what is property-第75部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



He　who　should　deprive　a　man　of　the　thing　thus　remodelled；　thus　humanized；　would　invade　the　man　himself；　and　would　inflict　the　deepest　wounds　upon　his　liberty。〃


I　pass　over　the　very　beautiful　explanations　in　which　M。　Troplong；　discussing　labor　and　industry；　displays　the　whole　wealth　of　his　eloquence。　　M。　Troplong　is　not　only　a　philosopher；　he　is　an　orator；　an　artist。　　HE　ABOUNDS　WITH　APPEALS　TO　THE　CONSCIENCE　AND　THE　PASSIONS。　　I　might　make　sad　work　of　his　rhetoric；　should　I　undertake　to　dissect　it；　but　I　confine　myself　for　the　present　to　his　philosophy。

If　M。　Troplong　had　only　known　how　to　think　and　reflect；　before　abandoning　the　original　fact　of　occupancy　and　plunging　into　the　theory　of　labor；　he　would　have　asked　himself：　　〃What　is　it　to　occupy？〃　　And　he　would　have　discovered　that　OCCUPANCY　is　only　a　generic　term　by　which　all　modes　of　possession　are　expressed；　seizure；　station；　immanence；　habitation；　cultivation；　use；　consumption；　&c。；　that　labor；　consequently；　is　but　one　of　a　thousand　forms　of　occupancy。　　He　would　have　understood；　finally；　that　the　right　of　possession　which　is　born　of　labor　is　governed　by　the　same　general　laws　as　that　which　results　from　the　simple　seizure　of　things。　　What　kind　of　a　legist　is　he　who　declaims　when　he　ought　to　reason；　who　continually　mistakes　his　metaphors　for　legal　axioms；　and　who　does　not　so　much　as　know　how　to　obtain　a　universal　by　induction；　and　form　a　category？

If　labor　is　identical　with　occupancy；　the　only　benefit　which　it　secures　to　the　laborer　is　the　right　of　individual　possession　of　the　object　of　his　labor；　if　it　differs　from　occupancy；　it　gives　birth　to　a　right　equal　only　to　itself；that　is；　a　right　which　begins；　continues；　and　ends；　with　the　labor　of　the　occupant。　　It　is　for　this　reason；　in　the　words　of　the　law；　that　one　cannot　acquire　a　just　title　to　a　thing　by　labor　alone。　　He　must　also　hold　it　for　a　year　and　a　day；　in　order　to　be　regarded　as　its　possessor；　and　possess　it　twenty　or　thirty　years；　in　order　to　become　its　proprietor。

These　preliminaries　established；　M。　Troplong's　whole　structure　falls　of　its　own　weight；　and　the　inferences；　which　he　attempts　to　draw；　vanish。

〃Property　once　acquired　by　occupation　and　labor；　it　naturally　preserves　itself；　not　only　by　the　same　means；　but　also　by　the　refusal　of　the　holder　to　abdicate；　for　from　the　very　fact　that　it　has　risen　to　the　height　of　a　right；　it　is　its　nature　to　perpetuate　itself　and　to　last　for　an　indefinite　period。　。　。　。　　Rights；　considered　from　an　ideal　point　of　view；　are　imperishable　and　eternal；　and　time；　which　affects　only　the　contingent；　can　no　more　disturb　them　than　it　can　injure　God　himself。〃　　It　is　astonishing　that　our　author；　in　speaking　of　the　IDEAL；　TIME；　and　ETERNITY；　did　not　work　into　his　sentence　the　DIVINE　WINGS　of　Plato；so　fashionable　to…day　in　philosophical　works。

With　the　exception　of　falsehood；　I　hate　nonsense　more　than　any　thing　else　in　the　world。　　PROPERTY　ONCE　ACQUIRED！　　Good；　if　it　is　acquired；　but；　as　it　is　not　acquired；　it　cannot　be　preserved。　　RIGHTS　ARE　ETERNAL！　　Yes；　in　the　sight　of　God；　like　the　archetypal　ideas　of　the　Platonists。　　But；　on　the　earth；　rights　exist　only　in　the　presence　of　a　subject；　an　object；　and　a　condition。　　Take　away　one　of　these　three　things；　and　rights　no　longer　exist。　　Thus；　individual　possession　ceases　at　the　death　of　the　subject；　upon　the　destruction　of　the　object；　or　in　case　of　exchange　or　abandonment。

