mething has been rightly done, or when it must be
admitted that it has been done, while the principle of the act is open
to discussion: as in the case of Opimius, "I did it lawfully, for the
sake of preserving the general safety and the republic;" and when
Decius replies, "You had no power or right to slay even the wickedest
of the citizens without a trial." Then arises the dispute, "Had
Opimius lawfully the power, for the sake of the safety of the
republic, to put to death a citizen who was overturning the republic,
without his being condemned?" And so those disputes which arise in
these controversies which are marked out by certain persons and times
become gradually infinite, and after the times and persons are put out
of the question, are again reduced to the form and rules under which
their merits can be discussed.

XXXI. But in corroborative arguments of the most important character,
those points must also be established which can be opposed to the
defence, being derived either from the letter of the law, or of
a will, or from the language of a judicial decision, or of a
stipulation, or of a covenant. And even this kind has no connexion
with those causes which depend upon conjecture. For when an action is
denied altogether, it cannot be impeached by reference to the letter
of the law. It does not even come under definition, as to the
character of the letter of the law itself. For although some
expression or other is to be defined by reference to the letter of the
law, so as to be sure what meaning it has: as when the question arises
out of a will, what is meant by provisions, or out of the covenant of
a lease, what are moveables or fixtures; then it is not the fact of
there being written documents, but the interpretation of what is
written, that gives rise to controversy. But when many things may be
implied by one expression, on account of the ambiguity of some word or
words, so that he who is speaking on the other side may be allowed to
draw the meaning of what is written as is advantageous to him, or in
fact, as he pleases; or, if the document be not drawn up in ambiguous
language, he may either deduce the wish and intention of the writer
from the words, or else say that he can defend what has been done by a
document which is perfectly different relating to the same facts; then
a dispute arises from a comparison of the two written documents; so
that the writings being ambiguous, it is a question which is most
st