The Two Great Republics: Rome and the United States Part 1

The Two Great Republics: Rome and the United States.

by James Hamilton Lewis.

PREFACE

In this book I have proposed to compare conditions recorded in Roman history with those existing in America that should warn, by reason of the results at Rome. It is not the purpose of this volume to offer a mere textbook or a scholastic essay on historical events. It is not the purpose merely to record those events which led to the destruction of the Roman republic, and with this end our work. The main purpose of this book is to compare events as they transpired in the one republic and in the other.

The political history of the Roman republic is throughout its whole course a continuous contest between radicals and conservatives. The striking resemblances between the basis of the political controversies of Ancient Rome and the modern political and economic problems render it almost impossible for any historian to approach the political history of Rome entirely free from prejudice. The bias of the historian, whether toward the liberal or the conservative side in politics, is sure to affect to a greater or less degree the pictures which he paints of the events and actors in Roman history. To indicate to some extent these varying views, and to present to the reader some of the ideas of prominent writers on Roman history, a number of extracts from the works of other authors have been inserted, as occasion demanded, in this work. In the majority of cases such an insertion should be understood as an attempt to present all sides of some controverted historical question rather than as indicating the approval by the author of the views expressed therein.

In arranging the perspective of this book, its main object has been kept constantly in mind. The importance of events has been weighed from the standpoint of their effect upon the decay and collapse of the free political inst.i.tutions of Rome; with the result that many subjects, to which considerable s.p.a.ce would be devoted in a general Roman history, have been pa.s.sed over with a mere notice, while other events, perhaps of less popular interest, have been treated at length.

I would be false to the first sense of justice did I not here acknowledge the aid I have obtained from Professor Albert H. Putney, dean of the Webster College of Law, Chicago, and a lawyer of the state of Illinois at the city of Chicago (my home), who has been the princ.i.p.al contributor from whom I have received a.s.sistance, and much that can be found in this book in the nature of real historical data, and of the philosophy of reasoning from this data, is due to him, and I desire to acknowledge my indebtedness and to give full credit for the value of this work.

JAMES HAMILTON LEWIS

_United States Senate Chamber, Washington, D. C.

September 1913._

CHAPTER I

THE TWO REPUBLICS

"How like, how unlike, as we view them together."--_Holmes._

It is now nearly two thousand years since the curtain fell upon the last act in the history of the Roman republic. During these twenty centuries many other republics have flourished and pa.s.sed away, while, in turn, new republics have arisen to take the place of the earlier ones; but no other fallen republic in the whole course of history has attained to the same degree of importance, has possessed the same degree of interest, or has exerted the same influence on the history of the world, as did that of Rome. The five centuries of republican inst.i.tutions on the banks of the Tiber still remain the richest quarry to which the student or historian of republican governments is able to resort for his material.

"History," says Lord Macaulay, "is philosophy teaching by examples."

The most practical value of the study of history arises from the aid which it can give us in understanding the present and in forecasting the future. Bolingbroke, on the "Uses of History," commands its study as a protection against the unexpected. The main purpose of any American, who to-day studies the history of the greatest republic of the ancient world, should be to discover whether or not the story of the rise and fall of that government teaches any lessons which might be of value to the American of to-day; whether the evils which were the causes of the overthrow of the Roman republic find any counterpart in the problems which agitate our own country.

One of the greatest of American orators, in urging Americans to draw their historical lessons from the history of their own country, says that "when we go back into ancient history, we are bewildered by the differences of manners and inst.i.tutions"; but sometimes it is with the earliest of nations that the most striking comparisons may be made, and from their history that the greatest lessons may be learned.

The truth is that the progress of mankind, during that small fragment of the period of its existence upon this earth which we are permitted to see by the light of history, has been very uneven in the extent of its advances along the different lines of human progress. In the fields of scientific discovery and of material results human achievements, especially during the past century, have reached almost into the realm of the marvelous; but in many other fields--those relating to human reason, to knowledge of the human mind, to the relation between man and man, and to the science of government--human progress has been so slight that man's efforts in these directions must still receive the verdict of failure.

