cold；　he　could　eat　unstintedly；　and　walk　through　fire；　he　could　move　mountains；　walk　a　hundred　leagues　in　a　minute；　cure　without　medicines　and　by　the　sole　force　of　his　will；　and　could　make　himself　immortal。　　He　could　say；　〃I　wish　to　produce；〃　and　his　tasks　would　be　finished　with　the　words；　he　could　say。　　〃I　wish　to　know；〃　and　he　would　know；　〃I　love；〃　and　he　would　enjoy。　　What　then？　　Man　is　not　master　of　himself；　but　may　be　of　his　surroundings。　　Let　him　use　the　wealth　of　Nature；　since　he　can　live　only　by　its　use；　but　let　him　abandon　his　pretensions　to　the　title　of　proprietor；　and　remember　that　he　is　called　so　only　metaphorically。
  To　sum　up：　　Destutt　de　Tracy　classes　together　the　external　PRODUCTIONS　of　nature　and　art；　and　the　POWERS　or　FACULTIES　of　man；　making　both　of　them　species　of　property；　and　upon　this　equivocation　he　hopes　to　establish；　so　firmly　that　it　can　never　be　disturbed；　the　right　of　property。　　But　of　these　different　kinds　of　property　some　are　INNATE；　as　memory；　imagination；　strength；　and　beauty；　while　others　are　ACQUIRED；　as　land；　water；　and　forests。　　In　the　state　of　Nature　or　isolation；　the　strongest　and　most　skilful　（that　is；　those　best　provided　with　innate　property）　stand　the　best　chance　of　obtaining　acquired　property。　　Now；　it　is　to　prevent　this　encroachment　and　the　war　which　results　therefrom；　that　a　balance　（justice）　has　been　employed；　and　covenants　（implied　or　expressed）　agreed　upon：　it　is　to　correct；　as　far　as　possible；　inequality　of　innate　property　by　equality　of　acquired　property。　　As　long　as　the　division　remains　unequal；　so　long　the　partners　remain　enemies；　and　it　is　the　purpose　of　the　covenants　to　reform　this　state　of　things。　　Thus　we　have；　on　the　one　hand；　isolation；　inequality；　enmity；　war；　robbery；　murder；　on　the　other；　society；　equality；　fraternity；　peace；　and　love。　　Choose　between　them！
  M。　Joseph　Dutensa　physician；　engineer；　and　geometrician；　but　a　very　poor　legist；　and　no　philosopher　at　allis　the　author　of　a　〃Philosophy　of　Political　Economy；〃　in　which　he　felt　it　his　duty　to　break　lances　in　behalf　of　property。　　His　reasoning　seems　to　be　borrowed　from　Destutt　de　Tracy。　　He　commences　with　this　definition　of　property；　worthy　of　Sganarelle：　　〃Property　is　the　right　by　which　a　thing　is　one's　own。〃　　Literally　translated：　　Property　is　the　right　of　property。
  After　getting　entangled　a　few　times　on　the　subjects　of　will；　liberty；　and　personality；　after　having　distinguished　between　IMMATERIAL…NATURAL　property；　and　MATERIAL…NATURAL　property；　a　distinction　similar　to　Destutt　de　Tracy's　of　innate　and　acquired　property；M。　Joseph　Dutens　concludes　with　these　two　general　propositions：　　1。　Property　is　a　natural　and　inalienable　right　of　every　man；　2。　Inequality　of　property　is　a　necessary　result　of　Nature；which　propositions　are　convertible　into　a　simpler　one：　　All　men　have　an　equal　right　of　unequal　property。
  He　rebukes　M。　de　Sismondi　for　having　taught　that　landed　property　has　no　other　basis　than　law　and　conventionality；　and　he　says　himself；　speaking　of　the　respect　which　people　feel　for　property；　that　〃their　good　sense　reveals　to　them　the　nature　of　the　ORIGINAL　CONTRACT　made　between　society　and　proprietors。〃
  He　confounds　property　with　possession；　communism　with　equality；　the　just　with　the　natural；　and　the　natural　with　the　possible。　　Now　he　takes　these　different　ideas　to　be　equivalents；　now　he　seems　to　distinguish　between　them；　so　much　so　that　it　would　be　infinitely　easier　to　refute　him　than　to　understand　him。　　Attracted　first　by　the　title　of　the　work；　〃Philosophy　of　Political　Economy；〃　I　have　found；　among　the　author's　obscurities；　only　the　most　ordinary　ideas。　　For　that　reason　I　will　not　speak　of　him。
  M。　Cousin；　in　his　〃Moral　Philosophy；〃　page　15；　teaches　that　all　morality；　all　laws；　all　rights　are　given　to　man　with　this　injunction：　　〃FREE　BEING；　REMAIN　FREE。〃　　Bravo！　master；　I　wish　to　remain　free　if　I　can。　　He　continues：
  〃Our　principle　is　true；　it　is　good；　it　is　social。　　Do　not　fear　to　push　it　to　its　ultimate。
  〃1。　If　the　human　person　is　sacred；　its　whole　nature　is　sacred；　and　particularly　its　interior　actions；　its　feelings；　its　thoughts；　its　voluntary　decisions。　　This　accounts　for　the　respect　due　to　philosophy；　religion；　the　arts　industry；　commerce；　and　to　all　the　results　of　liberty。　　I　say　respect；　not　simply　toleration；　for　we　do　not　tolerate　a　right；　we　respect　it。〃
  I　bow　my　head　before　this　philosophy。
  〃2。　My　liberty；　which　is　sacred；　needs　for　its　objective　action　an　instrument　which　we　call　the　body：　the　body　participates　then　in　the　sacredness　of　liberty；　it　is　then　inviolable。　　This　is　the　basis　of　the　principle　of　individual　liberty。
