here was no occasion whatever for a judicial
investigation into it. And here it will be proper to show, by
arguments and by other similar means, that there are very many things
so atrocious and so notorious, that it is not only not necessary, but
that it is not even desirable to wait for the slow proceedings of a
judicial trial.

There is a common topic for an accuser to employ against a person,
who, when he cannot deny the fact of which he is accused, still
derives some hope from his attempt to show that irregularity will be
introduced into all courts of justice by such proceedings. And here
there will come in the demonstration of the usefulness of judicial
proceedings, and the complaint of the misfortune of that person who
has been punished without being condemned; and the indignation to
be expressed against the audacity and cruelty of the man who has
inflicted the punishment. There is also a topic for the advocate for
the defence to employ, in complaining of the audacity of the person
whom he chastised; and in urging that the case ought to be judged
of, not by the name of the action itself, but with reference to the
intention of the person who committed it, and the cause for which, and
the time at which it was committed. And in pointing out what great
mischief will ensue either from the injurious conduct, or the
wickedness of some one, unless such excessive and undisguised audacity
were chastised by him whose reputation, or parents, or children, or
something else which either necessarily is, or at least ought to be
dear to every one, is affected, by such conduct.

XXIX. The transference of an accusation takes place when the
accusation of that crime which is imputed to one by the opposite party
is transferred to some other person or circumstance. And that is done
in two ways. For sometimes the motive itself is transferred,
and sometimes the act. We may employ this as an instance of the
transference of the motive:--"The Rhodians sent some men as
ambassadors to Athens. The quaestors did not give the ambassadors the
money for their expenses which they ought to have given them. The
ambassadors consequently did not go. They are impeached." The charge
brought against them is, "They ought to have gone." The denial is,
"They ought not." The question is, "Whether they ought." The reason
alleged is, "Because the money for their expenses, which is usually
given to ambassadors from the public treasury, was not given to them
by