Everybody　answers；　〃No；　the　authority　of　man　is　only　the　authority　of　the　law；　which　ought　to　be　justice　and　truth。〃　　The　private　will　counts　for　nothing　in　government；　which　consists；　first；　in　discovering　truth　and　justice　in　order　to　make　the　law；　and；　second；　in　superintending　the　execution　of　this　law。　　I　do　not　now　inquire　whether　our　constitutional　form　of　government　satisfies　these　conditions；　whether；　for　example；　the　will　of　the　ministry　never　influences　the　declaration　and　interpretation　of　the　law；　or　whether　our　deputies；　in　their　debates；　are　more　intent　on　conquering　by　argument　than　by　force　of　numbers：　it　is　enough　for　me　that　my　definition　of　a　good　government　is　allowed　to　be　correct。　　This　idea　is　exact。　　Yet　we　see　that　nothing　seems　more　just　to　the　Oriental　nations　than　the　despotism　of　their　sovereigns；　that；　with　the　ancients　and　in　the　opinion　of　the　philosophers　themselves；　slavery　was　just；　that　in　the　middle　ages　the　nobles；　the　priests；　and　the　bishops　felt　justified　in　holding　slaves；　that　Louis　XIV。　thought　that　he　was　right　when　he　said；　〃The　State！　　I　am　the　State；〃　and　that　Napoleon　deemed　it　a　crime　for　the　State　to　oppose　his　will。　　The　idea　of　justice；　then；　applied　to　sovereignty　and　government；　has　not　always　been　what　it　is　to…day；　it　has　gone　on　developing　and　shaping　itself　by　degrees；　until　it　has　arrived　at　its　present　state。　　But　has
  it　reached　its　last　phase？　　I　think　not：　only；　as　the　last　obstacle　to　be　overcome　arises　from　the　institution　of　property　which　we　have　kept　intact；　in　order　to　finish　the　reform　in　government　and　consummate　the　revolution；　this　very　institution　we　must　attack。
  Is　political　and　civil　inequality　just？
  Some　say　yes；　others　no。　　To　the　first　I　would　reply　that；　when　the　people　abolished　all　privileges　of　birth　and　caste；　they　did　it；　in　all　probability；　because　it　was　for　their　advantage；　why　then　do　they　favor　the　privileges　of　fortune　more　than　those　of　rank　and　race？　　Because；　say　they；　political　inequality　is　a　result　of　property；　and　without　property　society　is　impossible：　thus　the　question　just　raised　becomes　a　question　of　property。　　To　the　second　I　content　myself　with　this　remark：　　If　you　wish　to　enjoy　political　equality；　abolish　property；　otherwise；　why　do　you　complain？
  Is　property　just？
  Everybody　answers　without　hesitation；　〃Yes；　property　is　just。〃　　I　say　everybody；　for　up　to　the　present　time　no　one　who　thoroughly　understood　the　meaning　of　his　words　has　answered　no。　　For　it　is　no　easy　thing　to　reply　understandingly　to　such　a　question；　only　time　and　experience　can　furnish　an　answer。　　Now；　this　answer　is　given；　it　is　for　us　to　understand　it。　　I　undertake　to　prove　it。
  We　are　to　proceed　with　the　demonstration　in　the　following　order：
  I。　We　dispute　not　at　all；　we　refute　nobody；　we　deny　nothing；　we　accept　as　sound　all　the　arguments　alleged　in　favor　of　property；　and　confine　ourselves　to　a　search　for　its　principle；　in　order　that　we　may　then　ascertain　whether　this　principle　is　faithfully　expressed　by　property。　　In　fact；　property　being　defensible　on　no　ground　save　that　of　justice；　the　idea；　or　at　least　the　intention；　of　justice　must　of　necessity　underlie　all　the　arguments　that　have　been　made　in　defence　of　property；　and；　as　on　the　other　hand　the　right　of　property　is　only　exercised　over　those　things　which　can　be　appreciated　by　the　senses；　justice；　secretly　objectifying　itself；　so　to　speak；　must　take　the　shape　of　an　algebraic　formula。
  By　this　method　of　investigation；　we　soon　see　that　every　argument　which　has　been　invented　in　behalf　of　property；　WHATEVER　IT　MAY　BE；　always　and　of　necessity　leads　to　equality；　that　is；　to　the　negation　of　property。
  The　first　part　covers　two　chapters：　one　treating　of　occupation；　the　foundation　of　our　right；　the　other；　of　labor　and　talent；　considered　as　causes　of　property　and　social　inequality。
  The　first　of　these　chapters　will　prove　that　the　right　of　occupation　OBSTRUCTS　property；　the　second　that　the　right　of　labor　DESTROYS　it。
  II。　Property；　then；　being　of　necessity　conceived　as　existing　only　in　connection　with　equality；　it　remains　to　find　out　why；　in　spite　of　this　necessity　of　logic；　equality　does　not　exist。　　This　new　investigation　also　covers　two　chapters：　in　the　first；　considering　the　fact　of　property　in　itself；　we　inquire　whether　this　fact　is　real；　whether　it　exists；　whether　it　is　possible；　for　it　would　imply　a　contradiction；　were　these　two　opposite　forms　of　society；　equality　and　inequality；　both　possible。　　Then　we　discover；　singularly　enough；　that　property　may　indeed　manifest　itself　accidentally；　but　that；　as　an　institution　and　principle；　it　is　mathematically　impossible。　　So　that　the　axiom　of　the　schoolab　actu　ad　posse　valet　consecutio：　from　the　actual　to　the　possible　the　inference　is　goodis　given　the　lie　as　far　as　property　is　concerned。
