persons。　　The　former　are　called　COMMON；　the　latter　PRIVATE。〃
  This　reasoning　is　not　strictly　logical。　　Water；　air；　and　light　are　COMMON　things；　not　because　they　are　INEXHAUSTIBLE；　but　because　they　are　INDISPENSABLE；　and　so　indispensable　that　for　that　very　reason　Nature　has　created　them　in　quantities　almost　infinite；　in　order　that　their　plentifulness　might　prevent　their　appropriation。　　Likewise　the　land　is　indispensable　to　our　existence；consequently　a　common　thing；　consequently　insusceptible　of　appropriation；　but　land　is　much　scarcer　than　the　other　elements；　therefore　its　use　must　be　regulated；　not　for　the　profit　of　a　few；　but　in　the　interest　and　for　the　security　of　all。
  In　a　word；　equality　of　rights　is　proved　by　equality　of　needs。　　Now；　equality　of　rights；　in　the　case　of　a　commodity　which　is　limited　in　amount；　can　be　realized　only　by　equality　of　possession。　　An　agrarian　law　underlies　M。　Ch。　Comte's　arguments。
  From　whatever　point　we　view　this　question　of　propertyprovided　we　go　to　the　bottom　of　itwe　reach　equality。　　I　will　not　insist　farther　on　the　distinction　between　things　which　can；　and　things　which　cannot；　be　appropriated。　　On　this　point；　economists　and　legists　talk　worse　than　nonsense。　　The　Civil　Code；　after　having　defined　property；　says　nothing　about　susceptibility　of　appropriation；　and　if　it　speaks　of　things　which　are　in　THE　MARKET；　it　always　does　so　without　enumerating　or　describing　them。　　However；　light　is　not　wanting。　　There　are　some　few　maxims　such　as　these：　_Ad　reges　potestas　omnium　pertinet；　ad　singulos　proprietas；　Omnia　rex　imperio　possidet；　singula　dominio_。　　Social　sovereignty　opposed　to　private　property！might　not　that　be　called　a　prophecy　of　equality；　a　republican　oracle？　　Examples　crowd　upon　us：　once　the　possessions　of　the　church；　the　estates　of　the　crown；　the　fiefs　of　the　nobility　were　inalienable　and　imprescriptible。　　If；　instead　of　abolishing　this　privilege；　the　Constituent　had　extended　it　to　every　individual；　if　it　had　declared　that　the　right　of　labor；　like　liberty；　can　never　be　forfeited；at　that　moment　the　revolution　would　have　been　consummated；　and　we　could　now　devote　ourselves　to　improvement　in　other　directions。
  ％　2。Universal　Consent　no　Justification　of　Property。
  In　the　extract　from　Say；　quoted　above；　it　is　not　clear　whether　the　author　means　to　base　the　right　of　property　on　the　stationary　character　of　the　soil；　or　on　the　consent　which　he　thinks　all　men　have　granted　to　this　appropriation。　　His　language　is　such　that　it　may　mean　either　of　these　things；　or　both　at　once；　which　entitles　us　to　assume　that　the　author　intended　to　say；　〃The　right　of　property　resulting　originally　from　the　exercise　of　the　will；　the　stability　of　the　soil　permitted　it　to　be　applied　to　the　land；　and　universal　consent　has　since　sanctioned　this　application。〃
  However　that　may　be；　can　men　legitimate　property　by　mutual　consent？　　I　say；　no。　　Such　a　contract；　though　drafted　by　Grotius；　Montesquieu；　and　J。　J。　Rousseau；　though　signed　by　the　whole　human　race；　would　be　null　in　the　eyes　of　justice；　and　an　act　to　enforce　it　would　be　illegal。　　Man　can　no　more　give　up　labor　than　liberty。　　Now；　to　recognize　the　right　of　territorial　property　is　to　give　up　labor；　since　it　is　to　relinquish　the　means　of　labor；　it　is　to　traffic　in　a　natural　right；　and　divest　ourselves　of　manhood。
  But　I　wish　that　this　consent；　of　which　so　much　is　made；　had　been　given；　either　tacitly　or　formally。　　What　would　have　been　the　result？　　Evidently；　the　surrenders　would　have　been　reciprocal；　no　right　would　have　been　abandoned　without　the　receipt　of　an　equivalent　in　exchange。　　We　thus　come　back　to　equality　again；　the　sine　qua　non　of　appropriation；　so　that；　after　having　justified　property　by　universal　consent；　that　is；　by　equality；　we　are　obliged　to　justify　the　inequality　of　conditions　by　property。　　Never　shall　we　extricate　ourselves　from　this　dilemma。　　Indeed；　if；　in　the　terms　of　the　social　compact；　property　has　equality　for　its　condition；　at　the　moment　when　equality　ceases　to　exist；　the　compact　is　broken　and　all　property　becomes　usurpation。　　We　gain　nothing；　then；　by　this　pretended　consent　of　mankind。
  ％　3。Prescription　Gives　No　Title　to　Property。
  The　right　of　property　was　the　origin　of　evil　on　the　earth；　the　first　link　in　the　long　chain　of　crimes　and　misfortunes　which　the　human　race　has　endured　since　its　birth。　　The　delusion　of　prescription　is　the　fatal　charm　thrown　over　the　intellect；　the　death　sentence　breathed　into　the　conscience；　to　arrest　man's　progress　towards　truth；　and　bolster　up　the　worship　of　error。
