cases on appeal served simply as a moral support of the plebeian magistrates.
Failures of the Plebeians. — The primary objects of the plebeians in seceding had been to insure themselves an equitable administration of justice, especially in regard to debts, and to promote a just management of the public domain. They obtained some temporary relief; otherwise they were unsuccessful. The general system of private law and custom was not changed even in respect to debtors, and the administration of justice remained the same except in cases affecting personal freedom. The general policy as to the public lands was not permanently changed. The tribunes, to be sure, could annul unjust proceedings of the magistrates in particular cases, but they could not stop the administration of justice in general. Even if they had been able to do so, the immediate result would have been simply anarchy.
Mistakes of the Plebeians. — The plebeians, on the other hand, claimed and gained for their magistrates a criminal jurisdiction to a large extent coördinate with that of the patrician magistrates. Thus the party, or class, leaders were intrusted with the most conspicuous, if not the most important, part of the administration of justice — the great political trials. They degraded the courts into instruments of party, and sacrificed the lives and estates of citizens to the pleasure of partisan assemblies. The results were the more disastrous and lasting, as the old law of custom was breaking down under new conditions. The legal conceptions of the time were indefinite, there were no precise definitions of crime or explicit provisions for its punishment, and large scope was necessarily left to the magistrate and judge for the exercise of judgment or the display of partisanship.
