wonderful　prerogatives　which　savor　of　the　eternal　and　the　infinite；　they　have　never　found　the　origin　of　property；　the　doctors　still　disagree。　　On　one　point　only　are　they　in　harmony：　namely；　that　the　validity　of　the　right　of　property　depends　upon　the　authenticity　of　its　origin。　　But　this　harmony　is　their　condemnation。　　Why　have　they　acknowledged　the　right　before　settling　the　question　of　origin？
  Certain　classes　do　not　relish　investigation　into　the　pretended　titles　to　property；　and　its　fabulous　and　perhaps　scandalous　history。　　They　wish　to　hold　to　this　proposition：　that　property　is　a　fact；　that　it　always　has　been；　and　always　will　be。　　With　that　proposition　the　savant　Proudhon＇1＇　commenced　his　〃Treatise　on　the　Right　of　Usufruct；〃　regarding　the　origin　of　property　as　a　useless　question。　　Perhaps　I　would　subscribe　to　this　doctrine；　believing　it　inspired　by　a　commendable　love　of　peace；　were　all　my　fellow…citizens　in　comfortable　circumstances；　but；　no！　　I　will　not　subscribe　to　it。
  ＇1＇　The　Proudhon　here　referred　to　is　J。　B。　V。　Proudhon；　a　distinguished　French　jurist；　and　distant　relative　of　the　Translator。
  The　titles　on　which　they　pretend　to　base　the　right　of　property　are　two　in　number：　OCCUPATION　and　LABOR。　　I　shall　examine　them　successively；　under　all　their　aspects　and　in　detail；　and　I　remind　the　reader　that；　to　whatever　authority　we　appeal；　I　shall　prove　beyond　a　doubt　that　property；　to　be　just　and　possible；　must　necessarily　have　equality　for　its　condition。
  ％　2。Occupation；　as　the　Title　to　Property。
  It　is　remarkable　that；　at　those　meetings　of　the　State　Council　at　which　the　Code　was　discussed；　no　controversy　arose　as　to　the　origin　and　principle　of　property。　　All　the　articles　of　Vol。　　II。；　Book　2；　concerning　property　and　the　right　of　accession；　were　passed　without　opposition　or　amendment。　　Bonaparte；　who　on　other　questions　had　given　his　legists　so　much　trouble；　had　nothing　to　say　about　property。　　Be　not　surprised　at　it：　in　the　eyes　of　that　man；　the　most　selfish　and　wilful　person　that　ever　lived；　property　was　the　first　of　rights；　just　as　submission　to　authority　was　the　most　holy　of　duties。
  The　right　of　OCCUPATION；　or　of　the　FIRST　OCCUPANT；　is　that　which　results　from　the　actual；　physical；　real　possession　of　a　thing。　　I　occupy　a　piece　of　land；　the　presumption　is；　that　I　am　the　proprietor；　until　the　contrary　is　proved。　　We　know　that　originally　such　a　right　cannot　be　legitimate　unless　it　is　reciprocal；　the　jurists　say　as　much。
  Cicero　compares　the　earth　to　a　vast　theatre：　　_Quemadmodum　theatrum　cum　commune　sit；　recte　tamen　dici　potest　ejus　esse　eum　locum　quem　quisque　occuparit_。
  This　passage　is　all　that　ancient　philosophy　has　to　say　about　the　origin　of　property。
  The　theatre；　says　Cicero；　is　common　to　all；　nevertheless；　the　place　that　each　one　occupies　is　called　HIS　OWN；　that　is；　it　is　a　place　POSSESSED；　not　a　place　APPROPRIATED。　　This　comparison　annihilates　property；　moreover；　it　implies　equality。　　Can　I；　in　a　theatre；　occupy　at　the　same　time　one　place　in　the　pit；　another　in　the　boxes；　and　a　third　in　the　gallery？　　Not　unless　I　have　three　bodies；　like　Geryon；　or　can　exist　in　different　places　at　the　same　time；　as　is　related　of　the　magician　Apollonius。
  According　to　Cicero；　no　one　has　a　right　to　more　than　he　needs：　such　is　the　true　interpretation　of　his　famous　axiom　_suum　quidque　cujusque　sit_；　to　each　one　that　which　belongs　to　himan　axiom　that　has　been　strangely　applied。　　That　which　belongs　to　each　is　not　that　which　each　MAY　possess；　but　that　which　each　HAS　A　RIGHT　to　possess。　　Now；　what　have　we　a　right　to　possess？　　That　which　is　required　for　our　labor　and　consumption；　Cicero's　comparison　of　the　earth　to　a　theatre　proves　it。　　According　to　that；　each　one　may　take　what　place　he　will；　may　beautify　and　adorn　it；　if　he　can；　it　is　allowable：　but　he　must　never　allow　himself　to　overstep　the　limit　which　separates　him　from　another。　　The　doctrine　of　Cicero　leads　directly　to　equality；　for；　occupation　being　pure　toleration；　if　the　toleration　is　mutual　（and　it　cannot　be　otherwise）　the　possessions　are　equal。
  Grotius　rushes　into　history；　but　what　kind　of　reasoning　is　that　which　seeks　the　origin　of　a　right；　said　to　be　natural；　elsewhere　than　in　Nature？　　This　is　the　method　of　the　ancients：　the　fact　exists；　then　it　is　necessary；　then　it　is　just；　then　its　antecedents　are　just　also。　　Nevertheless；　let　us　look　into　it。