Let　us　admit；　however；　with　M。　Troplong；　that　property　is　an　absolute　and　eternal　right；　which　cannot　be　destroyed　save　by　the　deed　and　at　the　will　of　the　proprietor。　　What　are　the　consequences　which　immediately　follow　from　this　position？

To　show　the　justice　and　utility　of　prescription；　M。　Troplong　supposes　the　case　of　a　bona　fide　possessor　whom　a　proprietor；　long　since　forgotten　or　even　unknown；　is　attempting　to　eject　from　his　possession。　　〃At　the　start；　the　error　of　the　possessor　was　excusable　but　not　irreparable。　　Pursuing　its　course　and　growing　old　by　degrees；　it　has　so　completely　clothed　itself　in　the　colors　of　truth；　it　has　spoken　so　loudly　the　language　of　right；　it　has　involved　so　many　confiding　interests；　that　it　fairly　may　be　asked　whether　it　would　not　cause　greater　confusion　to　go　back　to　the　reality　than　to　sanction　the　fictions　which　it　（an　error；　without　doubt）　has　sown　on　its　way？　　Well；　yes；　it　must　be　confessed；　without　hesitation；　that　the　remedy　would　prove　worse　than　the　disease；　and　that　its　application　would　lead　to　the　most　outrageous　injustice。〃

How　long　since　utility　became　a　principle　of　law？　　When　the　Athenians；　by　the　advice　of　Aristides；　rejected　a　proposition　eminently　advantageous　to　their　republic；　but　also　utterly　unjust；　they　showed　finer　moral　perception　and　greater　clearness　of　intellect　than　M。　Troplong。　　Property　is　an　eternal　right；　independent　of　time；　indestructible　except　by　the　act　and　at　the　will　of　the　proprietor；　and　here　this　right　is　taken　from　the　proprietor；　and　on　what　ground？　　Good　God！　on　the　ground　of　ABSENCE！　　Is　it　not　true　that　legists　are　governed　by　caprice　in　giving　and　taking　away　rights？　　When　it　pleases　these　gentlemen；　idleness；　unworthiness；　or　absence　can　invalidate　a　right　which；　under　quite　similar　circumstances；　labor；　residence；　and　virtue　are　inadequate　to　obtain。　　Do　not　be　astonished　that　legists　reject　the　absolute。　　Their　good　pleasure　is　law；　and　their　disordered　imaginations　are　the　real　cause　of　the　EVOLUTIONS　in　jurisprudence。

〃If　the　nominal　proprietor　should　plead　ignorance；　his　claim　would　be　none　the　more　valid。　　Indeed；　his　ignorance　might　arise　from　inexcusable　carelessness；　etc。〃


What！　in　order　to　legitimate　dispossession　through　prescription；　you　suppose　faults　in　the　proprietor！　　You　blame　his　absence；　which　may　have　been　involuntary；　his　neglect；not　knowing　what　caused　it；　his　carelessness；a　gratuitous　supposition　of　your　own！　　It　is　absurd。　　One　very　simple　observation　suffices　to　annihilate　this　theory。　　Society；　which；　they　tell　us；　makes　an　exception　in　the　interest　of　order　in　favor　of　the　possessor　as　against　the　old　proprietor；　owes　the　latter　an　indemnity；　since　the　privilege　of　prescription　is　nothing　but　expropriation　for　the　sake　of　public　utility。

But　here　is　something　stronger：


〃In　society　a　place　cannot　remain　vacant　with　impunity。　　A　new　man　arises　in　place　of　the　old　one　who　disappears　or　goes　away；　he　brings　here　his　existence；　becomes　entirely　absorbed；　and　devotes　himself　to　this　post　which　he　finds　abandoned。　　Shall　the　deserter；　then；　dispute　the　honor　of　the　victory　with　the　soldier　who　fights　with　the　sweat　standing　on　his　brow；　and　bears　the　burden　of　the　day；　in　behalf　of　a　cause　which　he　deems　just？〃


