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