interdict is not possessory： for he who wishes to acquire possession by this means does not possess； and has not possessed； and yet acquired possession is the condition of possessory interdicts。〃 Why is not an action to acquire possession equally conceivable with an action to be reinstated in possession？ When the Roman plebeians demanded a division of the conquered territory； when the proletaires of Lyons took for their motto； _Vivre en travaillant； ou mourir en combattant_ （to live working； or die fighting）； when the most enlightened of the modern economists claim for every man the right to labor and to live；they only propose this interdict； _adipiscendae possessionis_； which embarrasses M。 Troplong so seriously。 And what is my object in pleading against property； if not to obtain possession？ How is it that M。 Troplongthe legist； the orator； the philosopherdoes not see that logically this interdict must be admitted； since it is the necessary complement of the two others； and the three united form an indivisible trinity；to RECOVER； to MAINTAIN； to ACQUIRE？ To break this series is to create a blank； destroy the natural synthesis of things； and follow the example of the geometrician who tried to conceive of a solid with only two dimensions。 But it is not astonishing that M。 Troplong rejects the third class of _actions possessoires_； when we consider that he rejects possession itself。 He is so completely controlled by his prejudices in this respect； that he is unconsciously led； not to unite （that would be horrible in his eyes）； but to identify the _action possessoire_ with the _action petitoire_。 This could be easily proved； were it not too tedious to plunge into these metaphysical obscurities。
As an interpreter of the law； M。 Troplong is no more successful than as a philosopher。 One specimen of his skill in this direction； and I am done with him：
Code of Civil Procedure； Art。 23： 〃_Actions possessoires_ are only when commenced within the year of trouble by those who have held possession for at least a year by an irrevocable title。〃
M。 Troplong's comments：
〃Ought we to maintainas Duparc； Poullain； and Lanjuinais would have usthe rule _spoliatus ante omnia restituendus_； when an individual； who is neither proprietor nor annual possessor； is expelled by a third party； who has no right to the estate？ I think not。 Art。 23 of the Code is general： it absolutely requires that the plaintiff in _actions possessoires_ shall have been in peaceable possession for a year at least。 That is the invariable principle： it can in no case be modified。 And why should it be set aside？ The plaintiff had no seisin； he had no privileged possession； he had only a temporary occupancy； insufficient to warrant in his favor the presumption of property； which renders the annual possession so valuable。 Well！ this _ae facto_ occupancy he has lost； another is invested with it： possession is in the hands of this new…comer。 Now； is not this a case for the application of the principle； _In_ _pari causa possesser potior habetur_？ Should not the actual possessor be preferred to the evicted possessor？ Can he not meet the complaint of his adversary by saying to him： ‘Prove that you were an annual possessor before me； for you are the plaintiff。 As far as I am concerned； it is not for me to tell you how I possess； nor how long I have possessed。 _Possideo quia possideo_。 I have no other reply； no other defence。 When you have shown that your action is admissible； then we will see whether you are entitled to lift the veil which hides the origin of my possession。'〃
And this is what is honored with the name of jurisprudence and philosophy；the restoration of force。 What！ when I have 〃moulded matter by my labor〃 ＇I quote M。 Troplong＇； when I have 〃deposited in it a portion of myself〃 ＇M。 Troplong＇； when I have 〃re…created it by my industry； and set upon it the seal of my intelligence〃 ＇M。 Troplong＇；on the ground that I have not possessed it for a year； a stranger may dispossess me； and the law offers me no protection！ And if M。 Troplong is my judge； M。 Troplong will condemn me！ And if I resist my adversary；if； for this bit of mud which I may call MY FIELD； and of which they wish to rob me； a war breaks out between the two competitors； the legislator will gravely wait until the stronger； having killed the other； has had possession for a year！ No； no； Monsieur Troplong！ you do not understand the words of the law； for I prefer to call in question your intelligence rather than the justice of the legislator。 You are mistaken in your application of the principle； _In pari causa possessor potior habetur：_ the actuality of possession here refers to him who possessed at the time when the difficulty arose； not to him who possesses at the time of the complaint。 And when the code prohibits the reception of _actions possessoires_； in cases where the possession is not of a year's duration； it simply means that if； before a year has elapsed； the holder relinquishes possession； and ceases actually to occupy _in propria persona_； he cannot avail himself of an _action possessoire_ against his successor。 In a word； the code treats possession of less than a year as it ought to treat all possession； however long it has existed；that is； the condition of property ought to be； not merely seisin for a year； but perpetual seisin。
