transformation　of　the　right　of　private　possession　into　the　right　of　absolute　property。　　But　why　have　not　those；　who　in　later　times　have　established　the　distinction　between　jus　in　re　and　jus　ad　rem；　applied　it　to　the　principle　of　property　itself？
  Let　me　call　the　attention　of　the　writers　on　jurisprudence　to　their　own　maxims。
  The　right　of　property；　provided　it　can　have　a　cause；　can　have　but　one_Dominium　non　potest　nisi　ex　una　causa　contingere_。　　I　can　possess　by　several　titles；　I　can　become　proprietor　by　only　one　_Non　ut　ex　pluribus　causis　idem　nobis　deberi　potest；　ita　ex　pluribus　causis　idem　potest　nostrum　esse_。　　The　field　which　I　have　cleared；　which　I　cultivate；　on　which　I　have　built　my　house；　which　supports　myself；　my　family；　and　my　livestock；　I　can　possess：　　1st。　As　the　original　occupant；　2d。　As　a　laborer；　3d。　By　virtue　of　the　social　contract　which　assigns　it　to　me　as　my　share。
  But　none　of　these　titles　confer　upon　me　the　right　of　property。　　For；　if　I　attempt　to　base　it　upon　occupancy；　society　can　reply；　〃I　am　the　original　occupant。〃　　If　I　appeal　to　my　labor；　it　will　say；　〃It　is　only　on　that　condition　that　you　possess。〃　　If　I　speak　of　agreements；　it　will　respond；　〃These　agreements　establish　only　your　right　of　use。〃　　Such；　however；　are　the　only　titles　which　proprietors　advance。　　They　never　have　been　able　to　discover　any　others。　　Indeed；　every　rightit　is　Pothier　who　says　itsupposes　a　producing　cause　in　the　person　who　enjoys　it；　but　in　man　who　lives　and　dies；　in　this　son　of　earth　who　passes　away　like　a　shadow；　there　exists；　with　respect　to　external　things；　only　titles　of　possession；　not　one　title　of　property。　　Why；　then；　has　society　recognized　a　right　injurious　to　itself；　where　there　is　no　producing　cause？　　Why；　in　according　possession；　has　it　also　conceded　property？　　Why　has　the　law　sanctioned　this　abuse　of　power？
  The　German　Ancillon　replies　thus：
  〃Some　philosophers　pretend　that　man；　in　employing　his　forces　upon　a　natural　object；say　a　field　or　a　tree；acquires　a　right　only　to　the　improvements　which　he　makes；　to　the　form　which　he　gives　to　the　object；　not　to　the　object　itself。　　Useless　distinction！　　If　the　form　could　be　separated　from　the　object；　perhaps　there　would　be　room　for　question；　but　as　this　is　almost　always　impossible；　the　application　of　man's　strength　to　the　different　parts　of　the　visible　world　is　the　foundation　of　the　right　of　property；　the　primary　origin　of　riches。〃
  Vain　pretext！　　If　the　form　cannot　be　separated　from　the　object；　nor　property　from　possession；　possession　must　be　shared；　in　any　case；　society　reserves　the　right　to　fix　the　conditions　of　property。　　Let　us　suppose　that　an　appropriated　farm　yields　a　gross　income　of　ten　thousand　francs；　and；　as　very　seldom　happens；　that　this　farm　cannot　be　divided。　　Let　us　suppose　farther　that；　by　economical　calculation；　the　annual　expenses　of　a　family　are　three　thousand　francs：　the　possessor　of　this　farm　should　be　obliged　to　guard　his　reputation　as　a　good　father　of　a　family；　by　paying　to　society　ten　thousand　francs；less　the　total　costs　of　cultivation；　and　the　three　thousand　francs　required　for　the　maintenance　of　his　family。　　This　payment　is　not　rent；　it　is　an　indemnity。
  What　sort　of　justice　is　it；　then；　which　makes　such　laws　as　this：
  〃Whereas；　since　labor　so　changes　the　form　of　a　thing　that　the　form　and　substance　cannot　be　separated　without　destroying　the　thing　itself；　either　society　must　be　disinherited；　or　the　laborer　must　lose　the　fruit　of　his　labor；　and
  〃Whereas；　in　every　other　case；　property　in　raw　material　would　give　a　title　to　added　improvements；　minus　their　cost；　and　whereas；　in　this　instance；　property　in　improvements　ought　to　give　a　title　to　the　principal；
  〃Therefore；　the　right　of　appropriation　by　labor　shall　never　be　admitted　against　individuals；　but　only　against　society。〃
  In　such　a　way　do　legislators　always　reason　in　regard　to　property。
  The　law　is　intended　to　protect　men's　mutual　rights；that　is；　the　rights　of　each　against　each；　and　each　against　all；　and；　as　if　a　proportion　could　exist　with　less　than　four　terms；　the　law…makers　always　disregard　the　latter。　　As　long　as　man　is　opposed　to　man；　property　offsets　property；　and　the　two　forces　balance　each　other；　as　soon　as　man　is　isolated；　that　is；　opposed　to　the　society　which　he　himself　represents；　jurisprudence　is　at　fault：　Themis　has　lost　one　scale　of　her　balance。
  Listen　to　the　professor　of　Rennes；　the　learned　Toullier：
  〃How　could　this　claim；　made　valid　by　occupation；　become　stable　and　permanent　property；　which　might　continue　to　stand；　and　which　might　be　reclaimed　after　the　first　occupant　had　relinquished　possession？