The reason for this great discrepancy is perhaps not difficult to discover. It is easy for the ma.s.s of mankind to accept and receive the benefits which come to them from the struggles and mental efforts of the few intellectual giants whom the human race from time to time produces; but all this takes place with very little change in the minds or emotions of the ma.s.s of humanity.

As, for example, the pages of Homer are studied, it is hard to say whether the strongest impression left upon the mind of the reader is that of the vast difference between the external life of that period and of the twentieth century, or that of the striking similarity between the qualities and emotions of the characters in these epics and of the men and women of to-day.

In the field of the material world any comparison between the existing conditions in the United States to-day and the conditions in any ancient country could hardly be of any particular value; except, perhaps, to indicate the great distance which has been traveled. In the field of government and politics, however, the most valuable comparison which it is possible to make with existing conditions in the United States is not with the present conditions in any modern country, nor is it with conditions of an earlier age in any Anglo-Saxon or even Teutonic country. The greatest resemblance to the existing conditions in the United States, both as to the character of her politics and the nature of the problems which confront her, is to be found in the great Roman republic of two thousand years ago.

In studying the decline and fall of the Roman republic it will appear that this result was most directly brought about by the three following causes:

1. Long before the time when Rome had attained to the height of her power, great inequalities of wealth had arisen between the different strata of the Roman citizens; the prosperity which came to Rome as a result of her conquests was not distributed among her whole citizen body. Indeed, while the wealth of the community as a whole was rapidly increasing, the wealth of the great ma.s.s of the citizens was rapidly decreasing, not only relatively but even absolutely. The acute stage of the contest between the rich and the poor arose immediately after the conclusion of the long contest between patricians and plebeians, and at the time when, theoretically, all political distinctions and privileges between citizens had disappeared. Yet, in fact, the suffrage was then limited to the free citizen--the smallest cla.s.s of the humble or toiling numbers.

2. The influence of a large and constantly increasing cla.s.s of demagogues, possessed of knowledge of human nature and endowed with skill in the management of men, yet entirely lacking in principle, patriotism, or any sense of public obligation. These wrought upon a mob of unqualified and reckless voters, who had nothing to lose and were more anxious for immediate personal benefit than for the gradual but permanent amelioration of the hardships of the cla.s.s to which they belonged.

3. The absence of any system of representative organization in the Roman government.

The first two of these evils are to be found in the American republic of to-day as well as in the Roman republic of the past; the last of the three was a disadvantage suffered by Rome but outgrown by the modern republics. This last evil will be treated by itself in the succeeding chapter, while the two former will be shown in the remainder of the volume as the political history of Rome is outlined.

CHAPTER II

ROMAN LEGISLATIVE a.s.sEMBLIES

In one important respect in the management of their political affairs, the citizens of the Roman republic occupied a most disadvantageous position in comparison with the citizens of any modern republic. The greatest defect in the political organization of Rome, as of all other ancient republics, lay in the utter absence of representative legislative a.s.semblies. The want of such inst.i.tutions, in the absence of all the other causes of disruption, might of itself have been sufficient to have caused the downfall of the Roman republic.

The invention and development of such representative a.s.semblies has been the greatest contribution which the Anglo-Saxon race has made to the political progress of the world. It is largely the existence of such bodies which renders practical the continued existence of modern republics, with jurisdiction over extended areas.

The Roman legislative bodies were, throughout the whole period of Roman history, popular a.s.semblies,--bodies of a character well adapted for the government of the community when Rome was a mere city-republic on the Tiber, but entirely inadequate to meet existing conditions when the Roman territories had been extended far beyond the confines of Latium and even beyond the sh.o.r.es of the Italian peninsula.