I will not pursue this analysis farther。 When an author bases two volumes of quibbles on foundations so uncertain； it may be boldly declared that his work； whatever the amount of learning displayed in it； is a mess of nonsense unworthy a critic's attention。
At this point； sir； I seem to hear you reproaching me for this conceited dogmatism； this lawless arrogance； which respects nothing； claims a monopoly of justice and good sense； and assumes to put in the pillory any one who dares to maintain an opinion contrary to its own。 This fault； they tell me； more odious than any other in an author； was too prominent a characteristic of my First Memoir； and I should do well to correct it。
It is important to the success of my defence； that I should vindicate myself from this reproach； and since； while perceiving in myself other faults of a different character； I still adhere in this particular to my disputatious style； it is right that I should give my reasons for my conduct。 I act； not from inclination； but from necessity。
I say； then； that I treat my authors as I do for two reasons： a REASON OF RIGHT； and a REASON OF INTENTION； both peremptory。
1。 Reason of right。 When I preach equality of fortunes； I do not advance an opinion more or less probable； a utopia more or less ingenious； an idea conceived within my brain by means of imagination only。 I lay down an absolute truth； concerning which hesitation is impossible； modesty superfluous； and doubt ridiculous。
But； do you ask； what assures me that that which I utter is true？
What assures me； sir？ The logical and metaphysical processes which I use； the correctness of which I have demonstrated by a priori reasoning； the fact that I possess an infallible method of investigation and verification with which my authors are unacquainted； and finally； the fact that for all matters relating to property and justice I have found a formula which explains all legislative variations； and furnishes a key for all problems。 Now； is there so much as a shadow of method in M。 Toullier； M。 Troplong； and this swarm of insipid commentators； almost as devoid of reason and moral sense as the code itself？ Do you give the name of method to an alphabetical； chronological； analogical； or merely nominal classification of subjects？ Do you give the name of method to these lists of paragraphs gathered under an arbitrary head； these sophistical vagaries； this mass of contradictory quotations and opinions； this nauseous style； this spasmodic rhetoric； models of which are so common at the bar； though seldom found elsewhere？ Do you take for philosophy this twaddle； this intolerable pettifoggery adorned with a few scholastic trimmings？ No； no！ a writer who respects himself； never will consent to enter the balance with these manipulators of law； misnamed JURISTS； and for my part I object to a comparison。
2。 Reason of intention。 As far as I am permitted to divulge this secret； I am a conspirator in an immense revolution； terrible to charlatans and despots； to all exploiters of the poor and credulous； to all salaried idlers； dealers in political panaceas and parables； tyrants in a word of thought and of opinion。 I labor to stir up the reason of individuals to insurrection against the reason of authorities。
According to the laws of the society of which I am a member； all the evils which afflict humanity arise from faith in external teachings and submission to authority。 And not to go outside of our own century； is it not true； for instance； that France is plundered； scoffed at； and tyrannized over； because she speaks in masses； and not by heads？ The French people are penned up in three or four flocks； receiving their signal from a chief； responding to the voice of a leader； and thinking just as he says。 A certain journal； it is said； has fifty thousand subscribers； assuming six readers to every subscriber； we have three hundred thousand sheep browsing and bleating at the same cratch。 Apply this calculation to the whole periodical press； and you find that； in our free and intelligent France； there are two millions of creatures receiving every morning from the journals spiritual pasturage。 Two millions！ In other words； the entire nation allows a score of little fellows to lead it by the nose。
By no means； sir； do I deny to journalists talent； science； love of truth； patriotism； and what you please。 They are very worthy and intelligent people； whom I undoubtedly should wish to resemble； had I the honor to know them。 That of which I complain； and that which has made me a conspirator； is that； instead of enlightening us； these gentlemen command us； impose upon us articles of faith； and that without demonstration or verification。 When； for example； I ask why these fortifications of Paris； which； in former times； under the influence of certain prejudices； and by means of a concurrence of extrao