The　most　exact　idea　of　property　is　given　us　by　the　Roman　law；　faithfully　followed　in　this　particular　by　the　ancient　legists。　　It　is　the　absolute；　exclusive；　autocratic　domain　of　a　man　over　a　thing；a　domain　which　begins　by　USUCAPTION；　is　maintained　by　POSSESSION；　and　finally；　by　the　aid　of　PRESCRIPTION；　finds　its　sanction　in　the　civil　law；　a　domain　which　so　identifies　the　man　with　the　thing；　that　the　proprietor　can　say；　〃He　who　uses　my　field；　virtually　compels　me　to　labor　for　him；　therefore　he　owes　me　compensation。〃
  I　pass　in　silence　the　secondary　modes　by　which　property　can　be　acquired；_tradition；　sale；　exchange；　inheritance_；　&c。；which　have　nothing　in　common　with　the　origin　of　property。
  Accordingly；　Pothier　said　THE　DOMAIN　OF　PROPERTY；　and　not　simply　PROPERTY。　　And　the　most　learned　writers　on　jurisprudencein　imitation　of　the　Roman　praetor　who　recognized　a　RIGHT　OF　PROPERTY　and　a　RIGHT　OF　POSSESSIONhave　carefully　distinguished　between　the　DOMAIN　and　the　right　of　USUFRUCT；　USE；　and　HABITATION；　which；　reduced　to　its　natural　limits；　is　the　very　expression　of　justice；　and　which　is；　in　my　opinion；　to　supplant　domanial　property；　and　finally　form　the　basis　of　all　jurisprudence。
  But；　sir；　admire　the　clumsiness　of　systems；　or　rather　the　fatality　of　logic！　　While　the　Roman　law　and　all　the　savants　inspired　by　it　teach　that　property　in　its　origin　is　the　right　of　first　occupancy　sanctioned　by　law；　the　modern　legists；　dissatisfied　with　this　brutal　definition；　claim　that　property　is　based　upon　LABOR。　　Immediately　they　infer　that　he　who　no　longer　labors；　but　makes　another　labor　in　his　stead；　loses　his　right　to　the　earnings　of　the　latter。　　It　is　by　virtue　of　this　principle　that　the　serfs　of　the　middle　ages　claimed　a　legal　right　to　property；　and　consequently　to　the　enjoyment　of　political　rights；　that　the　clergy　were　despoiled　in　'89　of　their　immense　estates；　and　were　granted　a　pension　in　exchange；　that　at　the　restoration　the　liberal　deputies　opposed　the　indemnity　of　one　billion　francs。　　〃The　nation；〃　said　they；　〃has　acquired　by　twenty…five　years　of　labor　and　possession　the　property　which　the　emigrants　forfeited　by　abandonment　and　long　idleness：　why　should　the　nobles　be　treated　with　more　favor　than　the　priests？〃＇1＇
  ＇1＇　　A　professor　of　comparative　legislation；　M。　Lerminier；　has　gone　still　farther。　　He　has　dared　to　say　that　the　nation　took　from　the　clergy　all　their　possessions；　not　because　of　IDLENESS；　but　because　of　UNWORTHINESS。　　〃You　have　civilized　the　world；〃　cries　this　apostle　of　equality；　speaking　to　the　priests；　〃and　for　that　reason　your　possessions　were　given　you。　　In　your　hands　they　were　at　once　an　instrument　and　a　reward。　　But　you　do　not　now　deserve　them；　for　you　long　since　ceased　to　civilize　any　thing　whatever。　。　。　。〃
  This　position　is　quite　in　harmony　with　my　principles；　and　I　heartily　applaud　the　indignation　of　M。　Lerminier；　but　I　do　not　know　that　a　proprietor　was　ever　deprived　of　his　property　because　UNWORTHY；　and　as　reasonable；　social；　and　even　useful　as　the　thing　may　seem；　it　is　quite　contrary　to　the　uses　and　customs　of　property。
