58
In the case of Polyeuctus of Cydantidae,For Polyeuctus of Cydantidae, the accuser of Euxenippus, cf. Hyp. 4.4, Introduction. when the people instructed the council to inquire whether he was accompanying the exiles to Megara and to report back after the investigation, it reported that he was doing so. You chose accusers as the law prescribes: Polyeuctus came into court and you acquitted him, on his admitting that he was going to Megara to Nicophanes who, he said, was married to his mother. So you did not consider that he was doing anything strange or reprehensible in keeping in touch with his mother's husband who was in difficulties, or in assisting him, so far as he could, while he was banished from the country.
59
The report of the council, Demosthenes, was not proved false; it was quite true, but the jury decided to acquit Polyeuctus. The council was instructed to discover the truth, yet, as I say, the court decided whether it was a case for pardon. Is that any reason for distrusting the council over the present reports in which it has stated that you and your confederates are in possession of the gold? That would be disgraceful.
60
Convince the jury now, Demosthenes, that any of those crimes ranks with yours and that to take bribes against one's country is a pardonable act which would justify these men in acquitting you. For other pecuniary offences the laws prescribe damages twice as great as the sum involved,A misleading statement. Cf. Hyp. 5 col. 24, where the contrast made is between a simple and a tenfold fine. A fine was doubled only if it had not been paid before a specific date. Cf. Din. 2.17 and Aristot. Const. Ath. 54. but in cases of bribery they have laid down two penalties only: either death, to ensure that by meeting with this punishment the guilty man is an example to others, or a fine for bribery ten times as great as the original bribe, so that men who dare to commit this offence shall not gain by it.
