MLQ3 on Tumblr!

Government without bureaucracy could operate successfully only if it was government with consent —even if the motivation for consent was ultimately the fear of extreme violence by the state as penalty for open opposition. Much administration, such as the collection of taxes at the local level, was in effect carried out on behalf of the state by local urban elites in return for Roman support of their local status. The success of government thus depended upon acceptance by provincial aristocrats of the value of honors and tites bestowed by local people and recognized by Rome. Much of the extant evidence for this “empire of honor” appears to confirm such a consensus. Inscriptions on monuments from all over the empire boast about the status of local magistrates and the favors granted to them, and through them to their communities, by governors and emperors. Such evidence suggests an integrated society of provincials willingly cooperating with a benevolent and responsive state. But of course only those individuals who accepted and benefitted from the system will have paid for such monuments to be erected…

…More significant than the overt recognition by provincials of their place in the Roman system of power was the nearly universal practice of patronage to give individuals of all backgrounds a sense of connection, however tenuous, between themselves and the emperor. Almost everyone in the Roman empire knew someone who knew someone who might be able to intervene, through however many links in the chain of patronage, at the center of power in the state…. But for the provincials far away from the locus of power in Rome, the most effective invocation of patronage ties was achieved either by traveling to Rome in person or sending an embassy.

There is a wide distinction between facts and a conclusion from facts. It is difficult, at times, to distinguish a conclusion of fact from a conclusion of law. At times, the conclusion of fact may be also a conclusion of law — for example, to say that a right once belonging to A is now the property of B, is a conclusion of law as well as a conclusion of fact. (Adams vs. Holley, 12 Howard’s Practice, 326.) To charge that A is guilty of fraud is to charge a conclusion of law as well as to state a conclusion of facts. The statement in the decision of the court in this case “that the plaintiff has the right to recover one undivided seventh part of the lands described in said complaint, she being, according to the evidence, the owner of the said seventh part,” is also a conclusion of fact as well as a conclusion of law. No court is justified in reaching that conclusion without having certain ultimate facts presented to it. No court would be justified in finding that A was guilty of fraud in the absence of hearing proof upon certain ultimate facts. There may be much evidence introduced for the purpose of establishing certain ultimate facts, which ultimate facts, taken together, justify a conclusion — for example, that A is guilty of fraud.

There is much conflict among the authorities with reference to whether or not certain statements are conclusions of law or conclusions of fact. A statement of fact in a pleading may be a conclusion of fact or law if found in a judgment or decision. For example, if A alleges in his pleading that he is the owner of certain personal property and therefore entitled to the possession of the same, it is a statement of a fact, whereas, if the same statements were found in the judgment of the court it might be regarded as a conclusion of fact. So also of duress; to allege in the complaint that the plaintiff was compelled to pay a sum of money is a conclusion of law (Commercial Bank vs. City of Rochester, 41 Barber, 341; 41 N. Y., 619), while to say that he was threatened by the defendant with death or with great bodily injury, and in fear of same paid a sum of money, etc., or that he was illegally imprisonment and to procure a release, paid, etc., would doubtless be held to be a statement of facts. It is not possible to formulate a definition or a statement that will always enable us to distinguish what is meant by a conclusion of law in contradiction from a conclusion of fact; yet, in inspecting pleadings or judgments, it will seldom be difficult to make the distinction.

Public office is a public trust. A public servant must bear at all times the highest sense of honesty. This is especially significant for employees in the judiciary. The image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of its personnel, from the judge to the lowest employee. Hence, those involved in the administration of justice must live up to the highest standard of honesty and integrity in the public service. Not only must their conduct at all times be characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, it must be beyond suspicion…

In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Well-entrenched is the rule that substantial proof, and not clear and convincing evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt, is sufficient as basis for the imposition of any disciplinary action upon the employee. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied where the employer, as in this case the Court, has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct and his participation therein renders him unworthy of trust and confidence demanded by his position.