Suppose that, out of the same arrogance with which the Samnites wrung from us the convention in question, they had compelled us to repeat the established form of words for the surrendering of cities, would ye, tribunes, say, that the Roman people was surrendered?
and, that this city, these temples, and consecrated grounds, these lands and waters, were become the property of the Samnites?
I say no more of the surrender, because our having become sureties is the point insisted on.

Now, suppose we had become sureties that the Roman people should quit this city; that they should set it on fire; that they should have no magistrates, no senate, no laws; that they should, in future, be ruled by kings: the gods forbid, you say.

But, the enormity of the articles lessens not the obligation of a compact.

If there is any thing in which the people can be bound, it can in all.

Nor is there any importance in another circumstance, which weighs, perhaps, with some: whether a consul, a dictator, or a praetor, be the surety.