  〃Originally；　all　things　were　common　and　undivided；　they　were　the　property　of　all。〃　　Let　us　go　no　farther。　　Grotius　tells　us　how　this　original　communism　came　to　an　end　through　ambition　and　cupidity；　how　the　age　of　gold　was　followed　by　the　age　of　iron；　&c。　　So　that　property　rested　first　on　war　and　conquest；　then　on　treaties　and　agreements。　　But　either　these　treaties　and　agreements　distributed　wealth　equally；　as　did　the　original　communism　（the　only　method　of　distribution　with　which　the　barbarians　were　acquainted；　and　the　only　form　of　justice　of　which　they　could　conceive；　and　then　the　question　of　origin　assumes　this　form：　how　did　equality　afterwards　disappear？）or　else　these　treaties　and　agreements　were　forced　by　the　strong　upon　the　weak；　and　in　that　case　they　are　null；　the　tacit　consent　of　posterity　does　not　make　them　valid；　and　we　live　in　a　permanent　condition　of　iniquity　and　fraud。
  We　never　can　conceive　how　the　equality　of　conditions；　having　once　existed；　could　afterwards　have　passed　away。　　What　was　the　cause　of　such　degeneration？　　The　instincts　of　the　animals　are　unchangeable；　as　well　as　the　differences　of　species；　to　suppose　original　equality　in　human　society　is　to　admit　by　implication　that　the　present　inequality　is　a　degeneration　from　the　nature　of　this　society；a　thing　which　the　defenders　of　property　cannot　explain。　　But　I　infer　therefrom　that；　if　Providence　placed　the　first　human　beings　in　a　condition　of　equality；　it　was　an　indication　of　its　desires；　a　model　that　it　wished　them　to　realize　in　other　forms；　just　as　the　religious　sentiment；　which　it　planted　in　their　hearts；　has　developed　and　manifested　itself　in　various　ways。　　Man　has　but　one　nature；　constant　and　unalterable：　he　pursues　it　through　instinct；　he　wanders　from　it　through　reflection；　he　returns　to　it　through　judgment；　who　shall　say　that　we　are　not　returning　now？　　According　to　Grotius；　man　has　abandoned　equality；　according　to　me；　he　will　yet　return　to　it。　　How　came　he　to　abandon　it？　　Why　will　he　return　to　it？　　These　are　questions　for　future　consideration。
  Reid　writes　as　follows：
  〃The　right　of　property　is　not　innate；　but　acquired。　　It　is　not　grounded　upon　the　constitution　of　man；　but　upon　his　actions。　　Writers　on　jurisprudence　have　explained　its　origin　in　a　manner　that　may　satisfy　every　man　of　common　understanding。
  〃The　earth　is　given　to　men　in　common　for　the　purposes　of　life；　by　the　bounty　of　Heaven。　　But　to　divide　it；　and　appropriate　one　part　of　its　produce　to　one；　another　part　to　another；　must　be　the　work　of　men　who　have　power　and　understanding　given　them；　by　which　every　man　may　accommodate　himself；　WITHOUT　HURT　TO　ANY　OTHER。
  〃This　common　right　of　every　man　to　what　the　earth　produces；　before　it　be　occupied　and　appropriated　by　others；　was；　by　ancient　moralists；　very　properly　compared　to　the　right　which　every　citizen　had　to　the　public　theatre；　where　every　man　that　came　might　occupy　an　empty　seat；　and　thereby　acquire　a　right　to　it　while　the　entertainment　lasted；　but　no　man　had　a　right　to　dispossess　another。
  〃The　earth　is　a　great　theatre；　furnished　by　the　Almighty；　with　perfect　wisdom　and　goodness；　for　the　entertainment　and　employment　of　all　mankind。　　Here　every　man　has　a　right　to　accommodate　himself　as　a　spectator；　and　to　perform　his　part　as　an　actor；　but　without　hurt　to　others。〃
  Consequences　of　Reid's　doctrine。
  1。　　That　the　portion　which　each　one　appropriates　may　wrong　no　one；　it　must　be　equal　to　the　quotient　of　the　total　amount　of　property　to　be　shared；　divided　by　the　number　of　those　who　are　to　share　it；
  2。　　The　number　of　places　being　of　necessity　equal　at　all　times　to　that　of　the　spectators；　no　spectator　can　occupy　two　places；　nor　can　any　actor　play　several　parts；
  3。　　Whenever　a　spectator　comes　in　or　goes　out；　the　places　of　all　contract　or　enlarge　correspondingly：　for；　says　Reid；　〃THE　RIGHT　OF　PROPERTY　IS　NOT　INNATE；　BUT　ACQUIRED；〃　consequently；　it　is　not　absolute；　consequently；　the　occupancy　on　which　it　is　based；　being　a　conditional　fact；　cannot　endow　this　right　with　a　stability　which　it　does　not　possess　itself。　　This　seems　to　have　been　the　thought　of　the　Edinburgh　professor　when　he　added：
  〃A　right　to　life　implies　a　right　to　the　necessary　means　of　life；　and　that　justice；　which　forbids　the　taking　away　the　life　of　an　innocent　man；　forbids　no　less　the　taking　from　him　the　necessary　means　of　life。　　He　has　the　same　right　to　defend　the　one　as　the　other。　　To　hinder　another　man's　innocent　labor；　or　to　deprive　him　of　the　fruit　of　it；　is　an　injustice　of　the　same　kind；　and　has　the　same　effect　as　to　put　him　in　fetters　or　in　prison；　and　is　equally　a　just　object　of　resentment。〃
  Thus　the　chief　of　the　Scotch　school；　without　considering　at　all　the　inequality　of　skill　or　labor；　posits　a　priori　the　equality　of　the　means　of　labor；　abandoning　thereafter　to　each　laborer　the　care　of　his　own　person；　after　the　eternal　axiom：　　WHOSO　DOES　WELL