d　the　civil　code；　and　say　accordingly；　〃Possession　is　a　blessing；　but　property　is　robbery；〃　immediately　the　aforesaid　bachelors　raise　a　hue　and　cry　against　the　monster；　and　the　judge　threatens　me。　　Oh；　the　power　of　language！
  ＇1＇　　M。　Leroux　has　been　highly　praised　in　a　review　for　having　defended　property。　　I　do　not　know　whether　the　industrious　encyclopedist　is　pleased　with　the　praise；　but　I　know　very　well　that　in　his　place　I　should　mourn　for　reason　and　for　truth。
  〃Le　National；〃　on　the　other　hand；　has　laughed　at　M。　Leroux　and　his　ideas　on　property；　charging　him　with　TAUTOLOGY　and　CHILDISHNESS。　　〃Le　National〃　does　not　wish　to　understand。　　Is　it　necessary　to　remind　this　journal　that　it　has　no　right　to　deride　a　dogmatic　philosopher；　because　it　is　without　a　doctrine　itself？　　From　its　foundation；　〃Le　National〃　has　been　a　nursery　of　intriguers　and　renegades。　　From　time　to　time　it　takes　care　to　warn　its　readers。　　Instead　of　lamenting　over　all　its　defections；　the　democratic　sheet　would　do　better　to　lay　the　blame　on　itself；　and　confess　the　shallowness　of　its　theories。　　When　will　this　organ　of　popular　interests　and　the　electoral　reform　cease　to　hire　sceptics　and　spread　doubt？　　I　will　wager；　without　going　further；　that　M。　Leon　Durocher；　the　critic　of　M。　Leroux；　is　an　anonymous　or　pseudonymous　editor　of　some　bourgeois；　or　even　aristocratic；　journal。
  The　economists；　questioned　in　their　turn；　propose　to　associate　capital　and　labor。　　You　know；　sir；　what　that　means。　　If　we　follow　out　the　doctrine；　we　soon　find　that　it　ends　in　an　absorption　of　property；　not　by　the　community；　but　by　a　general　and　indissoluble　commandite；　so　that　the　condition　of　the　proprietor　would　differ　from　that　of　the　workingman　only　in　receiving　larger　wages。　　This　system；　with　some　peculiar　additions　and　embellishments；　is　the　idea　of　the　phalanstery。　　But　it　is　clear　that；　if　inequality　of　conditions　is　one　of　the　attributes　of　property；　it　is　not　the　whole　of　property。　　That　which　makes　property　a　DELIGHTFUL　THING；　as　some　philosopher　（I　know　not　who）　has　said；　is　the　power　to　dispose　at　will；　not　only　of　one's　own　goods；　but　of　their　specific　nature；　to　use　them　at　pleasure；　to　confine　and　enclose　them；　to　excommunicate　mankind；　as　M。　Pierre　Leroux　says；　in　short；　to　make　such　use　of　them　as　passion；　interest；　or　even　caprice；　may　suggest。　　What　is　the　possession　of　money；　a　share　in　an　agricultural　or　industrial　enterprise；　or　a　government…bond　coupon；　in　comparison　with　the　infinite　charm　of　being　master　of　one's　house　and　grounds；　under　one's　vine　and　fig…tree？　　〃_Beati　possidentes_！〃　says　an　author　quoted　by　M。　Troplong。　　Seriously；　can　that　be　applied　to　a　man　of　income；　who　has　no　other　possession　under　the　sun　than　the　market；　and　in　his　pocket　his　money？　　As　well　maintain　that　a　trough　is　a　coward。　　A　nice　method　of　reform！　　They　never　cease　to　condemn　the　thirst　for　gold；　and　the　growing　individualism　of　the　century；　and　yet；　most　inconceivable　of　contradictions；　they　prepare　to　turn　all　kinds　of　property　into　one；property　in　coin。
  I　must　say　something　further　of　a　theory　of　property　lately　put　forth　with　some　ado：　I　mean　the　theory　of　M。　Considerant。
  The　Fourierists　are　not　men　who　examine　a　doctrine　in　order　to　ascertain　whether　it　conflicts　with　their　system。　　On　the　contrary；　it　is　their　custom　to　exult　and　sing　songs　of　triumph　whenever　an　adversary　passes　without　perceiving　or　noticing　them。
  These　gentlemen　want　direct　refutations；　in　order　that；　if　they　are　beaten；　they　may　have；　at　least；　the　selfish　consolation　of　having　been　spoken　of。　　Well；　let　their　wish　be　gratified。
  M。　Considerant　makes　the　most　lofty　pretensions　to　logic。　　His　method　of　procedure　is　always　that　of　MAJOR；　MINOR；　AND　CONCLUSION。　　He　would　willingly　write　upon　his　hat；　〃_Argumentator　in　barbara_。〃　　But　M。　Considerant　is　too　intelligent　and　quick…witted　to　be　a　good　logician；　as　is　proved　by　the　fact　that　he　appears　to　have　taken　the　syllogism　for　logic。
  The　syllogism；　as　everybody　knows　who　is　interested　in　philosophical　curiosities；　is　the　first　and　perpetual　sophism　of　the　human　mind；the　favorite　tool　of　falsehood；　the　stumbling…　block　of　science；　the　advocate　of　crime。　　The　syllogism　has　produced　all　the　evils　which　the　fabulist　so　eloquently　condemned；　and　has　done　nothing　good　or　useful：　it　is　as　devoid　of　truth　as　of　justice。　　We　might　apply　to　it　these　words　of　Scripture：　　〃_Celui　qui　met　en　lui　sa　confiance；　perira_。〃　　Consequently；　the　best　philosophers　long　since　condemned　it；　so　that　now　none　but　the　enemies　of　reason　wish　to　make　the　syllogism　its　weapon。
