to supplant domanial property； and finally form the basis of all jurisprudence。
But； sir； admire the clumsiness of systems； or rather the fatality of logic！ While the Roman law and all the savants inspired by it teach that property in its origin is the right of first occupancy sanctioned by law； the modern legists； dissatisfied with this brutal definition； claim that property is based upon LABOR。 Immediately they infer that he who no longer labors； but makes another labor in his stead； loses his right to the earnings of the latter。 It is by virtue of this principle that the serfs of the middle ages claimed a legal right to property； and consequently to the enjoyment of political rights； that the clergy were despoiled in '89 of their immense estates； and were granted a pension in exchange； that at the restoration the liberal deputies opposed the indemnity of one billion francs。 〃The nation；〃 said they； 〃has acquired by twenty…five years of labor and possession the property which the emigrants forfeited by abandonment and long idleness： why should the nobles be treated with more favor than the priests？〃＇1＇
＇1＇ A professor of comparative legislation； M。 Lerminier； has gone still farther。 He has dared to say that the nation took from the clergy all their possessions； not because of IDLENESS； but because of UNWORTHINESS。 〃You have civilized the world；〃 cries this apostle of equality； speaking to the priests； 〃and for that reason your possessions were given you。 In your hands they were at once an instrument and a reward。 But you do not now deserve them； for you long since ceased to civilize any thing whatever。 。 。 。〃
This position is quite in harmony with my principles； and I heartily applaud the indignation of M。 Lerminier； but I do not know that a proprietor was ever deprived of his property because UNWORTHY； and as reasonable； social； and even useful as the thing may seem； it is quite contrary to the uses and customs of property。
All usurpations； not born of war； have been caused and supported by labor。 All modern history proves this； from the end of the Roman empire down to the present day。 And as if to give a sort of legal sanction to these usurpations； the doctrine of labor； subversive of property； is professed at great length in the Roman law under the name of PRESCRIPTION。
The man who cultivates； it has been said； makes the land his own； consequently； no more property。 This was clearly seen by the old jurists； who have not failed to denounce this novelty； while on the other hand the young school hoots at the absurdity of the first…occupant theory。 Others have presented themselves； pretending to reconcile the two opinions by uniting them。 They have failed； like all the _juste…milieux_ of the world； and are laughed at for their eclecticism。 At present； the alarm is in the camp of the old doctrine； from all sides pour IN DEFENCES OF PROPERTY； STUDIES REGARDING PROPERTY； THEORIES OF PROPERTY； each one of which； giving the lie to the rest； inflicts a fresh wound upon property。
Consider； indeed； the inextricable embarrassments； the contradictions； the absurdities； the incredible nonsense； in which the bold defenders of property so lightly involve themselves。 I choose the eclectics； because； those killed； the others cannot survive。
M。 Troplong； jurist； passes for a philosopher in the eyes of the editors of 〃Le Droit。〃 I tell the gentlemen of 〃Le Droit〃 that； in the judgment of philosophers； M。 Troplong is only an advocate； and I prove my assertion。
M。 Troplong is a defender of progress。 〃The words of the code；〃 says he； 〃are fruitful sap with which the classic works of the eighteenth century overflow。 To wish to suppress them 。 。 。 is to violate the law of progress； and to forget that a science which moves is a science which grows。〃＇1＇
＇1＇ 〃Treatise on Prescription。〃
Now； the only mutable and progressive portion of law； as we have already seen； is that which concerns property。 If； then； you ask what reforms are to be introduced into the right of property？ M。 Troplong makes no reply； what progress is to be hoped for？ no reply； what is to be the destiny of property in case of universal association？ no reply； what is the absolute and what the contingent； what the true and what the false； in property？ no reply。 M。 Troplong favors quiescence and _in statu quo_ in regard to property。 What could be more unphilosophical in a progressive philosopher？
Nevertheless； M。 Troplong has thought about these things。 〃There are；〃 he says； 〃many weak points and antiquated ideas in the doctrines of modern authors concerning property： witness the works of MM。 Toullier and Duranton。〃 The doctrine of M。 Troplong promises； then； strong points； advanced and progressive ideas。 Let us see； let us examine：
〃Man； placed in the presence of matter； is conscious of a power over it； which has been given to him to satisfy the needs of his being。 King of inanimate or unintelligent nature； he feels that he has a right to modify it； govern it； and fit it for his use。 There it is； the subject of property； which is legitimate only when exercised over things； never when over persons。〃
