Curia Session III - 194 BC

[Marcus Decius Bellicus]

M. Decius Bellicus' proxy rose

"Should sections II, V and VI be struck from this lex, I'm sure that Decius Bellicus would not frown upon me supporting it."

[Proculus Lucius Regulus]

Article II has been the source of no contention. It simply provides for the method candidates will put forward their names and platforms.
I agree that Article V (and VI, by extension, as it relies entirely on Article V) has been the source of contention, but you have perhaps misinterpreted my words? I can concede my original wording was not incredibly clear or specific. I do not propose they be struck from the Lex, but separated from the Lex, and debated on another day as a new bill, as to not stall out the day's proceedings with needless pedantry. Please inform me if I have misrepresented your statement.

[Gaius Cassius Vecellinus]

Primus Proximus Maximus rises again

Conscript Fathers,

I refuse to support an amendment that will further empower tribunes and the assemblies at the expense of the Senate and its higher magistrates. I retract my proposal to include a prohibition on vetoing the appointment of governors. Though I still believe if made into law, no magistrate or tribune would be allowed to veto an action that we are mandated to do by law but if my fellow senators and magistrate seem to disagree, so be it let the precedent be set that laws can now be vetoed at will if and when this occurs.

I continue to support a clause to provide a time limit as to when a Senator or their representative has to announce their candidacy for a governorship, preferably between the months of Quintilis and Sextilis. (OOC: 1-2 days from when the turn changes to Quintilis)

Conscript father,

Duly noted. We find ourselves in agreement in regards the first paragraph.

What is the necessity however of limiting the candidacy period to only a single month? If a candidate makes an adequate candidacy proposal to the Consuls it is of little importance if he has made it in Sextilis or December.

M. Decius Bellicus' proxy rose

"Should sections II, V and VI be struck from this lex, I'm sure that Decius Bellicus would not frown upon me supporting it."

Conscript father,

Without these sections the lex would be devoid of purpose; would you propose a reworking of these sections that would be more in line with your views on the subject without changing the fundamental spirit of the bill?

Veto this, veto that. This childish, pedantic squabbling renders me great pain. I propose we strike Article V and debate it separately on another day, so we may proceed with the rest of today's business.
I had hoped the petty squabbles and self-aggrandizement of the previous consular year had been left behind, but I must have been sorely mistaken. I would hope that, in future, all my colleagues think of Rome and the common good of our people before they open their well-fed mouths to waste another valuable day to argument and ego.

Conscript father,

These words have been the most unproductive we've seen all session. Debate, however tortuous it may be at times, is as essential to our Republic as our legions. It is in the clash of ideas and viewpoints that adequate legislation can be drafted for our Republic.

To classify these endeavors and childish and pedantic is nearly an insult to our duties.

We must relearn, together, that if another among us does not disagree with what we say, it need not be necessarily an attack on our person, but rather the healthy criticism that is expected of Senatorial practice.

If the Senate deems it appropriate to pass the law as proposed or in an amended form, so be it; should otherwise decree otherwise, then it must be for the good of the Republic. What is healthy and to be commended, is that the debate occurs freely and uninterrupted.

I yield the floor.

[Allectus Fabius Maximus]

Primus Proximus Maximus rises again

Conscript Fathers,

I refuse to support an amendment that will further empower tribunes and the assemblies at the expense of the Senate and its higher magistrates. I retract my proposal to include a prohibition on vetoing the appointment of governors. Though I still believe if made into law, no magistrate or tribune would be allowed to veto an action that we are mandated to do by law but if my fellow senators and magistrate seem to disagree, so be it let the precedent be set that laws can now be vetoed at will if and when this occurs.

I continue to support a clause to provide a time limit as to when a Senator or their representative has to announce their candidacy for a governorship, preferably between the months of Quintilis and Sextilis. (OOC: 1-2 days from when the turn changes to Quintilis)

Conscript father,

Duly noted. We find ourselves in agreement in regards the first paragraph.

