It　gives　birth　to　the　distinction　between　THINE　and　MINE；　true　signs　of　equality；　not；　by　any　means；　of　subordination。　　〃From　equivocation　to　equivocation；〃　says　M。　Michelet；＇1＇　〃property　would　crawl　to　the　end　of　the　world；　man　could　not　limit　it；　were　not　he　himself　its　limit。　　Where　they　clash；　there　will　be　its　frontier。〃　　In　short；　individuality　of　being　destroys　the　hypothesis　of　communism；　but　it　does　not　for　that　reason　give　birth　to　domain；that　domain　by　virtue　of　which　the　holder　of　a　thing　exercises　over　the　person　who　takes　his　place　a　right　of　prestation　and　suzerainty；　that　has　always　been　identified　with　property　itself。
  ＇1＇　　〃Origin　of　French　Law。〃
  Further；　that　he　whose　legitimately　acquired　possession　injures　nobody　cannot　be　nonsuited　without　flagrant　injustice；　is　a　truth；　not　of　INTUITION；　as　M。　Troplong　says；　but　of　INWARD　SENSATION；＇1＇　which　has　nothing　to　do　with　property。
  ＇1＇　　To　honor　one's　parents；　to　be　grateful　to　one's　benefactors；　to　neither　kill　nor　steal；truths　of　inward　sensation。　　To　obey　God　rather　than　men；　to　render　to　each　that　which　is　his；　the　whole　is　greater　than　a　part；　a　straight　line　is　the　shortest　road　from　one　point　to　another；truths　of　intuition。　　All　are　a　priori　but　the　first　are　felt　by　the　conscience；　and　imply　only　a　simple　act　of　the　soul；　the　second　are　perceived　by　the　reason；　and　imply　comparison　and　relation。　　In　short；　the　former　are　sentiments；　the　latter　are　ideas。
  M。　Troplong　admits；　then；　occupancy　as　a　condition　of　property。　　In　that；　he　is　in　accord　with　the　Roman　law；　in　accord　with　MM。　Toullier　and　Duranton；　but　in　his　opinion　this　condition　is　not　the　only　one；　and　it　is　in　this　particular　that　his　doctrine　goes　beyond　theirs。
  〃But；　however　exclusive　the　right　arising　from　sole　occupancy；　does　it　not　become　still　more　so；　when　man　has　moulded　matter　by　his　labor；　when　he　has　deposited　in　it　a　portion　of　himself；　re…　creating　it　by　his　industry；　and　setting　upon　it　the　seal　of　his　intelligence　and　activity？　　Of　all　conquests；　that　is　the　most　legitimate；　for　it　is　the　price　of　labor。
  He　who　should　deprive　a　man　of　the　thing　thus　remodelled；　thus　humanized；　would　invade　the　man　himself；　and　would　inflict　the　deepest　wounds　upon　his　liberty。〃
  I　pass　over　the　very　beautiful　explanations　in　which　M。　Troplong；　discussing　labor　and　industry；　displays　the　whole　wealth　of　his　eloquence。　　M。　Troplong　is　not　only　a　philosopher；　he　is　an　orator；　an　artist。　　HE　ABOUNDS　WITH　APPEALS　TO　THE　CONSCIENCE　AND　THE　PASSIONS。　　I　might　make　sad　work　of　his　rhetoric；　should　I　undertake　to　dissect　it；　but　I　confine　myself　for　the　present　to　his　philosophy。
