[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14336-S14337]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        A RESPONSE TO ABC NEWS' VIEWS OF THE EARLY ROMAN SENATE

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, modern-day life expectancy now tops seventy 

[[Page S 14337]]

years. Compare that to the life expectancy during the days of the Roman 
Empire, when the average Roman citizen could expect to live 
approximately 22 years (June 13, 1994, Gannett News Service). Twenty-
two years--an amazing fact, especially when we consider that today, one 
must attain the age of 25 before serving in the United States House of 
Representatives and the ripe old age of 30 before contemplating service 
in the United States Senate.
  I mention this not as a point of interest, however, but to underscore 
the fact that the august members of the Roman Senate--many of whom were 
in their thirties or forties--were, indeed, the ``senior citizens'' of 
their time.
  Recently, ABC News aired a story in which they questioned the 
accuracy of two passages in my book, The Senate of the Roman Republic. 
The reporter of this news segment chose to take issue with my assertion 
that ``the Roman Senate, as originally created was meant to be made up 
of a body of old men.'' What ABC News failed to mention, however, was 
the average life expectancy for that period of time--a mere twenty-two 
years. If the ABC reporter had just looked up the word senate in 
Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, he would have 
seen that the very definition of senate is ``literally, an assembly of 
old men or elders * * * '' Further, when Flavius Eutropius, a fourth-
century historian, was writing of the origin of Rome, he made reference 
to Romulus' creation of the first senate, `` * * * he chose a hundred 
of the older men * * * whom, from their age, he named senators.''
  In addition, ABC disputed my claim with respect to the Roman Senate's 
veto power. As the following excerpts from noted historians will 
attest, this power of the Senate ebbed and flowed from time to time, 
but in the main, the Senate preserved, directly or indirectly, its 
authority and power of ratification or veto over the actions of Roman 
assemblies. I believe my case is made by the following quotes from 
prominent historians.
--A History of the Roman People (1962) by Heichelheim and Yeo:

       The senate possessed still another ancient source of 
     authority summed by the phrases auctoritas patrum, which gave 
     it the power to ratify resolutions of the popular assembly 
     before enactment.

  --A History and Description of Roman Political Institutions (1963) by 
    Frank Frost Abbott:

       This view that the senate was the ultimate source of 
     authority was the aristocratic theory of the constitution 
     down to the end of the republican period. . .

     

                           *   *   *   *   *
       Between 449 and 339, then, in the case of both the comitia 
     centuriata and the concilium plebis, a bill, in order to 
     become a law, required, first, favorable action by the 
     popular assembly, then the sanction of the patrician 
     senators. . . . Now one clause of the Publilian law, as we 
     have already seen, provided that in the case of the 
     centuriate comitia the auctoritas patrum should precede 
     the action of the comitia.''

  --Roman Political Institutions from City to State (1962) by Leon 
    Homo:

       The Senate.--Lastly, the Senate, the stronghold of the 
     Patriciate, which it permanently represented, enjoyed a still 
     more complete right of control. In elections and in voting of 
     laws alike, the decision of the Centuriate Assembly must, to 
     be fully valid and to produce its legal effects, be ratified 
     afterwards by the Senate (auctoritas Patrum). Refusal of the 
     Senate to ratify was an absolute veto; it made every decision 
     of the Comitia Centuriata null and void, and they had no 
     legal recourse against it.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       So, through the Consuls, the Senatorial oligarchy 
     recovered, in indirect but effective form, the veto, the 
     auctoritas Patrum, of which the Lex Hortensia had deprived 
     it.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       . . . the  Senate, in losing its right of veto, . . . 

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Sulla, in the course of his Dictatorship, restored its [the 
     Senate's] old right of veto, but it was only for a short 
     time.

  --A History of the Roman World 753-146 BC (1980) by H.H. Scullard, 
    FBA, FSA:

       Though the Senate was a deliberative body which discussed 
     and need not vote on business, it had the right to veto all 
     acts of the assembly which were invalid without senatorial 
     ratification.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       In all branches of government the Roman people was supreme, 
     but in all the Senate overshadowed them: ``senatus populusque 
     Romanus'' was not an idle phrase.

  --A History of Rome to A.D. 565 (1965) by Arthur E.R. Boak, Ph.D. and 
    William G. Sinnigen, Ph.D.:

       The Senate also acquired the right to sanction or to veto 
     resolutions passed by the Assembly, which could not become 
     laws without the Senate's approval.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       During the early years of the Republic, the only Assembly 
     of the People was the old Curiate Assembly of the regal 
     period. . . . Its powers were limited to voting, for it did 
     not have the right to initiate legislation or to discuss or 
     amend measures that were presented to it. Its legislative 
     power, furthermore, was limited by the Senate's right of 
     veto.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The legislative power of the Centuries was limited for a 
     long time, however, by the veto power of the patrician 
     senators (the patrum auctoritas), who had to ratify measures 
     passed by the assembly before they became law. This 
     restriction was practically removed by the Publilian Law 
     (339), which required the patres to ratify in advance 
     proposals that were to be presented to this assembly.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Hence it was called the Council of Plebs (concilium 
     plebis) and not the Tribal Assembly. Its resolutions, 
     called plebiscites, were binding on plebeians only; but, 
     from the late fourth century at least, if the resolutions 
     were approved by the Senate, they became valid for all 
     Romans. In the course of the fourth century the consuls 
     began to summon for legislative purposes an assembly that 
     virtually duplicated the Council of the Plebs but was 
     called the Tribal Assembly (comitia tributa) because it 
     was presided over by a magistrate with imperium and was 
     open to all citizens. It voted in the same way as the 
     Council of the Plebs and its laws were subject to the veto 
     power of the Senate.

  --A History of Rome to the Battle of Actium (1894) by Evelyn Shirley 
    Shuckburgh, M.A.:

       . . . the second ordered the auctoritas of the fathers 
     (that is, a resolution of the Senate) to be given beforehand 
     in favor of laws passed in the centuriate assembly . . .

                           *   *   *   *   *

       It took from the senators the power of stopping the passing 
     of a law in the centuriate assembly, . . .

  Mr. President, though these two matters may seem trivial and 
insignificant to some, I did want to take this opportunity to assure 
the readers of my book, The Senate of the Roman Republic, that the 
conclusions drawn are based on a great deal of study on my part. Over 
the course of many years of research, I have gleaned information, not 
only from esteemed modern scholars in Roman history, but also from the 
actual historians of the time. My reference to the Roman Senate as an 
assembly of old men and to the veto power of the Roman Senate was 
garnered from these authorities. I recognize that history is sometimes 
subject to interpretation; therefore, one can only assume that this may 
have been the premise for the ABC News story.

                          ____________________