  M。　Considerant；　then；　has　built　his　theory　of　property　upon　a　syllogism。　　Would　he　be　disposed　to　stake　the　system　of　Fourier　upon　his　arguments；　as　I　am　ready　to　risk　the　whole　doctrine　of　equality　upon　my　refutation　of　that　system？　　Such　a　duel　would　be　quite　in　keeping　with　the　warlike　and　chivalric　tastes　of　M。　Considerant；　and　the　public　would　profit　by　it；　for；　one　of　the　two　adversaries　falling；　no　more　would　be　said　about　him；　and　there　would　be　one　grumbler　less　in　the　world。
  The　theory　of　M。　Considerant　has　this　remarkable　feature；　that；　in　attempting　to　satisfy　at　the　same　time　the　claims　of　both　laborers　and　proprietors；　it　infringes　alike　upon　the　rights　of　the　former　and　the　privileges　of　the　latter。　　In　the　first　place；　the　author　lays　it　down　as　a　principle：　　〃1。　That　the　use　of　the　land　belongs　to　each　member　of　the　race；　that　it　is　a　natural　and　imprescriptible　right；　similar　in　all　respects　to　the　right　to　the　air　and　the　sunshine。　　2。　That　the　right　to　labor　is　equally　fundamental；　natural；　and　imprescriptible。〃　　I　have　shown　that　the　recognition　of　this　double　right　would　be　the　death　of　property。　　I　denounce　M。　Considerant　to　the　proprietors！
  But　M。　Considerant　maintains　that　the　right　to　labor　creates　the　right　of　property；　and　this　is　the　way　he　reasons：
  Major　Premise。〃Every　man　legitimately　possesses　the　thing　which　his　labor；　his　skill；or；　in　more　general　terms；　his　action；has　created。〃
  To　which　M。　Considerant　adds；　by　way　of　comment：　　〃Indeed；　the　land　not　having　been　created　by　man；　it　follows　from　the　fundamental　principle　of　property；　that　the　land；　being　given　to　the　race　in　common；　can　in　no　wise　be　the　exclusive　and　legitimate　property　of　such　and　such　individuals；　who　were　not　the　creators　of　this　value。〃
  If　I　am　not　mistaken；　there　is　no　one　to　whom　this　proposition；　at　first　sight　and　in　its　entirety；　does　not　seem　utterly　irrefutable。　　Reader；　distrust　the　syllogism。
  First；　I　observe　that　the　words　LEGITIMATELY　POSSESSES　signify　to　the　author's　mind　is　LEGITIMATE　PROPRIETOR；_　otherwise　the　argument；　being　intended　to　prove　the　legitimacyof　property；　would　have　no　meaning。　　I　might　here　raise　the　question　of　the　difference　between　property　and　possession；　and　call　upon　M。　Considerant；　before　going　further；　to　define　the　one　and　the　other；　but　I　pass　on。
  This　first　proposition　is　doubly　false。　　1。　In　that　it　asserts　the　act　of　CREATION　to　be　the　only　basis　of　property。　　2。　In　that　it　regards　this　act　as　sufficient　in　all　cases　to　authorize　the　right　of　property。
  And；　in　the　first　place；　if　man　may　be　proprietor　of　the　game　which　he　does　not　create；　but　which　he　KILLS；　of　the　fruits　which　he　does　not　create；　but　which　he　GATHERS；　of　the　vegetables　which　he　does　not　create；　but　which　he　PLANTS；　of　the　animals　which　he　does　not　create；　but　which　he　REARS；it　is　conceivable　that　men　may　in　like　manner　become　proprietors　of　the　land　which　they　do　not　create；　but　which　they　clear　and　fertilize。　　The　act　of　creation；　then；　is　not　NECESSARY　to　the　acquisition　of　the　right　of　property。　　I　say　further；　that　this　act　alone　is　not　always　sufficient；　and　I　prove　it　by　the　second　premise　of　M。　Considerant：
  Minor　Premise。〃Suppose　that　on　an　isolated　island；　on　the　soil　of　a　nation；　or　over　the　whole　face　of　the　earth　（the　extent　of　the　scene　of　action　does　not　affect　our　judgment　of　the　facts）；　a　generation　of　human　beings　devotes　itself　for　the　first　time　to　industry；　agriculture；　manufactures；　&c。　　This　generation；　by　its　labor；　intelligence；　and　activity；　creates　products；　develops　values　which　did　not　exist　on　the　uncultivated　land。　　Is　it　not　perfectly　clear　that　the　property　of　this　industrious　generation　will　stand　on　a　basis　of　right；　if　the　value　or　wealth　produced　by　the　activity　of　all　be　distributed　among　the　producers；　according　to　each　one's　assistance　in　the　creation　of　the　general　wealth？　　That　is　unquestionable。〃
  That　is　quite　questionable。　　For　this　value　or　wealth；　PRODUCED　BY　THE　ACTIVITY　OF　ALL；　is　by　the　very　fact　of　its　creation　COLLECTIVE　wealth；　the　use　of　which；　like　that　of　the　land；　may　be　divided；　but　which　as　property　remains　UNDIVIDED。　　And　why　this　undivided　ownership？　　Because　the　society　which　creates　is　itself　indivisible；a　permanent　unit；　incapable　of　reduction　to　fractions。　　And　it　is　this　unity　of　society　which　makes　the　land　common　property；　and　which；　as　M。　Considerant　says；　renders　its　use　imprescriptible　in　the　case　of　every　individual。　　Suppose；　indeed；　that　at　a　given　time　the　soil　should　be　equally　divided；　the　very　next　moment　this　division；　if　it　allowed　the　right　of　property；　would　become　illegi