In Italy also there was doubtless the distinction between the higher and the lower kind of _foedus_—the _foedus aequum_ and the _foedus iniquum_. In all treaties concluded between Rome and cities in her symmachy there was a recognition of partial dependence in the latter; but some of these treaties contained a “suzerainty” clause to the effect that the state in question should “in a friendly spirit respect the majesty of the Roman people.” This clause did not diminish the _libertas_ of the state accepting it, but merely strengthened the position of Rome.[1440] It was a characteristic of the _iniquum foedus_.[1441] The duties of the federate cities expressed in their name (_socii_, σύμμαχοι) were primarily the furnishing of requisitions whether in men or ships. The latter were demanded from the Greek cities of the coast, but Italy as a whole furnished the auxiliary land armies of Rome, the _togati_ liable to the levy.[1442] Every state had to keep a register of its effective strength in accordance with a principle of assessment (_formula_).[1443] The general demands of Rome were specified in the treaties; the special levies required at any given time were dictated by the Senate and consuls.[1444] Military requisitions necessarily involve pecuniary burdens. But these were all indirect. Each city had complete control of its own finances; no tribute was imposed by Rome, and the antithesis to the _socius_ is the _stipendiarius_.[1445] This immunity was originally based on the theory of treaty relations; later, when the view had grown up that the tribute paid by the stipendiary states was the result of their precarious tenure as _possessores_, the Italians were held to be owners of their land. The _jus Italicum_ of the Principate confers on any state to which it is granted quiritarian ownership, and, therefore, immunity from taxation on land. Enjoyment of their own laws and control of their own courts were other symbols of the autonomy of the allies. Rome could not legislate for the Italian _socii_, and they were beyond the judicial authority of the Roman magistrate in Italy. But the necessities of social and commercial intercourse rendered it advisable that the Italian allies—more especially the Latins—should be brought into close legal relations with Rome, and the acceptance by the latter of innumerable civil laws of the central state is attested by Cicero.[1446] The Italians are known to have been bound by a _plebiscitum_ concerning loans[1447]—this, however, only made contracts of a certain kind between them and Romans invalid, and may not have demanded their consent; but their formal acceptance must have been required for the Didian law, which extended the sumptuary regulations of the _lex Fannia_ to all the _Italici_.[1448] The “free” as well as the “federate” city has the right to accept or decline a legislative proposal put before it by the Roman government.[1449]