[
33]
Injustice often arises also through chicanery, that
1
is, through an over-subtle and even fraudulent construction of the law. This it is that gave rise to the
now familiar saw, “More law, less justice.” Through
such interpretation also a great deal of wrong is
committed in transactions between state and state;
thus, when a truce had been made with the enemy
for thirty days, a famous general
2 went to ravaging
their fields by night, because, he said, the truce
stipulated “days,” not nights. Not even our own
countryman's action is to be commended, if what is
told of Quintus Fabius Labeo is true—or whoever it
was (for I have no authority but hearsay): appointed
by the Senate to arbitrate a boundary dispute between Nola and Naples, he took up the case and
interviewed both parties separately, asking them not
to proceed in a covetous or grasping spirit, but to
make some concession rather than claim some accession. When each party had agreed to this, there
was a considerable strip of territory left between
them. And so he set the boundary of each city
as each had severally agreed; and the tract in between he awarded to the Roman People. Now that
is swindling, not arbitration. And therefore such
sharp practice is under all circumstances to be
avoided.
11. Again, there are certain duties that we owe3
even to those who have wronged us. For there is a
limit to retribution and to punishment; or rather, I
am inclined to think, it is sufficient that the aggressor
should be brought to repent of his wrong-doing, in
[p. 37]
order that he may not repeat the offence and that
others may be deterred from doing wrong.