  If　M。　Troplong　had　only　known　how　to　think　and　reflect；　before　abandoning　the　original　fact　of　occupancy　and　plunging　into　the　theory　of　labor；　he　would　have　asked　himself：　　〃What　is　it　to　occupy？〃　　And　he　would　have　discovered　that　OCCUPANCY　is　only　a　generic　term　by　which　all　modes　of　possession　are　expressed；　seizure；　station；　immanence；　habitation；　cultivation；　use；　consumption；　&c。；　that　labor；　consequently；　is　but　one　of　a　thousand　forms　of　occupancy。　　He　would　have　understood；　finally；　that　the　right　of　possession　which　is　born　of　labor　is　governed　by　the　same　general　laws　as　that　which　results　from　the　simple　seizure　of　things。　　What　kind　of　a　legist　is　he　who　declaims　when　he　ought　to　reason；　who　continually　mistakes　his　metaphors　for　legal　axioms；　and　who　does　not　so　much　as　know　how　to　obtain　a　universal　by　induction；　and　form　a　category？
  If　labor　is　identical　with　occupancy；　the　only　benefit　which　it　secures　to　the　laborer　is　the　right　of　individual　possession　of　the　object　of　his　labor；　if　it　differs　from　occupancy；　it　gives　birth　to　a　right　equal　only　to　itself；that　is；　a　right　which　begins；　continues；　and　ends；　with　the　labor　of　the　occupant。　　It　is　for　this　reason；　in　the　words　of　the　law；　that　one　cannot　acquire　a　just　title　to　a　thing　by　labor　alone。　　He　must　also　hold　it　for　a　year　and　a　day；　in　order　to　be　regarded　as　its　possessor；　and　possess　it　twenty　or　thirty　years；　in　order　to　become　its　proprietor。
  These　preliminaries　established；　M。　Troplong's　whole　structure　falls　of　its　own　weight；　and　the　inferences；　which　he　attempts　to　draw；　vanish。
  〃Property　once　acquired　by　occupation　and　labor；　it　naturally　preserves　itself；　not　only　by　the　same　means；　but　also　by　the　refusal　of　the　holder　to　abdicate；　for　from　the　very　fact　that　it　has　risen　to　the　height　of　a　right；　it　is　its　nature　to　perpetuate　itself　and　to　last　for　an　indefinite　period。　。　。　。　　Rights；　considered　from　an　ideal　point　of　view；　are　imperishable　and　eternal；　and　time；　which　affects　only　the　contingent；　can　no　more　disturb　them　than　it　can　injure　God　himself。〃　　It　is　astonishing　that　our　author；　in　speaking　of　the　IDEAL；　TIME；　and　ETERNITY；　did　not　work　into　his　sentence　the　DIVINE　WINGS　of　Plato；so　fashionable　to…day　in　philosophical　works。
  With　the　exception　of　falsehood；　I　hate　nonsense　more　than　any　thing　else　in　the　world。　　PROPERTY　ONCE　ACQUIRED！　　Good；　if　it　is　acquired；　but；　as　it　is　not　acquired；　it　cannot　be　preserved。　　RIGHTS　ARE　ETERNAL！　　Yes；　in　the　sight　of　God；　like　the　archetypal　ideas　of　the　Platonists。　　But；　on　the　earth；　rights　exist　only　in　the　presence　of　a　subject；　an　object；　and　a　condition。　　Take　away　one　of　these　three　things；　and　rights　no　longer　exist。　　Thus；　individual　possession　ceases　at　the　death　of　the　subject；　upon　the　destruction　of　the　object；　or　in　case　of　exchange　or　abandonment。
  Let　us　admit；　however；　with　M。　Troplong；　that　property　is　an　absolute　and　eternal　right；　which　cannot　be　destroyed　save　by　the　deed　and　at　the　will　of　the　proprietor。　　What　are　the　consequences　which　immediately　follow　from　this　position？
