what is property-第28节

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！


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