e bearn； drive his cattle to pasture； sow a corner of a field； and bake his bread by his own fireside。
But； no； each one cannot do these things。 I hear it proclaimed on all sides； 〃Glory to labor and industry！ to each according to his capacity； to each capacity according to its results！〃 And I see three…fourths of the human race again despoiled； the labor of a few being a scourge to the labor of the rest。
〃The problem is solved；〃 exclaims M。 Hennequin。 〃Property； the daughter of labor； can be enjoyed at present and in the future only under the protection of the laws。 It has its origin in natural law； it derives its power from civil law； and from the union of these two ideas； LABOR and PROTECTION； positive legislation results。〃 。 。 。
Ah！ THE PROBLEM IS SOLVED！ PROPERTY IS THE DAUGHTER OF LABOR！ What； then； is the right of accession； and the right of succession； and the right of donation； &c。； if not the right to become a proprietor by simple occupancy？ What are your laws concerning the age of majority； emancipation； guardianship； and interdiction； if not the various conditions by which he who is already a laborer gains or loses the right of occupancy； that is； property？
Being unable； at this time； to enter upon a detailed discussion of the Code； I shall content myself with examining the three arguments oftenest resorted to in support of property。 1。 APPROPRIATION； or the formation of property by possession； 2。 THE CONSENT OF MANKIND； 3。 PRESCRIPTION。 I shall then inquire into the effects of labor upon the relative condition of the laborers and upon property。
％ 1。The Land cannot be Appropriated。
〃It would seem that lands capable of cultivation ought to be regarded as natural wealth； since they are not of human creation； but Nature's gratuitous gift to man； but inasmuch as this wealth is not fugitive； like the air and water；inasmuch as a field is a fixed and limited space which certain men have been able to appropriate； to the exclusion of all others who in their turn have consented to this appropriation；the land； which was a natural and gratuitous gift； has become social wealth； for the use of which we ought to pay。〃SAY： POLITICAL ECONOMY。
Was I wrong in saying； at the beginning of this chapter； that the economists are the very worst authorities in matters of legislation and philosophy？ It is the FATHER of this class of men who clearly states the question； How can the supplies of Nature； the wealth created by Providence； become private property？ and who replies by so gross an equivocation that we scarcely know which the author lacks； sense or honesty。 What； I ask； has the fixed and solid nature of the earth to do with the right of appropriation？ I can understand that a thing LIMITED and STATIONARY； like the land； offers greater chances for appropriation than the water or the sunshine； that it is easier to exercise the right of domain over the soil than over the atmosphere： but we are not dealing with the difficulty of the thing； and Say confounds the right with the possibility。 We do not ask why the earth has been appropriated to a greater extent than the sea and the air； we want to know by what right man has appropriated wealth WHICH HE DID NOT CREATE； AND WHICH NATURE GAVE TO HIM GRATUITOUSLY。
Say； then； did not solve the question which he asked。 But if he had solved it； if the explanation which he has given us were as satisfactory as it is illogical； we should know no better than before who has a right to exact payment for the use of the soil； of this wealth which is not man's handiwork。 Who is entitled to the rent of the land？ The producer of the land； without doubt。 Who made the land？ God。 Then； proprietor； retire！
But the creator of the land does not sell it： he gives it； and； in giving it； he is no respecter of persons。 Why； then； are some of his children regarded as legitimate； while others are treated as bastards？ If the equality of shares was an original right； why is the inequality of conditions a posthumous right？
Say gives us to understand that if the air and the water were not of a FUGITIVE nature； they would have been appropriated。 Let me observe in passing that this is more than an hypothesis； it is a reality。 Men have appropriated the air and the water； I will not say as often as they could； but as often as they have been allowed to。
The Portuguese； having discovered the route to India by the Cape of Good Hope； pretended to have the sole right to that route； and Grotius； consulted in regard to this matter by the Dutch who refused to recognize this right； wrote expressly for this occasion his treatise on the 〃Freedom of the Seas；〃 to prove that the sea is not liable to appropriation。
The right to hunt and fish used always to be confined to lords and proprietors； to…day it is leased by the government and communes to whoever can pay the license…fee and the rent。 To regulate hunting and fishing is an excellent idea； but to make it a subject of sale is to create a monopoly of air and water。
What is a passport？ A universal recommendation of the traveller's person； a certificate of security for himself and his property。 The treasury； whose nature it is to spoil the best things； has made the passport a means of espionage and a tax。 Is not this a sale of the right to travel？
Finally； it is permissible neither to draw water from a spring situated in another's grounds without the permission of the proprietor； because by the right of accession the spring belongs to the possessor of the soil； if there is no other claim； nor to pass a day on his premises without paying a tax； nor to look at a court； a garden； or an orchard； without the consent of the proprietor； nor to stroll in a park or an enclosure against the owner's will： every one is allowed to shut himself up and to fence himself in。 All these prohibitions are so many positive interdictions； not only of the land； but of the air and water。 We who belong to the proletaire class： property excommunicates us！ _Terra； et aqua； et aere； et igne interdicti sumus_。
Men could not appropriate the most fixed of all the elements without appropriating the three others； since； by French and Roman law； property in the surface carries with it property from zenith to nadir_Cujus est solum； ejus est usque ad caelum_。 Now； if the use of water； air； and fire excludes property； so does the use of the soil。 This chain of reasoning seems to have been presented by M。 Ch。 Comte； in his 〃Treatise on Property；〃 chap。 5。
〃If a man should be deprived of air for a few moments only； he would cease to exist； and a partial deprivation would cause him severe suffering； a partial or complete deprivation of food would produce like effects upon him though less suddenly； it would be the same； at least in certain climates！ were he deprived of all clothing and shelter。 。 。 。 To sustain life； then； man needs continually to appropriate many different things。 But these things do not exist in like proportions。 Some； such as the light of the stars； the atmosphere of the earth； the water composing the seas and oceans； exist in such large quantities that men cannot perceive any sensible increase or diminution； each one can appropriate as much as his needs require without detracting from the enjoyment of others； without causing them the least harm。 Things of this sort are； so to speak； the common property of the human race； the only duty imposed upon each individual in this regard is that of infringing not at all upon the rights of others。〃
Let us complete the argument of M。 Ch。 Comte。 A man who should be prohibited from walking in the highways； from resting in the fields； from taking shelter in caves； from lighting fires； from picking berries； from gathering herbs and boiling them in a bit of baked clay；such a man could not live。 Consequently the earthlike water； air； and lightis a primary object of necessity which each has a right to use freely； without infringing another's right。 Why； then； is the earth appropriated？ M。 Ch。 Comte's reply is a curious one。 Say pretends that it is because it is not FUGITIVE； M。 Ch。 Comte assures us that it is because it is not INFINITE。 The land is limited in amount。 Then； according to M。 Ch。 Comte； it ought to be appropriated。 It would seem； on the contrary； that he ought to say； Then it ought not to be appropriated。 Because； no matter how large a quantity of air or light any one appropriates； no one is damaged thereby； there always remains enough for all。 With the soil； it is very different。 Lay hold who will； or who can； of the sun's rays； the passing breeze； or the sea's billows； he has my consent； and my pardon for his bad intentions。 But let any living man dare to change his right of territorial possession into the right of property； and I will declare war upon him； and wage it to the death！
M。 Ch。 Comte's argument disproves his position。 〃Among the things necessary to the preservation of life；〃 he says； 〃there are some which exist in such large quantities that they are inexhaustible； others which exist in lesser quantities； and can satisfy the wants of only a certain number of persons。 The former are called COMMON； the latter PRIVATE。〃
This reasoning is not strictly logi