  〃3。　My　liberty　needs；　for　its　objective　action；　material　to　work　upon；　in　other　words；　property　or　a　thing。　　This　thing　or　property　naturally　participates　then　in　the　inviolability　of　my　person。　　For　instance；　I　take　possession　of　an　object　which　has　become　necessary　and　useful　in　the　outward　manifestation　of　my　liberty。　　I　say；　‘This　object　is　mine　since　it　belongs　to　no　one　else；　consequently；　I　possess　it　legitimately。'　　So　the　legitimacy　of　possession　rests　on　two　conditions。　　First；　I　possess　only　as　a　free　being。　　Suppress　free　activity；　you　destroy　my　power　to　labor。　　Now　it　is　only　by　labor　that　I　can　use　this　property　or　thing；　and　it　is　only　by　using　it　that　I　possess　it。　　Free　activity　is　then　the　principle　of　the　right　of　property。　　But　that　alone　does　not　legitimate　possession。　　All　men　are　free；　all　can　use　property　by　labor。　　Does　that　mean　that　all　men　have　a　right　to　all　property？　　Not　at　all。　　To　possess　legitimately；　I　must　not　only　labor　and　produce　in　my　capacity　of　a　free　being；　but　I　must　also　be　the　first　to　occupy　the　property。　　In　short；　if　labor　and　production　are　the　principle　of　the　right　of　property；　the　fact　of　first　occupancy　is　its　indispensable　condition。
  〃4。　I　possess　legitimately：　then　I　have　the　right　to　use　my　property　as　I　see　fit。　　I　have　also　the　right　to　give　it　away。　　I　have　also　the　right　to　bequeath　it；　for　if　I　decide　to　make　a　donation；　my　decision　is　as　valid　after　my　death　as　during　my　life。〃
  In　fact；　to　become　a　proprietor；　in　M。　Cousin's　opinion；　one　must　take　possession　by　occupation　and　labor。　　I　maintain　that　the　element　of　time　must　be　considered　also；　for　if　the　first　occupants　have　occupied　every　thing；　what　are　the　new　comers　to　do？　　What　will　become　of　them；　having　an　instrument　with　which　to　work；　but　no　material　to　work　upon？　　Must　they　devour　each　other？　　A　terrible　extremity；　unforeseen　by　philosophical　prudence；　for　the　reason　that　great　geniuses　neglect　little　things。
  Notice　also　that　M。　Cousin　says　that　neither　occupation　nor　labor；　taken　separately；　can　legitimate　the　right　of　property；　and　that　it　is　born　only　from　the　union　of　the　two。　　This　is　one　of　M。　Cousin's　eclectic　turns；　which　he；　more　than　any　one　else；　should　take　pains　to　avoid。　　Instead　of　proceeding　by　the　method　of　analysis；　comparison；　elimination；　and　reduction　（the　only　means　of　discovering　the　truth　amid　the　various　forms　of　thought　and　whimsical　opinions）；　he　jumbles　all　systems　together；　and　then；　declaring　each　both　right　and　wrong；　exclaims：　　〃There　you　have　the　truth。〃
  But；　adhering　to　my　promise；　I　will　not　refute　him。　　I　will　only　prove；　by　all　the　arguments　with　which　he　justifies　the　right　of　property；　the　principle　of　equality　which　kills　it。　　As　I　have　already　said；　my　sole　intent　is　this：　to　show　at　the　bottom　of　all　these　positions　that　inevitable　major；　EQUALITY；　hoping　hereafter　to　show　that　the　principle　of　property　vitiates　the　very　elements　of　economical；　moral；　and　governmental　science；　thus　leading　it　in　the　wrong　direction。
  Well；　is　it　not　true；　from　M。　Cousin's　point　of　view；　that；　if　the　liberty　of　man　is　sacred；　it　is　equally　sacred　in　all　individuals；　that；　if　it　needs　property　for　its　objective　action；　that　is；　for　its　life；　the　appropriation　of　material　is　equally　necessary　for　all；　that；　if　I　wish　to　be　respected　in　my　right　of　appropriation；　I　must　respect　others　in　theirs；　and；　consequently；　that　though；　in　the　sphere　of　the　infinite；　a　person's　power　of　appropriation　is　limited　only　by　himself；　in　the　sphere　of　the　finite　this　same　power　is　limited　by　the　mathematical　relation　between　the　number　of　persons　and　the　space　which　they　occupy？　　Does　it　not　follow　that　if　one　individual　cannot　prevent　anotherhis　fellow…manfrom　appropriating　an　amount　of　material　equal　to　his　own；　no　more　can　he　prevent　individuals　yet　to　come；　because；　while　individuality　passes　away；　universality　persists；　and　eternal　laws　cannot　be　determined　by　a　partial　view　of　their　manifestations？　　Must　we　not　conclude；　therefore；　that　whenever　a　person　is　born；　the　others　must　crowd　closer　together；　and；　by　reciprocity　of　obligation；　that　if　the　new　comer　is　afterwards　to　become　an　heir；　the　right　of　succession　does　not　give　him　the　right　of　accumulation；　but　only　the　right　of　choice？
  I　have　followed　M。　Cousin　so　far　as　to　imitate　his　style；　and　I　am　ashamed　of　it。　　Do　we　need　such　high…sounding　terms；　such　sonorous　phrases；　to　say　such　simple　things？　　Man　needs　to　labor　in　order　to　live；　consequently；　he　needs　tools　to　work　with　and　materials　to　work　upon。　　His　need　to　produce　constitutes　his　right　to