Rome allowed them to possess, were probably chosen from the new settlers alone; but, as the autonomy which they enjoyed was not great, as they possessed no high judicial magistrates of their own, and as their voting power at Rome was more a potential than an actual right, they differed little from the native inhabitants, who as _cives sine suffragio_ came equally under the jurisdiction of the Roman courts and their representatives. Whether the commune of Roman citizens had had a natural or artificial growth, it was never in early times a true state (_civitas_). Roman law knew of ἰσοπολιτεία, but not of the closer bond of συμπολιτεία; and the principle that no Roman citizen could be a full member of another state, although in the later Republic it had given place to the theory of the municipal independence of the _civis_ was always maintained in international relations with states of the outer world.[1417] As the negation of state life implied the negation of communal independence, we are not surprised to find that none of these communities of Roman citizens possessed a true civic organisation of its own. We cannot define the rights of their town-councils, we cannot assert the absolute non-existence of popular gatherings for certain purposes; but the absence of the _imperium_ and of a true judicial magistracy is clearly discerned. These communes fell under the immediate civil jurisdiction, originally of the consuls, later of the _praetor urbanus_. Originally it may have been necessary for every case not settled by voluntary arbitration to be brought to Rome, but the distance of some of these towns from the capital would have soon rendered this principle of jurisdiction impossible. The modern solution, that the judge should go on circuit, could not be thought of in a state where the bench consisted of a single man, and where this individual was prohibited by law from leaving the city for more than ten days during his year of office.[1418] The only alternative was furnished by the favourite Roman device of delegation. The praetor nominated praefects for jurisdiction (_praefecti juri dicundo_), and these were sent, sometimes as standing magistrates, sometimes perhaps as mere circuit judges, through the Roman towns, which were thence known as _praefecturae_.[1419] Delegation implies either a division of competence or, in the case of the lower court possessing full jurisdiction, an appeal to the delegating authority. There is no trace of the latter practice at Rome, and a systematic division of authority, although motives of convenience may sometimes have led the praetor to permit it, is inconsistent with the Roman idea of jurisdiction flowing direct from the _imperium_. Possibly the praetor permitted the praefect to regulate almost every kind of contentious jurisdiction, subject to his own right of summoning any case he pleased from the delegate to Rome. By a legal fiction the courts of the _praefecturae_ were held