After this, rather evasive, reply the water-plug is removed, the water runs anew and the senator replies to the first plea, noted above:
If he can show, gentlemen of the jury, that there is a law which requires the corn-dealers to buy up corn because the officials bid them to, vote to acquit them. But if he does not, it's only just that you vote condemnation; for we produced the law which forbids any one in the City buying up more than seventy-five bushels of corn. Now this accusation ought to be sufficient, since this man admits he bought it, the law clearly prohibits it and you have sworn to vote according to the laws.
However, to persuade you that they are lying about the officials, I must speak more at length about them. Now when these fellows put the blame on the officials we summoned the officials and questioned them. Four said they knew nothing about the matter and Anytus said that during the previous winter, when corn was high and these fellows were bidding against each other and fighting with each other generally, he advised them to stop their wrangling, thinking it to the interests of you who buy from them, that these dealers should buy as low as possible; for they've got to sell it higher than cost, if it's only a penny more. Now to prove that he did not order them to buy up corn and store it away but did advise them not to bid against each other, I will furnish Anytus himself to you as witness; and to prove, too, that he spoke these words under the former Senate and that these fellows appear to have bought it up this year. "Testimony (Read and acknowledged)." Now you've heard that they did not buy up the corn on orders from the officials. But I think, if they are really telling the truth about the corn-inspectors, they will not be defending themselves but be accusing the officials; for in matters which the laws have expressly provided for, why shouldn't both those who fail to obey and those who incite them to act contrary to the laws, pay the penalty?
The senator then replies to the second plea in excuse which admitted that they had "cornered" the supply but held their action had really benefited the people. This prototype of the modern trust-lover's argument is logically decapitated and the disguise of public benefactor is torn off in brief but telling language which exposed variation of price in a single day—the most charitable explanation of which was that the price changed as the "bulls" or "bears" respectively controlled the market. The senator also took the opportunity to impress on the "corn-ring" that obedience to the laws and willingness to make the patriotic contributions the nation called for was a condition precedent of loyalty and that charity in trade may be allowed as a supplement, but not as a substitute for the performance of duty to one's country and fellow citizens.
But, gentlemen of the jury, I don't think they will get any pity for such talk. And perhaps they will say, as they did in the Senate, that they bought up the corn out of good will towards the state, so that they might sell as low as possible. But I will offer you the greatest and most evident proof that they are lying. For if they did do it for your sake they would have appeared selling for many days at the same price, until the corn they bought up gave out; but now, as a matter of fact, at times on the same day they sold at a drachma [18 cents] higher than at other times—just as if they had bought by the bushel and not by bulk. And I furnish you witnesses to prove it.