The system of Roman popular a.s.semblies was so complicated, and these a.s.semblies were so closely connected with every phase and every important epoch in Roman political history, that it seems advisable to stop at the outset and give a brief description of each of these a.s.semblies; of the manner in which they were const.i.tuted; of their origin; and of the scope of their respective powers.

The oldest of these popular a.s.semblies was the _comitia curiata_, which for a considerable period was the only body in Rome with the power to enact laws. This a.s.sembly was based upon the original division of the people into _gentes_ and _curiae_, and was throughout its history a distinctively patrician body. The force of the contest for a share in political power, waged by the plebeians, took in the main the direction of stripping the comitia curiata of its power instead of securing for the plebeians the right of membership in this a.s.sembly.

After the creation of the _comitia centuriata_ the powers of the older comitia rapidly declined, and were in the main limited to the control of certain portions of the state religion; particularly those religious formalities connected with elections, legislation, or the investure of military leaders with the _imperium_. At a still later time, the comitia curiata ceased to meet at all, and was merely considered as being represented by the lictors.

The two important a.s.semblies of the people during the period of the history of the Roman republic were the comitia centuriata and the _comitia tributa_. The comitia centuriata came into existence during the period which lies on the border line between mythology and history. In the legendary history of the Roman kingdom the creation of this a.s.sembly is given as one of the reforms of Servius Tullius.

However this may be, it was undoubtedly in existence (although not in the exact form which it later acquired) as early as the sixth century before Christ. This a.s.sembly was reorganized some time before the Punic Wars. In its final form the tribal division was taken as the primary division of the people; each tribe was divided into five cla.s.ses, according to the wealth of the citizens, and each cla.s.s into two centuries, one century in each cla.s.s consisting of _seniores_, or men above forty-five years of age, and one consisting of _juniores_, or men between the ages of eighteen and forty-five. The ten centuries from each of the tribes made a total of three hundred fifty centuries, to whom were added eighteen centuries of knights, making a total of three hundred sixty-eight centuries. Every question submitted to the comitia centuriata was decided by the vote of a majority of centuries.

Although all freemen had the right to vote in this a.s.sembly, the power of the richer cla.s.ses was disproportionately great. This was secured by a.s.signing to the five cla.s.ses, into which each tribe was divided, a very disproportionate number of citizens. The first cla.s.s, to which only the richest citizens were admitted, was very small in size, while the fifth (and lowest) cla.s.s was probably more numerous than the other four cla.s.ses combined.

The comitia centuriata was originally an a.s.sembly of the Roman citizens in the form of an army, and the divisions into cla.s.ses was based upon the kind of equipment with which each soldier was able to provide himself. The eighteen centuries of knights represented the cavalry of the army. These centuries of knights possessed the right of having their votes taken first, which const.i.tuted another advantage for the wealthy cla.s.ses. In 241 B.C. the knights were deprived of their right of voting first, but this privilege was given to the centuries of the first rank, a.s.signed by lot.

The comitia tributa, or a.s.sembly of the tribes, first met in 489 B.C., it being convened by the Senate at that time to sit in judgment upon a patrician, Coriola.n.u.s, the responsibility for whose fate the Senate desired to throw upon the plebeians. This a.s.sembly was originally a strictly plebeian body, and its original authority was limited to the administration of the business of the plebeian order. The cla.s.s character of the comitia tributa is indicated by its original name--_concilium tributum plebis_, the word _concilium_ indicating a conference of a certain part of the people rather than a legislative a.s.sembly of the whole people.

It would be hard to say whether it was the increased power of the tribunes which developed the authority of the comitia tributa, or whether it was the increased power of the comitia tributa which first gave to the tribunes the vast power which they were ultimately able to exercise in Rome. However this may be, the fact is evident that the power of the comitia tributa and of the tribunes rose together. At a later date, membership in the comitia tributa was not limited to the plebeians, but the influence of the patricians in this a.s.sembly was always inconsiderable and they generally absented themselves from its meetings. Although the wealthy cla.s.ses had no predominating influence in the comitia tributa, its decision upon any question was far from being, necessarily, the decision of the majority. Measures submitted to the comitia tributa were carried or defeated by the vote of the majority of the tribes, and the numbers enrolled in each tribe were very unequal, all the inhabitants of the city of Rome being enrolled into four tribes, and a very disproportionate power being thus given to the rural voters.

