one had a right to transfer or sell。
Another reason why prescription cannot be adduced in favor of property （a reason borrowed from jurisprudence） is that the right to possess real estate is a part of a universal right which has never been totally destroyed even at the most critical periods； and the proletaire； in order to regain the power to exercise it fully； has only to prove that he has always exercised it in part。
He； for example； who has the universal right to possess； give； exchange； loan； let； sell； transform； or destroy a thing； preserves the integrity of this right by the sole act of loaning； though he has never shown his authority in any other manner。 Likewise we shall see that EQUALITY OF POSSESSIONS； EQUALITY OF RIGHTS； LIBERTY； WILL； PERSONALITY； are so many identical expressions of one and the same idea；the RIGHT OF PRESERVATION and DEVELOPMENT； in a word； the right of life； against which there can be no prescription until the human race has vanished from the face of the earth。
Finally； as to the time required for prescription； it would be superfluous to show that the right of property in general cannot be acquired by simple possession for ten； twenty； a hundred； a thousand； or one hundred thousand years； and that； so long as there exists a human head capable of understanding and combating the right of property； this right will never be prescribed。 For principles of jurisprudence and axioms of reason are different from accidental and contingent facts。 One man's possession can prescribe against another man's possession； but just as the possessor cannot prescribe against himself； so reason has always the faculty of change and reformation。 Past error is not binding on the future。 Reason is always the same eternal force。 The institution of property； the work of ignorant reason； may be abrogated by a more enlightened reason。 Consequently； property cannot be established by prescription。 This is so certain and so true； that on it rests the maxim that in the matter of prescription a violation of right goes for nothing。
But I should be recreant to my method； and the reader would have the right to accuse me of charlatanism and bad faith； if I had nothing further to advance concerning prescription。 I showed； in the first place； that appropriation of land is illegal； and that； supposing it to be legal； it must be accompanied by equality of property。 I have shown； in the second place； that universal consent proves nothing in favor of property； and that； if it proves any thing； it proves equality of property。 I have yet to show that prescription； if admissible at all； presupposes equality of property。
This demonstration will be neither long nor difficult。 I need only to call attention to the reasons why prescription was introduced。
〃Prescription；〃 says Dunod； 〃seems repugnant to natural equity； which permits no one either to deprive another of his possessions without his knowledge and consent； or to enrich himself at another's expense。 But as it might often happen； in the absence of prescription； that one who had honestly earned would be ousted after long possession； and even that he who had received a thing from its rightful owner； or who had been legitimately relieved from all obligations； would； on losing his title； be liable to be dispossessed or subjected again；the public welfare demanded that a term should be fixed； after the expiration of which no one should be allowed to disturb actual possessors； or reassert rights too long neglected。 。 。 。 The civil law； in regulating prescription； has aimed； then； only to perfect natural law； and to supplement the law of nations； and as it is founded on the public good； which should always be considered before individual welfare；_bono publico usucapio introducta est_；it should be regarded with favor； provided the conditions required by the law are fulfilled。〃
Toullier； in his 〃Civil Law；〃 says： 〃In order that the question of proprietorship may not remain too long unsettled； and thereby injure the public welfare； disturbing the peace of families and the stability of social transactions； the law has fixed a time when all claims shall be cancelled； and possession shall regain its ancient prerogative through its transformation into property。〃
Cassiodorus said of property； that it was the only safe harbor in which to seek shelter from the tempests of chicanery and the gales of avarice_Hic unus inter humanas pro cellas portus； quem si homines fervida voluntate praeterierint； in undosis semper jurgiis errabunt_。
Thus； in the opinion of the authors； prescription is a means of preserving public order； a restoration in certain cases of the original mode of acquiring property； a fiction of the civil law which derives all its force from the necessity of settling differences which otherwise would never end。 For； as Grotius says； time has no power to produce effects； all things happen in time； but nothing is done by time。 Prescription； or the right of acquisition through the lapse of time； is； therefore； a fiction of the law； conventionally adopted。
But all property necessarily originated in prescription； or； as the Latins say； in _usucapion；_ that is； in continued possession。
I ask； then； in the first place； how possession can become property by the lapse of time？ Continue possession as long as you wish； continue it for years and for centuries； you never can give durationwhich of itself creates nothing； changes nothing； modifies nothingthe power to change the usufructuary into a proprietor。 Let the civil law secure against chance… comers the honest possessor who has held his position for many years；that only confirms a right already respected； and prescription； applied in this way； simply means that possession which has continued for twenty； thirty； or a hundred years shall be retained by the occupant。 But when the law declares that the lapse of time changes possessor into proprietor； it supposes that a right can be created without a producing cause； it unwarrantably alters the character of the subject； it legislates on a matter not open to legislation； it exceeds its own powers。 Public order and private security ask only that possession shall be protected。 Why has the law created property？ Prescription was simply security for the future； why has the law made it a matter of privilege？
Thus the origin of prescription is identical with that of property itself； and since the latter can legitimate itself only when accompanied by equality； prescription is but another of the thousand forms which the necessity of maintaining this precious equality has taken。 And this is no vain induction； no far… fetched inference。 The proof is written in all the codes。
And； indeed； if all nations； through their instinct of justice and their conservative nature； have recognized the utility and the necessity of prescription； and if their design has been to guard thereby the interests of the possessor；could they not do something for the absent citizen； separated from his family and his country by commerce； war； or captivity； and in no position to exercise his right of possession？ No。 Also； at the same time that prescription was introduced into the laws； it was admitted that property is preserved by intent alone；_nudo animo_。 Now； if property is preserved by intent alone； if it can be lost only by the action of the proprietor； what can be the use of prescription？ How does the law dare to presume that the proprietor； who preserves by intent alone； intended to abandon that which he has allowed to be prescribed？ What lapse of time can warrant such a conjecture； and by what right does the law punish the absence of the proprietor by depriving him of his goods？ What then！ we found but a moment since that prescription and property were identical； and now we find that they are mutually destructive！
Grotius； who perceived this difficulty； replied so singularly that his words deserve to be quoted： _ Bene sperandum de hominibus； ac propterea non putandum eos hoc esse animo ut； rei caducae causa； hominem alterum velint in perpetuo peccato versari； quo d evitari saepe non poterit sine tali derelictione_。
〃Where is the man；〃 he says； 〃with so unchristian a soul that； for a trifle； he would perpetuate the trespass of a possessor； which would inevitably be the result if he did not consent to abandon his right？〃 By the Eternal！ I am that man。 Though a million proprietors should burn for it in hell； I lay the blame on them for depriving me of my portion of this world's goods。 To this powerful consideration Grotius rejoins； that it is better to abandon a disputed right than to go to law； disturb the peace of nations； and stir up the flames of civil war。 I accept； if you wish it； this argument； provided you indemnify me。 But if this indemnity is refused me； what do I； a proletaire； care for the tranquillity and security of the rich？ I care as little for PUBLIC ORDER as for the proprietor's safety。 I ask to live a laborer； otherwise I will die a warrior。
Whichever way we turn； we shall come to the conclusion that prescription is a contradiction of property； or rather that prescription and property are two forms of the same principle； but two forms which serve to c