needs　tools　to　work　with　and　materials　to　work　upon。　　His　need　to　produce　constitutes　his　right　to　produce。　　Now；　this　right　is　guaranteed　him　by　his　fellows；　with　whom　he　makes　an　agreement　to　that　effect。　　One　hundred　thousand　men　settle　in　a　large　country　like　France　with　no　inhabitants：　each　man　has　a　right　to　1/100；000　of　the　land。　　If　the　number　of　possessors　increases；　each　one's　portion　diminishes　in　consequence；　so　that；　if　the　number　of　inhabitants　rises　to　thirty…four　millions；　each　one　will　have　a　right　only　to　1/34；000；000。　　Now；　so　regulate　the　police　system　and　the　government；　labor；　exchange；　inheritance；　&c。；　that　the　means　of　labor　shall　be　shared　by　all　equally；　and　that　each　individual　shall　be　free；　and　then　society　will　be　perfect。
  Of　all　the　defenders　of　property；　M。　Cousin　has　gone　the　farthest。　　He　has　maintained　against　the　economists　that　labor　does　not　establish　the　right　of　property　unless　preceded　by　occupation；　and　against　the　jurists　that　the　civil　law　can　determine　and　apply　a　natural　right；　but　cannot　create　it。　　In　fact；　it　is　not　sufficient　to　say；　〃The　right　of　property　is　demonstrated　by　the　existence　of　property；　the　function　of　the　civil　law　is　purely　declaratory。〃　　To　say　that；　is　to　confess　that　there　is　no　reply　to　those　who　question　the　legitimacy　of　the　fact　itself。　　Every　right　must　be　justifiable　in　itself；　or　by　some　antecedent　right；　property　is　no　exception。　　For　this　reason；　M。　Cousin　has　sought　to　base　it　upon　the　SANCTITY　of　the　human　personality；　and　the　act　by　which　the　will　assimilates　a　thing。　　〃Once　touched　by　man；〃　says　one　of　M。　Cousin's　disciples；　〃things　receive　from　him　a　character　which　transforms　and　humanizes　them。〃　　I　confess；　for　my　part；　that　I　have　no　faith　in　this　magic；　and　that　I　know　of　nothing　less　holy　than　the　will　of　man。　　But　this　theory；　fragile　as　it　seems　to　psychology　as　well　as　jurisprudence；　is　nevertheless　more　philosophical　and　profound　than　those　theories　which　are　based　upon　labor　or　the　authority　of　the　law。　　Now；　we　have　just　seen　to　what　this　theory　of　which　we　are　speaking　leads；to　the　equality　implied　in　the　terms　of　its　statement。
  But　perhaps　philosophy　views　things　from　too　lofty　a　standpoint；　and　is　not　sufficiently　practical；　perhaps　from　the　exalted　summit　of　speculation　men　seem　so　small　to　the　metaphysician　that　he　cannot　distinguish　between　them；　perhaps；　indeed；　the　equality　of　conditions　is　one　of　those　principles　which　are　very　true　and　sublime　as　generalities；　but　which　it　would　be　ridiculous　and　even　dangerous　to　attempt　to　rigorously　apply　to　the　customs　of　life　and　to　social　transactions。　　Undoubtedly；　this　is　a　case　which　calls　for　imitation　of　the　wise　reserve　of　moralists　and　jurists；　who　warn　us　against　carrying　things　to　extremes；　and　who　advise　us　to　suspect　every　definition；　because　there　is　not　one；　they　say；　which　cannot　be　utterly　destroyed　by　developing　its　disastrous　results_Omnis　definitio　in　jure　civili　periculosa　est：　parum　est　enim　ut　non　subverti　possit_。　　Equality　of　conditions；a　terrible　dogma　in　the　ears　of　the　proprietor；　a　consoling　truth　at　the　poor…man's　sick…bed；　a　frightful　reality　under　the　knife　of　the　anatomist；equality　of　conditions；　established　in　the　political；　civil；　and　industrial　spheres；　is　only　an　alluring　impossibility；　an　inviting　bait；　a　satanic　delusion。
  It　is　never　my　intention　to　surprise　my　reader。　　I　detest；　as　I　do　death；　the　man　who　employs　subterfuge　in　his　words　and　conduct。　　From　the　first　page　of　this　book；　I　have　expressed　myself　so　plainly　and　decidedly　that　all　can　see　the　tendency　of　my　thought　and　hopes；　and　they　will　do　me　the　justice　to　say；　that　it　would　be　difficult　to　exhibit　more　frankness　and　more　boldness　at　the　same　time。　　I　do　not　hesitate　to　declare　that　the　time　is　not　far　distant　when　this　reserve；　now　so　much　admired　in　philosophersthis　happy　medium　so　strongly　recommended　by　professors　of　moral　and　political　sciencewill　be　regarded　as　the　disgraceful　feature　of　a　science　without　principle；　and　as　the　seal　of　its　reprobation。　　In　legislation　and　morals；　as　well　as　in　geometry；　axioms　are　absolute；　definitions　are　certain；　and　all　the　results　of　a　principle　are　to　be　accepted；　provided　they　are　logically　deduced。　　Deplorable　pride！　　We　know　nothing　of　our　nature；　and　we　charge　our　blunders　to　it；　and；　in　a　fit　of　unaffected　ignorance；　cry　out；　〃The　truth　is　in　doubt；　the　best　definition　defines　nothing！〃　　We　shall　know　some　time　whether　this　distressing　uncertainty　of　jurisprudence　arises　from　the　nature　of　its　investigations；　or　from　our　prejudices；　whether；　to　explain　social　phenomena；　it　is　not　enough　to　change　our　hypothesis；　as　did　Copernicus　when　he　reversed　the　system　of　Ptolemy。