  All　usurpations；　not　born　of　war；　have　been　caused　and　supported　by　labor。　　All　modern　history　proves　this；　from　the　end　of　the　Roman　empire　down　to　the　present　day。　　And　as　if　to　give　a　sort　of　legal　sanction　to　these　usurpations；　the　doctrine　of　labor；　subversive　of　property；　is　professed　at　great　length　in　the　Roman　law　under　the　name　of　PRESCRIPTION。
  The　man　who　cultivates；　it　has　been　said；　makes　the　land　his　own；　consequently；　no　more　property。　　This　was　clearly　seen　by　the　old　jurists；　who　have　not　failed　to　denounce　this　novelty；　while　on　the　other　hand　the　young　school　hoots　at　the　absurdity　of　the　first…occupant　theory。　　Others　have　presented　themselves；　pretending　to　reconcile　the　two　opinions　by　uniting　them。　　They　have　failed；　like　all　the　_juste…milieux_　of　the　world；　and　are　laughed　at　for　their　eclecticism。　　At　present；　the　alarm　is　in　the　camp　of　the　old　doctrine；　from　all　sides　pour　IN　DEFENCES　OF　PROPERTY；　STUDIES　REGARDING　PROPERTY；　THEORIES　OF　PROPERTY；　each　one　of　which；　giving　the　lie　to　the　rest；　inflicts　a　fresh　wound　upon　property。
  Consider；　indeed；　the　inextricable　embarrassments；　the　contradictions；　the　absurdities；　the　incredible　nonsense；　in　which　the　bold　defenders　of　property　so　lightly　involve　themselves。　　I　choose　the　eclectics；　because；　those　killed；　the　others　cannot　survive。
  M。　Troplong；　jurist；　passes　for　a　philosopher　in　the　eyes　of　the　editors　of　〃Le　Droit。〃　　I　tell　the　gentlemen　of　〃Le　Droit〃　that；　in　the　judgment　of　philosophers；　M。　Troplong　is　only　an　advocate；　and　I　prove　my　assertion。
  M。　Troplong　is　a　defender　of　progress。　　〃The　words　of　the　code；〃　says　he；　〃are　fruitful　sap　with　which　the　classic　works　of　the　eighteenth　century　overflow。　　To　wish　to　suppress　them　。　。　。　is　to　violate　the　law　of　progress；　and　to　forget　that　a　science　which　moves　is　a　science　which　grows。〃＇1＇
  ＇1＇　　〃Treatise　on　Prescription。〃
  Now；　the　only　mutable　and　progressive　portion　of　law；　as　we　have　already　seen；　is　that　which　concerns　property。　　If；　then；　you　ask　what　reforms　are　to　be　introduced　into　the　right　of　property？　　M。　Troplong　makes　no　reply；　what　progress　is　to　be　hoped　for？　no　reply；　what　is　to　be　the　destiny　of　property　in　case　of　universal　association？　no　reply；　what　is　the　absolute　and　what　the　contingent；　what　the　true　and　what　the　false；　in　property？　no　reply。　　M。　Troplong　favors　quiescence　and　_in　statu　quo_　in　regard　to　property。　　What　could　be　more　unphilosophical　in　a　progressive　philosopher？
  Nevertheless；　M。　Troplong　has　thought　about　these　things。　　〃There　are；〃　he　says；　〃many　weak　points　and　antiquated　ideas　in　the　doctrines　of　modern　authors　concerning　property：　witness　the　works　of　MM。　Toullier　and　Duranton。〃　　The　doctrine　of　M。　Troplong　promises；　then；　strong　points；　advanced　and　progressive　ideas。　　Let　us　see；　let　us　examine：
  〃Man；　placed　in　the　presence　of　matter；　is　conscious　of　a　power　over　it；　which　has　been　given　to　him　to　satisfy　the　needs　of　his　being。　　King　of　inanimate　or　unintelligent　nature；　he　feels　that　he　has　a　right　to　modify　it；　govern　it；　and　fit　it　for　his　use。　　There　it　is；　the　subject　of　property；　which　is　legitimate　only　when　exercised　over　things；　never　when　over　persons。〃