What is the necessity however of limiting the candidacy period to only a single month? If a candidate makes an adequate candidacy proposal to the Consuls it is of little importance if he has made it in Sextilis or December.

Consul Cassius Vecellinus,

By limiting who declares their candidacies to a specific time frame rather that allowing it to occur over a six month period, if we are forced to follow the provisions of Article V then a Senator would not be able to simply send their servant to the rostra and declare their candidacy to be considered for the province by province vote which they would normally be excluded from. What I do not want to see is the Senate becoming a free for all if we have to follow the provisions as outlined in Article 5. As an alternative, we can allow both consuls to decide when to open and close the announcement of candidacies and all who declare their candidacy after it is closed will not be considered.

[Marcus Decius Bellicus]

M. Decius Bellicus' proxy rose

"Should sections II, V and VI be struck from this lex, I'm sure that Decius Bellicus would not frown upon me supporting it."

Conscript father,

Without these sections the lex would be devoid of purpose; would you propose a reworking of these sections that would be more in line with your views on the subject without changing the fundamental spirit of the bill?

"Consul G. Cassius Vecellinus,

I must admit that I find the whole purpose of this bill to be rather devoid of purpose, I simply wished to give a chance for the stated interest, or one of them, of codifying how we handle the nomination of provincial magistrate candidates, to be codified. I think it is overly tiresome and burdensome to presume that we need to tell an idoneous Roman how they must structure their statement of candidacy. I think it is overly tiresome and burdensome to presume we need a law to do this. I think it is overly tiresome and burdensome to continue debating this legislation when there is simply no purpose for it whatsoever.

However, in the spirit of compromise I am willing to allow for Sections I, III and IV to be codified, so we can move onto actual pressing matters of state."

[Marcus Aurelius Cotta]

You will allow something to be codified if articles are dropped.

How generous of the proconsul’s proxy

[Gaius Cassius Vecellinus]

The Consul rises.

Conscript fathers,

I believe enough discussion has been had in regards this bill and we can clearly see that there are two camps of Senators; one who supports the motion as it is and another who would rather it fail altogether.

There is only one way to settle the question and move on with today's business.

For the following motion:

LEX DE ELIGENDIS MAGISTRATIBUS PROVINCIALIBUS (Law for the Election of Provincial Magistrates)
Sponsor: Gaius Cassius Vecellinus
Co-Sponsor(s): Amulius Valerius Marius

WHEREAS the Senate acknowledges that the process for electing idoneous individuals to the rank of provincial governor has been conducted haphazardly in the past few years;

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Roman Republic in the Curia Hostilia assembled,
I. Idoneous individuals who wish to run for the office of provincial governor in the succeeding consular year can make their candidacy in a period running from Quintilis to December either in person or through a nominated representative.
II. Their candidacy will include, at a minimum, their name, intended provincial governorship and electoral program.
III. The Consuls which take office in the year succeeding the candidacy period will, based on the available candidates and by joint agreement, submit to a vote in the Senate a motion containing their chosen governors.
IV. If no candidates are available for any given province, the Consulswill be required to put forth the name of another idoneous individual.
V. Should the Consuls fail to come to a joint agreement or the Senate vote against the proposal as put forth by the former, an immediate vote will begin on a province-by-province basis where candidates who have made a candidacy and those who names have been put forth by the Consuls under Article IV will be considered.
VI. Should the outcome of Article V produce an electoral tie between any candidate, the Consuls will have the option to break the tie by joint agreement. If the Consul's cannot come to an agreement, the tie will be broken by the Censor, or if not available, the Princeps Senatus.

Written into the annals in the consular year 194BC of Gaius Cassius Vecellinus and Titus Furius Pavo

Begin discessio (division).

Quí hoc cénsétis, illuc tránsite; quí alia omnia, in hanc partem. (Whoever thinks this, go over there; whoever thinks anything else, to this part.)

May the will of the Senate be known to all.

[Gaius Cassius Vecellinus]

Aye.

[Marcus Decius Bellicus]

NAY

[Allectus Fabius Maximus]

Aye