[1627] Livy iii. 11. 1.
[1628] Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. ii. 297.
[1629] The veto of governmental acts, assigned them for the pre-decemviral period by the historians (cf. Livy ii. 44), is therefore an anachronism. The very fact mentioned by Livy, in the chapter here cited, of the patrician attempt to win as many tribunes as possible points to obstruction rather than to the veto as their weapon. The increase in the number of tribunes from two to ten indicates the same condition.
[1630] Cf. Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 157.
[1631] Cf. Livy ii. 42. 6; 43. 3; 44. 1; 48. 2 f.; 52. 2 f.; 54. 2; Dion. Hal. viii. 87. 4 f.; ix. 5. 1; 37. 1 f.
[1632] Livy ii. 56. 2: “Rogationem tulit ad populum, ut plebei magistratus tributis comitiis fierent.”
[1633] The senate gave its consent; Livy ii. 57; Dion. Hal. ix. 49. 3 f.
[1634] Livy ii. 56. 3: “Haud parva res sub titulo prima specie minime atroci ferebatur, sed quae patriciis omnem potestatem per clientium suffragia creandi quos vellent tribunos auferret”; cf. Dion. Hal. ix. 41. 5.
[1635] That the ancients had this conception of the curiate assembly which elected tribunes cannot be doubted; p. 24, 32; cf. Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. ii. 283, n. 1.
[1636] P. 54, 60 f.