Rejection took the form of affixing marks (_notae_) against names in the register; these names were omitted in the revised list. Then took place the _sublectio_ of new names, and here the censure was pronounced by omitting those who had a claim to a seat in the house.[1038] The veto, which operated in its constantly negative manner, which enabled one censor to retain a name omitted by the other,[1039] or even perhaps to hinder the election of a new member selected by his colleague, and the written grounds for censure appended to the rejected name (_subscriptio censoria_),[1040] were some guarantees against capricious exclusion. The automatic method of recruiting the Senate introduced by Sulla produced a modification in the censorian selection. The magistrates seem to have lost the power of rejecting applicants, their right of exclusion being confined to names already on the list. It is not known whether the censors at a subsequent _lustrum_ still retained the power of reversing an _infamia_ once pronounced; but the usual mode in which a seat was regained by an ejected senator was to seek popular election and to enter the Senate through a magistracy.[1041] II. The _census_ opened with a summons to the people to meet the censors in the Campus Martius. It was the army as exhibited in the centuriate list that the censors wished primarily to examine, and, consequently, it was the members of this body that they summoned to appear in person; the _capite censi_, with their votes in the tribes and their taxable capital, might be represented only by the _curatores tribuum_,[1042] although the censor could summon any member of the burgess community whom he pleased.[1043] The financial examination at each _census_, which had as its object the rating for the _tributum_, was based on the returns of the last scrutiny. There was, therefore, some means of checking the declarations now made on oath by each head of a family, and in doubtful cases external evidence must have been taken. The returns were made in accordance with the instructions of a general formula (_lex censui censendo_) which the censors had published;[1044] but their general conditions must always have been the same. First came a declaration of the size of the property, then of its value. But the estimate of the individual owner need not be accepted by the censors; they often attached an exaggerated estimate to articles of luxury,[1045] or expressed their disapprobation of social or moral offences by an arbitrary and excessive rating of the goods of the offenders.[1046]