The meetings of the comitia tributa were generally presided over by a tribune, although sometimes by one of the consuls. At first the laws pa.s.sed by the comitia tributa were required to be confirmed by a vote of the comitia centuriata, but this requirement was abolished in 339 B.C. by the Publilian and Horatian laws. The provisions of these laws were reaffirmed by the Hortensian laws in 286 B.C.; and it is certain that at least from this date the full validity of a law pa.s.sed by the comitia tributa was never questioned.

In the comitia centuriata and the comitia tributa we see the anomalous condition of two independent law-making a.s.semblies; and as there was no division between them of the field of legislation, it is hard to see how, even with the controlling influence of the Senate, conflicts between the two were so generally avoided. So completely were the two comitiae on an equality as to the validity of the laws enacted by each that the records generally fail to show by which a.s.sembly any particular law was pa.s.sed, but this can generally be ascertained by looking at the name of the proposer of the law. If a tribune appears as the proposer of the law it was pa.s.sed by the comitia tributa; but if the proposer was a consul, praetor, or dictator, the law was the work of the comitia centuriata.

The powers of the two comitiae as to the election of officers were differentiated. The comitia centuriata, at all stages in the history of the Roman republic, possessed the right of electing the highest officers of the republic--the consuls, praetors, and censors. The comitia tributa originally possessed the right of electing only the tribunes and the plebeian aediles; at a later period they elected also the curule aediles, the quaestors, the majority of the legionary tribunes, and all the inferior officers of state. The comitia tributa, in the later days of the republic, secured an indirect control over the election of the higher officers also, since the adoption of the legal principle that all Romans who sought the highest honors of the state must pa.s.s through a regular gradation of offices rendered it necessary for the comitia centuriata to choose as consuls and praetors men who had previously been chosen by the comitia tributa as quaestors and aediles. It must be remembered, however, that the law relative to the order in which the various offices must be held was of a directory rather than a mandatory character; while in the main obeyed, it was, nevertheless, frequently violated.

The various public offices here referred to will be discussed in the later chapters as each office first comes into existence in Roman history. It remains at this time to speak of the organization, powers, and authority of the Roman Senate, particularly as to its control over the work of the popular a.s.semblies.

The extent of the power of the Senate over legislation varied greatly in different periods of Roman history, and these differences were caused more by the existing political conditions, and by the relative strength of the aristocratic and popular parties in Rome, than by any express changes by legislation.

At the very outset of Roman history we see the Senate existing as an aristocratic body, embodying in itself both the oligarchical principles upon which the Roman government was based, and also the patriarchal basis upon which the Roman family organization and later the organization of the Roman state itself had been built.

Originally, each of the three Roman tribes was divided into ten gentes, each gens into ten curiae, and each curia, besides const.i.tuting one of the units in the comitia curiata, furnished one member of the Roman Senate. The Senate continued after the organization by curiae had become obsolete. Membership in the Senate was at all periods for life, but did not descend from father to son. Vacancies in the Senate were filled by appointment, these appointments being made first by the kings, later by the consuls, and finally by the censors. As the censors were chosen only once in five years, vacancies in the Senate were filled only at such intervals. The aristocratic party in Rome, by keeping control of the office of censor, was able to perpetuate their majority in the Senate. In filling such vacancies, preference was given to those who had held some of the higher offices during the preceding five-year-period. Many members of the Senate had held the office of consul; many more hoped to hold it in the future. All members of the Senate, with few exceptions, had held some civic office, and were men of property and of mature age.