  〃Agriculture　was　a　natural　consequence　of　the　multiplication　of　the　human　race；　and　agriculture；　in　its　turn；　favors　population；　and　necessitates　the　establishment　of　permanent　property；　for　who　would　take　the　trouble　to　plough　and　sow；　if　he　were　not　certain　that　he　would　reap？〃
  To　satisfy　the　husbandman；　it　was　sufficient　to　guarantee　him　possession　of　his　crop；　admit　even　that　he　should　have　been　protected　in　his　right　of　occupation　of　land；　as　long　as　he　remained　its　cultivator。　　That　was　all　that　he　had　a　right　to　expect；　that　was　all　that　the　advance　of　civilization　demanded。　　But　property；　property！　the　right　of　escheat　over　lands　which　one　neither　occupies　nor　cultivates；who　had　authority　to　grant　it？　who　pretended　to　have　it？
  〃Agriculture　alone　was　not　sufficient　to　establish　permanent　property；　positive　laws　were　needed；　and　magistrates　to　execute　them；　in　a　word；　the　civil　State　was　needed。
  〃The　multiplication　of　the　human　race　had　rendered　agriculture　necessary；　the　need　of　securing　to　the　cultivator　the　fruit　of　his　labor　made　permanent　property　necessary；　and　also　laws　for　its　protection。　　So　we　are　indebted　to　property　for　the　creation　of　the　civil　State。〃
  Yes；　of　our　civil　State；　as　you　have　made　it；　a　State　which；　at　first；　was　despotism；　then　monarchy；　then　aristocracy；　today　democracy；　and　always　tyranny。
  〃Without　the　ties　of　property　it　never　would　have　been　possible　to　subordinate　men　to　the　wholesome　yoke　of　the　law；　and　without　permanent　property　the　earth　would　have　remained　a　vast　forest。　　Let　us　admit；　then；　with　the　most　careful　writers；　that　if　transient　property；　or　the　right　of　preference　resulting　from　occupation；　existed　prior　to　the　establishment　of　civil　society；　permanent　property；　as　we　know　it　to…day；　is　the　work　of　civil　law。　　It　is　the　civil　law　which　holds　that；　when　once　acquired；　property　can　be　lost　only　by　the　action　of　the　proprietor；　and　that　it　exists　even　after　the　proprietor　has　relinquished　possession　of　the　thing；　and　it　has　fallen　into　the　hands　of　a　third　party。
  〃Thus　property　and　possession；　which　originally　were　confounded；　became　through　the　civil　law　two　distinct　and　independent　things；　two　things　which；　in　the　language　of　the　law；　have　nothing　whatever　in　common。　　In　this　we　see　what　a　wonderful　change　has　been　effected　in　property；　and　to　what　an　extent　Nature　has　been　altered　by　the　civil　laws。〃
  Thus　the　law；　in　establishing　property；　has　not　been　the　expression　of　a　psychological　fact；　the　development　of　a　natural　law；　the　application　of　a　moral　principle。　　It　has　literally　CREATED　a　right　outside　of　its　own　province。　　It　has　realized　an　abstraction；　a　metaphor；　a　fiction；　and　that　without　deigning　to　look　at　the　consequences；　without　considering　the　disadvantages；　without　inquiring　whether　it　was　right　or　wrong。
  It　has　sanctioned　selfishness；　it　has　indorsed　monstrous　pretensions；　it　has　received　with　favor　impious　vows；　as　if　it　were　able　to　fill　up　a　bottomless　pit；　and　to　satiate　hell！　　Blind　law；　the　law　of　the　ignorant　man；　a　law　which　is　not　a　law；　the　voice　of　discord；　deceit；　and　blood！　　This　it　is　which；　continually　revived；　reinstated；　rejuvenated；　restored；　re…　enforcedas　the　palladium　of　societyhas　troubled　the　consciences　of　the　people；　has　obscured　the　minds　of　the　masters；　and　has　induced　all　the　catastrophes　which　have　befallen　nations。
  This　it　is　which　Christianity　has　condemned；　but　which　its　ignorant　ministers　deify；　who　have　as　little　desire　to　study　Nature　and　man；　as　ability　to　read　their　Scriptures。
  But；　indeed；　what　guide　did　the　law　follow　in　creating　the　domain　of　property？　　What　principle　directed　it？　　What　was　its　standard？
  Would　you　believe　it？　　It　was　equality。
  Agriculture　was　the　foundation　of　territorial　possession；　and　the　original　cause　of　property。　　It　was　of　no　use　to　secure　to　the　farmer　the　fruit　of　his　labor；　unless　the　means　of　production　were　at　the　same　time　secured　to　him。　　To　fortify　the　weak　against　the　invasion　of　the　strong；　to　suppress　spoliation　and　fraud；　the　necessity　was　felt　of　establishing　between　possessors　permanent　lines　of　division；　insuperable　obstacles。　　Every　year　saw　the　people　multiply；　and　the　cupidity　of　the　husbandman　increase：　it　was　thought　best　to　put　a　bridle　on　ambition　by　setting　boundaries　which　ambition　would　in　vain　attempt　to　overstep。　　Thus　the　soil　came　to　be　appropriated　through　need　of　the　equality　which　is　essential　to　public　security　and　peaceable　possession。　　Undoubtedly　the　division　was　never　geographically　equal；　a　multitude　of　rights；　some　founded　in　Nature；　but　wrongly　interpr