  The　Code　defines　prescription　thus：　　〃The　process　of　gaining　and　losing　through　the　lapse　of　time。〃　　In　applying　this　definition　to　ideas　and　beliefs；　we　may　use　the　word　PRESCRIPTION　to　denote　the　everlasting　prejudice　in　favor　of　old　superstitions；　whatever　be　their　object；　the　opposition；　often　furious　and　bloody；　with　which　new　light　has　always　been　received；　and　which　makes　the　sage　a　martyr。　　Not　a　principle；　not　a　discovery；　not　a　generous　thought　but　has　met；　at　its　entrance　into　the　world；　with　a　formidable　barrier　of　preconceived　opinions；　seeming　like　a　conspiracy　of　all　old　prejudices。　　Prescriptions　against　reason；　prescriptions　against　facts；　prescriptions　against　every　truth　hitherto　unknown；that　is　the　sum　and　substance　of　the　_statu　quo_　philosophy；　the　watchword　of　conservatives　throughout　the　centuries。
  When　the　evangelical　reform　was　broached　to　the　world；　there　was　prescription　in　favor　of　violence；　debauchery；　and　selfishness；　when　Galileo；　Descartes；　Pascal；　and　their　disciples　reconstructed　philosophy　and　the　sciences；　there　was　prescription　in　favor　of　the　Aristotelian　philosophy；　when　our　fathers　of　'89　demanded　liberty　and　equality；　there　was　prescription　in　favor　of　tyranny　and　privilege。　　〃There　always　have　been　proprietors　and　there　always　will　be：〃　it　is　with　this　profound　utterance；　the　final　effort　of　selfishness　dying　in　its　last　ditch；　that　the　friends　of　social　inequality　hope　to　repel　the　attacks　of　their　adversaries；　thinking　undoubtedly　that　ideas；　like　property；　can　be　lost　by　prescription。
  Enlightened　to…day　by　the　triumphal　march　of　science；　taught　by　the　most　glorious　successes　to　question　our　own　opinions；　we　receive　with　favor　and　applause　the　observer　of　Nature；　who；　by　a　thousand　experiments　based　upon　the　most　profound　analysis；　pursues　a　new　principle；　a　law　hitherto　undiscovered。　　We　take　care　to　repel　no　idea；　no　fact；　under　the　pretext　that　abler　men　than　ourselves　lived　in　former　days；　who　did　not　notice　the　same　phenomena；　nor　grasp　the　same　analogies。　　Why　do　we　not　preserve　a　like　attitude　towards　political　and　philosophical　questions？　　Why　this　ridiculous　mania　for　affirming　that　every　thing　has　been　said；　which　means　that　we　know　all　about　mental　and　moral　science？　　Why　is　the　proverb；　THERE　IS　NOTHING　NEW　UNDER　THE　SUN；　applied　exclusively　to　metaphysical　investigations？
  Because　we　still　study　philosophy　with　the　imagination；　instead　of　by　observation　and　method；　because　fancy　and　will　are　universally　regarded　as　judges；　in　the　place　of　arguments　and　facts；it　has　been　impossible　to　this　day　to　distinguish　the　charlatan　from　the　philosopher；　the　savant　from　the　impostor。　　Since　the　days　of　Solomon　and　Pythagoras；　imagination　has　been　exhausted　in　guessing　out　social　and　psychological　laws；　all　systems　have　been　proposed。　　Looked　at　in　this　light；　it　is　probably　true　that　EVERY　THING　HAS　BEEN　SAID；　but　it　is　no　less　true　that　EVERY　THING　REMAINS　TO　BE　PROVED。　　In　politics　（to　take　only　this　branch　of　philosophy）；　in　politics　every　one　is　governed　in　his　choice　of　party　by　his　passion　and　his　interests；　the　mind　is　submitted　to　the　impositions　of　the　will；there　is　no　knowledge；　there　is　not　even　a　shadow　of　certainty。　　In　this　way；　general　ignorance　produces　general　tyranny；　and　while　liberty　of　thought　is　written　in　the　charter；　slavery　of　thought；　under　the　name　of　MAJORITY　RULE；　is　decreed　by　the　charter。
  In　order　to　confine　myself　to　the　civil　prescription　of　which　the　Code　speaks；　I　shall　refrain　from　beginning　a　discussion　upon　this　worn…out　objection　brought　forward　by　proprietors；　it　would　be　too　tiresome　and　declamatory。　　Everybody　knows　that　there　are　rights　which　cannot　be　prescribed；　and；　as　for　those　things　which　can　be　gained　through　the　lapse　of　time；　no　one　is　ignorant　of　the　fact　that　prescription　requires　certain　conditions；　the　omission　of　one　of　which　renders　it　null。　　If　it　is　true；　for　example；　that　the　proprietor's　possession　has　been　CIVIL；　PUBLIC；　PEACEABLE；　and　UNINTERRUPTED；　it　is　none　the　less　true　that　it　is　not　based　on　a　just　title；　since　the　only　titles　which　it　can　showoccupation　and　laborprove　as　much　for　the　proletaire　who　demands；　as　for　the　proprietor　who　defends。　　Further；　this　possession　is　DISHONEST；　since　it　is　founded　on　a　violation　of　right；　which　prevents　prescription；　according　to　the　saying　of　St。　Paul_Nunquam　in　usucapionibus　juris　error　possessori　prodest_。　　The　violation　of　right　lies　either　in　the　fact　that　the　holder　possesses　as　proprietor；　while　he　should　possess　only　as　usufructuary；　or　in　the　fact　that　he　has　purchased　a　thing　which　no　one　had　a　right　to　transfer　or　sell。
  Another　reason　why　prescription　cannot　be　adduced　in　favor　o