  But　what　will　be　said　when　I　show；　as　I　soon　shall；　that　this　same　jurisprudence　continually　tries　to　base　property　upon　equality？　　What　reply　can　be　made？
  ％　3。Civil　Law　as　the　Foundation　and　Sanction　of　Property。
  Pothier　seems　to　think　that　property；　like　royalty；　exists　by　divine　right。　　He　traces　back　its　origin　to　God　himselfab　Jove　principium。　　He　begins　in　this　way：
  〃God　is　the　absolute　ruler　of　the　universe　and　all　that　it　contains：　　_Domini　est　terra　et　plenitudo　ejus；　orbis　et　universi　qui　habitant　in　eo_。　　For　the　human　race　he　has　created　the　earth　and　all　its　creatures；　and　has　given　it　a　control　over　them　subordinate　only　to　his　own。　　‘Thou　madest　him　to　have　dominion　over　the　works　of　thy　hands；　thou　hast　put　all　things　under　his　feet；'　says　the　Psalmist。　　God　accompanied　this　gift　with　these　words；　addressed　to　our　first　parents　after　the　creation：　‘Be　fruitful；　and　multiply　and　replenish　the　earth；'〃　&c。
  After　this　magnificent　introduction；　who　would　refuse　to　believe　the　human　race　to　be　an　immense　family　living　in　brotherly　union；　and　under　the　protection　of　a　venerable　father？　　But；　heavens！　are　brothers　enemies？　　Are　fathers　unnatural；　and　children　prodigal？
  GOD　GAVE　THE　EARTH　TO　THE　HUMAN　RACE：　why　then　have　I　received　none？　　HE　HAS　PUT　ALL　THINGS　UNDER　MY　FEET；and　I　have　not　where　to　lay　my　head！　　MULTIPLY；　he　tells　us　through　his　interpreter；　Pothier。　　Ah；　learned　Pothier！　that　is　as　easy　to　do　as　to　say；　but　you　must　give　moss　to　the　bird　for　its　nest。
  〃The　human　race　having　multiplied；　men　divided　among　themselves　the　earth　and　most　of　the　things　upon　it；　that　which　fell　to　each；　from　that　time　exclusively　belonged　to　him。　　That　was　the　origin　of　the　right　of　property。〃
  Say；　rather；　the　right　of　possession。　　Men　lived　in　a　state　of　communism；　whether　positive　or　negative　it　matters　little。　　Then　there　was　no　property；　not　even　private　possession。　　The　genesis　and　growth　of　possession　gradually　forcing　people　to　labor　for　their　support；　they　agreed　either　formally　or　tacitly；it　makes　no　difference　which；that　the　laborer　should　be　sole　proprietor　of　the　fruit　of　his　labor；　that　is；　they　simply　declared　the　fact　that　thereafter　none　could　live　without　working。　　It　necessarily　followed　that；　to　obtain　equality　of　products；　there　must　be　equality　of　labor；　and　that；　to　obtain　equality　of　labor；　there　must　be　equality　of　facilities　for　labor。　　Whoever　without　labor　got　possession；　by　force　or　by　strategy；　of　another's　means　of　subsistence；　destroyed　equality；　and　placed　himself　above　or　outside　of　the　law。　　Whoever　monopolized　the　means　of　production　on　the　ground　of　greater　industry；　also　destroyed　equality。　　Equality　being　then　the　expression　of　right；　whoever　violated　it　was　UNJUST。
  Thus；　labor　gives　birth　to　private　possession；　the　right　in　a　thingjus　in　re。　　But　in　what　thing？　　Evidently　IN　THE　PRODUCT；　not　IN　THE　SOIL。　　So　the　Arabs　have　always　understood　it；　and　so；　according　to　Caesar　and　Tacitus；　the　Germans　formerly　held。　　〃The　Arabs；〃　says　M。　de　Sismondi；　〃who　admit　a　man's　property　in　the　flocks　which　he　has　raised；　do　not　refuse　the　crop　to　him　who　planted　the　seed；　but　they　do　not　see　why　another；　his　equal；　should　not　have　a　right　to　plant　in　his　turn。
  The　inequality　which　results　from　the　pretended　right　of　the　first　occupant　seems　to　them　to　be　based　on　no　principle　of　justice；　and　when　all　the　land　falls　into　the　hands　of　a　certain　number　of　inhabitants；　there　results　a　monopoly　in　their　favor　against　the　rest　of　the　nation；　to　which　they　do　not　wish　to　submit。〃
  Well；　they　have　shared　the　land。　　I　admit　that　therefrom　results　a　more　powerful　organization　of　labor；　and　that　this　method　of　distribution；　fixed　and　durable；　is　advantageous　to　production：　but　how　could　this　division　give　to　each　a　transferable　right　of　property　in　a　thing　to　which　all　had　an　inalienable　right　of　possession？　　In　the　terms　of　jurisprudence；　this　metamorphosis　from　possessor　to　proprietor　is　legally　impossible；　it　implies　in　the　jurisdiction　of　the　courts　the　union　of　possessoire　and　petitoire；　and　the　mutual　concessions　of　those　who　share　the　land　are　nothing　less　than　traffic　in　natural　rights。　　The　original　cultivators　of　the　land；　who　were　also　the　original　makers　of　the　law；　were　not　as　learned　as　our　legislators；　I　admit；　and　had　they　been；　they　could　not　have　done　worse：　they　did　not　foresee　the　consequences　of　the　transformation　of　the　right　of　private　possession　into　the　right　of　absolute　property。　　But　why　hav