When　the　tongue　of　an　advocate　once　gets　in　motion；　who　can　tell　where　it　will　stop？　　M。　Troplong　admits　and　justifies　usurpation　in　case　of　the　ABSENCE　of　the　proprietor；　and　on　a　mere　presumption　of　his　CARELESSNESS。　　But　when　the　neglect　is　authenticated；　when　the　abandonment　is　solemnly　and　voluntarily　set　forth　in　a　contract　in　the　presence　of　a　magistrate；　when　the　proprietor　dares　to　say；　〃I　cease　to　labor；　but　I　still　claim　a　share　of　the　product；〃then　the　absentee's　right　of　property　is　protected；　the　usurpation　of　the　possessor　would　be　criminal；　farm…rent　is　the　reward　of　idleness。　　Where　is；　I　do　not　say　the　consistency；　but；　the　honesty　of　this　law？

Prescription　is　a　result　of　the　civil　law；　a　creation　of　the　legislator。　　Why　has　not　the　legislator　fixed　the　conditions　differently？why；　instead　of　twenty　and　thirty　years；　is　not　a　single　year　sufficient　to　prescribe？why　are　not　voluntary　absence　and　confessed　idleness　as　good　grounds　for　dispossession　as　involuntary　absence；　ignorance；　or　apathy？

But　in　vain　should　we　ask　M。　Troplong；　the　philosopher；　to　tell　us　the　ground　of　prescription。　　Concerning　the　code；　M。　Troplong　does　not　reason。　　〃The　interpreter；〃　he　says；　〃must　take　things　as　they　are；　society　as　it　exists；　laws　as　they　are　made：　that　is　the　only　sensible　starting…point。〃　　Well；　then；　write　no　more　books；　cease　to　reproach　your　predecessorswho；　like　you；　have　aimed　only　at　interpretation　of　the　lawfor　having　remained　in　the　rear；　talk　no　more　of　philosophy　and　progress；　for　the　lie　sticks　in　your　throat。

M。　Troplong　denies　the　reality　of　the　right　of　possession；　he　denies　that　possession　has　ever　existed　as　a　principle　of　society；　and　he　quotes　M。　de　Savigny；　who　holds　precisely　the　opposite　position；　and　whom　he　is　content　to　leave　unanswered。　　At　one　time；　M。　Troplong　asserts　that　possession　and　property　are　CONTEMPORANEOUS；　and　that　they　exist　AT　THE　SAME　TIME；　which　implies　that　the　RIGHT　of　property　is　based　on　the　FACT　of　possession；a　conclusion　which　is　evidently　absurd；　at　another；　he　denies　that　possession　HAD　ANY　HISTORICAL　EXISTENCE　PRIOR　TO　PROPERTY；an　assertion　which　is　contradicted　by　the　customs　of　many　nations　which　cultivate　the　land　without　appropriating　it；　by　the　Roman　law；　which　distinguished　so　clearly　between　POSSESSION　and　PROPERTY；　and　by　our　code　itself；　which　makes　possession　for　twenty　or　thirty　years　the　condition　of　property。　　Finally；　M。　Troplong　goes　so　far　as　to　maintain　that　the　Roman　maxim；　_Nihil　comune　habet　proprietas　cum　possessione_　which　contains　so　striking　an　allusion　to　the　possession　of　the　_ager　publicus_；　and　which；　sooner　or　later；　will　be　again　accepted　without　qualificationexpresses　in　French　law　only　a　judicial　axiom；　a　simple　rule　forbidding　the　union　of　an　_action　possessoire_　with　an　_action　petitoire_；an　opinion　as　retrogressive　as　it　is　unphilosophical。

In　treating　of　_actions　possessoires_；　M。　Troplong　is　so　unfortunate　or　awkward　that　he　mutilates　economy　through　failure　to　grasp　its　meaning　〃Just　as　property；〃　he　writes；　〃gave　rise　to　the　action　for　revendication；　so　possessionthe　_jus　possessionis_was　the　cause　of　possessory　interdicts。　。　。　。　　There　were　two　kinds　of　interdicts；the　interdict　_recuperandae　possessionis_；　and　the　interdict　_retinendae　possessionis_；　which　correspond　to　our　_complainte　en　cas　de　saisine　et　nouvelete_。　　There　is　also　a　third；_adipiscendae　possessionis_；of　which　the　Roman　law…books　speak　in　connection　with　the　two　others。　　But；　in　reality；　this　interdict　is　not　possessory：　for　he　who　wishes　to　acquire　possession　b