In
 actions for damages, the judges usually, either because they think that a man whom they have
 once convicted is hostile to them, if any mention of a capital charge against him is made, do
 not allow it; or else, because they think that their duties are over when they have given their
 decision respecting the defendant, they attend more carelessly to the other points. Therefore,
 very many men are acquitted of treason, when, if they were condemned, actions would be brought
 to recover damages on charges of peculation. And we see this happen every day,—that when a
 defendant has been convicted of peculation, the judges acquit those men to whom, in fixing the
 damages, it has been settled that the money has come; and when this is the case, the decisions
 are not rescinded, but this principle is laid down, that the assessment of damages is not a
 judicial trial. Scaevola was convicted of other charges, by a great number of witnesses from
 Apulia . The greatest possible eagerness was shown in
 endeavoring to have that action considered as a capital prosecution. And if it had had the
 weight of a case already decided, he afterwards, according to this identical law, would have
 been prosecuted either by the same enemies, or by others. That follows, which they call a trial, but which our ancestors never called a trial, and never
 paid any attention to as if it had been a formal judicial decision, the animadversion and
 authority of the censors. But before I begin to speak on that subject, I must say a few words
 about my own duty, in order that it may be clearly seen that I have paid proper attention to
 this danger, and also to all other considerations of duty and friendship. 
 For I have a friendship with both those brave men who were the last censors; and with one of
 them, (as most of you are aware,) I have the greatest intimacy, and the closest connection
 cemented by mutual good offices. So that, if I am forced to
 say anything of the reasons which they have given for their sentences, I shall say it with these
 feelings, that I shall wish everything that I say considered as having reference not to their
 individual conduct in particular, but to the whole principle of the censorial animadversion. But
 from Lentulus, my intimate friend, who out of regard for his eminent virtue and for the high
 honours which he has received from the Roman people, is named by me to do him honour, I shall
 easily obtain this indulgence, that, as he himself is always accustomed to employ the greatest
 good faith and diligence in matters affecting the safety of his friends, and also the greatest
 vigour of mind and freedom of speech, so, in this instance, he will not be offended with me for
 taking as much freedom my self, as I cannot forbear to take without danger to my client. But,
 everything shall be said by me carefully and deliberately, as indeed it ought to be, so that I
 shall not appear to have betrayed the cause entrusted to my good faith for its defence, nor to
 have injured the dignity of any one, nor to have disregarded any of the claims of friendship. I see then, O judges, that the censors passed animadversion
 on some of the judges who sat on that trial which Junius 
 presided over, and added to their sentence that that very trial was the cause of it. Now, first
 I will lay down this general principle, that this city has never been so content with censorial
 animadversions as with judicial decisions. Nor in so notorious a case need I waste time by
 citing instances. I will just adduce this one fact,—that Caius Geta, after he had been expelled
 the senate by Lucius Metellus and Cnaeus Domitius when they were censors, was himself appointed
 censor afterwards; and that he whose morals had met with this reproof from the censors, was
 afterwards appointed to judge of the morals of the whole Roman people, and of those very men who
 had thus punished him. But if that had been thought a final judicial decision, (as other men
 when they have been condemned by a sentence involving infamy are deprived for ever of all honour
 and all dignity, so) a man branded with this ignominy would never have had any subsequent access
 to honour, or any possibility of return to the senate. Now,
 if the freedman of Cnaeus Lentulus or of Lucius Gellius should convict any man of theft, he,
 being deprived of all his credit, will never recover any portion of his honourable position in
 the city; but those men, whom Lucius Gellius himself and Cnaeus Lentulus, the two censors, most
 illustrious citizens and most wise men, have animadverted on, and, in their reasons for their
 sentences, have imputed to them theft and peculation, have not only returned to the senate, but
 have been acquitted of those very charges by judicial sentence. 
 Our ancestors did not think it fit for any one to be a judge, not only of any one's character,
 but not even of the most insignificant money matter, if he had not been agreed to by both the
 contending parties. Wherefore, in every law in which exception has been made of causes for which
 a magistrate may not be taken, or a judge elected, or another man accused, this cause of
 ignominy is passed over. For their intention was that the power of the censors should strike the
 profligate with terror, but not that it should have power over their lives.