  Finally；　in　the　last　chapter；　calling　psychology　to　our　aid；　and　probing　man's　nature　to　the　bottom；　we　shall　disclose　the　principle　of　JUSTICEits　formula　and　character；　we　shall　state　with　precision　the　organic　law　of　society；　we　shall　explain　the　origin　of　property；　the　causes　of　its　establishment；　its　long　life；　and　its　approaching　death；　we　shall　definitively　establish　its　identity　with　robbery。　　And；　after　having　shown　that　these　three　prejudicesTHE　SOVEREIGNTY　OF　MAN；　THE　INEQUALITY　OF　CONDITIONS；　AND　PROPERTYare　one　and　the　same；　that　they　may　be　taken　for　each　other；　and　are　reciprocally　convertible；we　shall　have　no　trouble　in　inferring　therefrom；　by　the　principle　of　contradiction；　the　basis　of　government　and　right。　　There　our　investigations　will　end；　reserving　the　right　to　continue　them　in　future　works。
  The　importance　of　the　subject　which　engages　our　attention　is　recognized　by　all　minds。
  〃Property；〃　says　M。　Hennequin；　〃is　the　creative　and　conservative　principle　of　civil　society。　　Property　is　one　of　those　basic　institutions；　new　theories　concerning　which　cannot　be　presented　too　soon；　for　it　must　not　be　forgotten；　and　the　publicist　and　statesman　must　know；　that　on　the　answer　to　the　question　whether　property　is　the　principle　or　the　result　of　social　order；　whether　it　is　to　be　considered　as　a　cause　or　an　effect；　depends　all　morality；　and；　consequently；　all　the　authority　of　human　institutions。〃
  These　words　are　a　challenge　to　all　men　of　hope　and　faith；　but；　although　the　cause　of　equality　is　a　noble　one；　no　one　has　yet　picked　up　the　gauntlet　thrown　down　by　the　advocates　of　property；　no　one　has　been　courageous　enough　to　enter　upon　the　struggle。　　The　spurious　learning　of　haughty　jurisprudence；　and　the　absurd　aphorisms　of　a　political　economy　controlled　by　property　have　puzzled　the　most　generous　minds；　it　is　a　sort　of　password　among　the　most　influential　friends　of　liberty　and　the　interests　of　the　people　that　EQUALITY　IS　A　CHIMERA！　　So　many　false　theories　and　meaningless　analogies　influence　minds　otherwise　keen；　but　which　are　unconsciously　controlled　by　popular　prejudice。　　Equality　advances　every　dayfit　aequalitas。　　Soldiers　of　liberty；　shall　we　desert　our　flag　in　the　hour　of　triumph？
  A　defender　of　equality；　I　shall　speak　without　bitterness　and　without　anger；　with　the　independence　becoming　a　philosopher；　with　the　courage　and　firmness　of　a　free　man。　　May　I；　in　this　momentous　struggle；　carry　into　all　hearts　the　light　with　which　I　am　filled；　and　show；　by　the　success　of　my　argument；　that　equality　failed　to　conquer　by　the　sword　only　that　it　might　conquer　by　the　pen！
  CHAPTER　II。　PROPERTY　CONSIDERED　AS　A　NATURAL　RIGHT。OCCUPATION　AND　CIVIL　LAW　AS　EFFICIENT　BASES　OF　PROPERTY。　DEFINITIONS。
  The　Roman　law　defined　property　as　the　right　to　use　and　abuse　one's　own　within　the　limits　of　the　lawjus　utendi　et　abutendi　re　sua；　guatenus　juris　ratio　patitur。　　A　justification　of　the　word　ABUSE　has　been　attempted；　on　the　ground　that　it　signifies；　not　senseless　and　immoral　abuse；　but　only　absolute　domain。　　Vain　distinction！　invented　as　an　excuse　for　property；　and　powerless　against　the　frenzy　of　possession；　which　it　neither　prevents　nor　represses。　　The　proprietor　may；　if　he　chooses；　allow　his　crops　to　rot　under　foot；　sow　his　field　with　salt；　milk　his　cows　on　the　sand；　change　his　vineyard　into　a　desert；　and　use　his　vegetable…　garden　as　a　park：　do　these　things　constitute　abuse；　or　not？　　In　the　matter　of　property；　use　and　abuse　are　necessarily　indistinguishable。
  According　to　the　Declaration　of　Rights；　published　as　a　preface　to　the　Constitution　of　'93；　property　is　〃the　right　to　enjoy　and　dispose　at　will　of　one's　goods；　one's　income；　and　the　fruit　of　one's　labor　and　industry。〃
  Code　Napoleon；　article　544：　　〃Property　is　the　right　to　enjoy　and　dispose　of　things　in　the　most　absolute　manner；　provided　we　do　not　overstep　the　limits　prescribed　by　the　laws　and　regulations。〃
  These　two　definitions　do　not　differ　from　that　of　the　Roman　law：　all　give　the　proprietor　an　absolute　right　over　a　thing；　and　as　for　the　restriction　imposed　by　the　code；PROVIDED　WE　DO　NOT　OVERSTEP　THE　LIMITS　PRESCRIBED　BY　THE　LAWS　AND　REGULATIONS；its　object　is　not　to　limit　property；　but　to　prevent　the　domain　of　one　proprietor　from　interfering　with　that　of　another。　　That　is　a　confirmation　of　the　principle；　not　a　limitation　of　it。
  There　are　different　kinds　of　property：　　1。　Property　pure　and　simple；　the　domina