  M。　Troplong　is　so　little　of　a　philosopher；　that　he　does　not　even　know　the　import　of　the　philosophical　terms　which　he　makes　a　show　of　using。　　He　says　of　matter　that　it　is　the　SUBJECT　of　property；　he　should　have　said　the　OBJECT。　　M。　Troplong　uses　the　language　of　the　anatomists；　who　apply　the　term　SUBJECT　to　the　human　matter　used　in　their　experiments。
  This　error　of　our　author　is　repeated　farther　on：　　〃Liberty；　which　overcomes　matter；　the　subject　of　property；　&c。〃　　The　SUBJECT　of　property　is　man；　its　OBJECT　is　matter。　　But　even　this　is　but　a　slight　mortification；　directly　we　shall　have　some　crucifixions。
  Thus；　according　to　the　passage　just　quoted；　it　is　in　the　conscience　and　personality　of　man　that　the　principle　of　property　must　be　sought。　　Is　there　any　thing　new　in　this　doctrine？　　Apparently　it　never　has　occurred　to　those　who；　since　the　days　of　Cicero　and　Aristotle；　and　earlier；　have　maintained　that　THINGS　BELONG　TO　THE　FIRST　OCCUPANT；　that　occupation　may　be　exercised　by　beings　devoid　of　conscience　and　personality。　　The　human　personality；　though　it　may　be　the　principle　or　the　subject　of　property；　as　matter　is　the　object；　is　not　the　CONDITION。　　Now；　it　is　this　condition　which　we　most　need　to　know。　　So　far；　M。　Troplong　tells　us　no　more　than　his　masters；　and　the　figures　with　which　he　adorns　his　style　add　nothing　to　the　old　idea。
  Property；　then；　implies　three　terms：　　The　subject；　the　object；　and　the　condition。　　There　is　no　difficulty　in　regard　to　the　first　two　terms。　　As　to　the　third；　the　condition　of　property　down　to　this　day；　for　the　Greek　as　for　the　Barbarian；　has　been　that　of　first　occupancy。　　What　now　would　you　have　it；　progressive　doctor？
  〃When　man　lays　hands　for　the　first　time　upon　an　object　without　a　master；　he　performs　an　act　which；　among　individuals；　is　of　the　greatest　importance。　　The　thing　thus　seized　and　occupied　participates；　so　to　speak；　in　the　personality　of　him　who　holds　it。　　It　becomes　sacred；　like　himself。　　It　is　impossible　to　take　it　without　doing　violence　to　his　liberty；　or　to　remove　it　without　rashly　invading　his　person。　　Diogenes　did　but　express　this　truth　of　intuition；　when　he　said：　　‘Stand　out　of　my　light！'〃
  Very　good！　but　would　the　prince　of　cynics；　the　very　personal　and　very　haughty　Diogenes；　have　had　the　right　to　charge　another　cynic；　as　rent　for　this　same　place　in　the　sunshine；　a　bone　for　twenty…four　hours　of　possession？　　It　is　that　which　constitutes　the　proprietor；　it　is　that　which　you　fail　to　justify。　　In　reasoning　from　the　human　personality　and　individuality　to　the　right　of　property；　you　unconsciously　construct　a　syllogism　in　which　the　conclusion　includes　more　than　the　premises；　contrary　to　the　rules　laid　down　by　Aristotle。　　The　individuality　of　the　human　person　proves　INDIVIDUAL　POSSESSION；　originally　called　_proprietas_；　in　opposition　to　collective　possession；　_communio_。
  It　gives　birth　to　the　distinction　between　THINE　and　MINE；　true　signs　of　equality；　not；　by　any　means；　of　su