  To　show　the　justice　and　utility　of　prescription；　M。　Troplong　supposes　the　case　of　a　bona　fide　possessor　whom　a　proprietor；　long　since　forgotten　or　even　unknown；　is　attempting　to　eject　from　his　possession。　　〃At　the　start；　the　error　of　the　possessor　was　excusable　but　not　irreparable。　　Pursuing　its　course　and　growing　old　by　degrees；　it　has　so　completely　clothed　itself　in　the　colors　of　truth；　it　has　spoken　so　loudly　the　language　of　right；　it　has　involved　so　many　confiding　interests；　that　it　fairly　may　be　asked　whether　it　would　not　cause　greater　confusion　to　go　back　to　the　reality　than　to　sanction　the　fictions　which　it　（an　error；　without　doubt）　has　sown　on　its　way？　　Well；　yes；　it　must　be　confessed；　without　hesitation；　that　the　remedy　would　prove　worse　than　the　disease；　and　that　its　application　would　lead　to　the　most　outrageous　injustice。〃
  How　long　since　utility　became　a　principle　of　law？　　When　the　Athenians；　by　the　advice　of　Aristides；　rejected　a　proposition　eminently　advantageous　to　their　republic；　but　also　utterly　unjust；　they　showed　finer　moral　perception　and　greater　clearness　of　intellect　than　M。　Troplong。　　Property　is　an　eternal　right；　independent　of　time；　indestructible　except　by　the　act　and　at　the　will　of　the　proprietor；　and　here　this　right　is　taken　from　the　proprietor；　and　on　what　ground？　　Good　God！　on　the　ground　of　ABSENCE！　　Is　it　not　true　that　legists　are　governed　by　caprice　in　giving　and　taking　away　rights？　　When　it　pleases　these　gentlemen；　idleness；　unworthiness；　or　absence　can　invalidate　a　right　which；　under　quite　similar　circumstances；　labor；　residence；　and　virtue　are　inadequate　to　obtain。　　Do　not　be　astonished　that　legists　reject　the　absolute。　　Their　good　pleasure　is　law；　and　their　disordered　imaginations　are　the　real　cause　of　the　EVOLUTIONS　in　jurisprudence。
  〃If　the　nominal　proprietor　should　plead　ignorance；　his　claim　would　be　none　the　more　valid。　　Indeed；　his　ignorance　might　arise　from　inexcusable　carelessness；　etc。〃
  What！　in　order　to　legitimate　dispossession　through　prescription；　you　suppose　faults　in　the　proprietor！　　You　blame　his　absence；　which　may　have　been　involuntary；　his　neglect；not　knowing　what　caused　it；　his　carelessness；a　gratuitous　supposition　of　your　own！　　It　is　absurd。　　One　very　simple　observation　suffices　to　annihilate　this　theory。　　Society；　which；　they　tell　us；　makes　an　exception　in　the　interest　of　order　in　favor　of　the　possessor　as　against　the　old　proprietor；　owes　the　latter　an　indemnity；　since　the　privilege　of　prescription　is　nothing　but　expropriation　for　the　sake　of　public　utility。
  But　here　is　something　stronger：
  〃In　society　a　place　cannot　remain　vacant　with　impunity。　　A　new　man　arises　in　place　of　the　old　one　who　disappears　or　goes　away；　he　brings　here　his　existence；　becomes　entirely　absorbed；　and　devotes　himself　to　this　post　which　he　finds　abandoned。　　Shall　the　deserter；　then；　dispute　the　honor　of　the　victory　with　the　soldier　who　fights　with　the　sweat　standing　on　his　brow；　and　bears　the　burden　of　the　day；　in　behalf　of　a　cause　which　he　deems　just？〃
  When　the　tongue　of　an　advocate　once　gets　in　motion；　who　can　tell　where　it　will　stop？　　M。　Troplong　admits　and　justifies　usurpation　in　case　of　the　ABSENCE　of　the　proprietor；　and　on　a　mere　presumption　of　his　CARELESSNESS。　　But　when　the　neglect　is　authenticated；　when　the　abandonment　is　solemnly　and　voluntarily　set　forth　in　a　contract　in　the　presence　of　a　magistrate；　when　the　proprietor　dares　to　say；　〃I　cease　to　labor；　but　I　still　claim　a　share　of　the　product；〃t