M。 Troplong is so little of a philosopher； that he does not even know the import of the philosophical terms which he makes a show of using。 He says of matter that it is the SUBJECT of property； he should have said the OBJECT。 M。 Troplong uses the language of the anatomists； who apply the term SUBJECT to the human matter used in their experiments。
This error of our author is repeated farther on： 〃Liberty； which overcomes matter； the subject of property； &c。〃 The SUBJECT of property is man； its OBJECT is matter。 But even this is but a slight mortification； directly we shall have some crucifixions。
Thus； according to the passage just quoted； it is in the conscience and personality of man that the principle of property must be sought。 Is there any thing new in this doctrine？ Apparently it never has occurred to those who； since the days of Cicero and Aristotle； and earlier； have maintained that THINGS BELONG TO THE FIRST OCCUPANT； that occupation may be exercised by beings devoid of conscience and personality。 The human personality； though it may be the principle or the subject of property； as matter is the object； is not the CONDITION。 Now； it is this condition which we most need to know。 So far； M。 Troplong tells us no more than his masters； and the figures with which he adorns his style add nothing to the old idea。
Property； then； implies three terms： The subject； the object； and the condition。 There is no difficulty in regard to the first two terms。 As to the third； the condition of property down to this day； for the Greek as for the Barbarian； has been that of first occupancy。 What now would you have it； progressive doctor？
〃When man lays hands for the first time upon an object without a master； he performs an act which； among individuals； is of the greatest importance。 The thing thus seized and occupied participates； so to speak； in the personality of him who holds it。 It becomes sacred； like himself。 It is impossible to take it without doing violence to his liberty； or to remove it without rashly invading his person。 Diogenes did but express this truth of intuition； when he said： ‘Stand out of my light！'〃
Very good！ but would the prince of cynics； the very personal and very haughty Diogenes； have had the right to charge another cynic； as rent for this same place in the sunshine； a bone for twenty…four hours of possession？ It is that which constitutes the proprietor； it is that which you fail to justify。 In reasoning from the human personality and individuality to the right of property； you unconsciously construct a syllogism in which the conclusion includes more than the premises； contrary to the rules laid down by Aristotle。 The individuality of the human person proves INDIVIDUAL POSSESSION； originally called _proprietas_； in opposition to collective possession； _communio_。
It gives birth to the distinction between THINE and MINE； true signs of equality； not； by any means； of subordination。 〃From equivocation to equivocation；〃 says M。 Michelet；＇1＇ 〃property would crawl to the end of the world； man could not limit it； were not he himself its limit。 Where they clash； there will be its frontier。〃 In short； individuality of being destroys the hypothesis of communism； but it does not for that reason give birth to domain；that domain by virtue of which the holder of a thing exercises over the person who takes his place a right of prestation and suzerainty； that has always been identified with property itself。
＇1＇ 〃Origin of French Law。〃
Further； that he whose legitimately acquired possession injures nobody cannot be nonsuited without flagrant injustice； is a truth； not of INTUITION； as M。 Troplong says； but of INWARD SENSATION；＇1＇ which has nothing to do with property。
＇1＇ To honor one's parents； to be grateful to one's benefactors； to neither kill nor steal；truths of inward sensation。 To obey God rather than men； to render to each that which is his； the whole is greater than a part； a straight line is the shortest road from one point to another；truths of intuition。 All are a priori but the first are felt by the conscience； and imply only a simple act of the soul； the second are perceived by the reason； and imply comparison and relation。 In short； the former are sentiments； the latter are ideas。
M。 Troplong admits； then； occupancy as a condition of property。 In that； he is in accord with the Roman law； in accord with MM。 Toullier and Duranton； but in his opinion this condition is not the only one； and it is in this particular that his doctrine goes beyond theirs。
〃But； however exclusive the right arising from sole occupancy； does it not become still more so； when man has moulded matter by his labor； when he has deposited in it a portion of himself； re… creating it by his industry； and setting upon it the seal of his intelligence and activity？ Of all conquests； that is the most legitimate； for it is the price of labor。
He who should deprive a man of the thing thus remodelled； thus humanized； would invade the man himself； and would inflict the d