Against Androtion (41-45)

If he says that he spoke against it but could persuade no one, surely it is ridiculous for him now to defend this Council that rejected all his excellent advice; but if he says that he held his tongue, is he not guilty of an injustice if he neglected his chance of dissuading them from the offence they were contemplating, and yet ventures now to say that having actually done so much evil they deserve to be crowned?

I expect too that Androtion will not refrain from pleading that all this has come upon him because of his success in collecting on your behalf large arrears of taxes, which a few citizens (so he will tell you) shamelessly neglected to pay; and he will denounce these men—undertaking an easy task, I think—[for not paying their property-tax], and will prophesy complete impunity for all who do not pay, if you give your verdict against him.

But I must first ask you, men of Athens, to reflect that the question you are sworn to decide is not this, but whether his proposal was in accordance with the laws. Next reflect that it is outrageous in one who charges others with violating the constitution to claim exemption from punishment for his own more serious violations; because it is obviously more serious to propose an unconstitutional decree than to fail to pay the property-tax.

Then even if it were certain that after this man’s conviction no one would pay the tax or be willing to collect it, even so you must not acquit him, as you will see from this consideration. Upon the property-taxes from the archonship of Nausinicus—say three hundred talents or a trifle more[*]—you have a deficit of fourteen talents, of which he levied seven; but I am assuming that he levied the whole amount. Now you do not need Androtion to deal with the willing payers, but with the defaulters.

So you have now to consider whether that is the value that you put on the constitution, the existing laws, and your regard for your oath;for if you acquit him, though his proposal was manifestly illegal, everyone will conclude that you have preferred this sum of money to the laws and to your good faith. Why, even if a man gave you this sum out of his own pocket, it would not be worth taking, much less if it has to be exacted from others.