates could not justly claim any immunity which conflicted with the public safety. The determining factor in the decision was the prospect of the effect which either course would produce on the operations in the field.
- ↑ Sallust, Cat., 50, 4. The fate of these men is not expressly mentioned, but we should certainly have heard if they had been put to death. They probably were summoned before the prætor, but acknowledged their guilt by retiring into exile (as Verres did) without waiting for the verdict of a jury.
