Thus a disgraceful contest arose, in which each endeavoured to asperse the character of the other, though not without detriment to his own. On the expiration of the office, when Caius Claudius had taken the oath respecting the observance of the laws, and had gone up into the treasury, he gave the name of his colleague among the names of those whom he left disfranchised. Afterwards, Marcus Livius came into the treasury, and excepting only the Maecian tribe, which had neither condemned him nor made him consul or censor when condemned, left all the Roman people, four and thirty tribes, disfranchised, because they had both condemned him when innocent, and when condemned had made him consul and censor; and therefore could not deny that they had been guilty of a crime, either once in his condemnation, or twice at the elections. He said that the disfranchisement of Caius Claudius would be included in that of the thirty-four tribes, but that if he were in possession of a precedent for leaving the same person disfranchised twice he would have left his name particularly among the disfranchised. This contest between censors, endeavouring to brand each other, was highly improper, while the correction applied to the inconstancy of the people was suitable to the office of a censor, and worthy of the strict discipline of the times. As the censors were labouring under odium, Cneius Babius, tribune of the people, thinking this a favourable opportunity of advancing himself at their expense, summoned them both to trial before the people. This proceeding was quashed by the unanimous voice of the senate, lest in future this office of censor should become subject to the caprice of the people.