what is property-第84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！


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　by　this　means　does　not　possess；　and　has　not　possessed；　and　yet　acquired　possession　is　the　condition　of　possessory　interdicts。〃　　Why　is　not　an　action　to　acquire　possession　equally　conceivable　with　an　action　to　be　reinstated　in　possession？　　When　the　Roman　plebeians　demanded　a　division　of　the　conquered　territory；　when　the　proletaires　of　Lyons　took　for　their　motto；　_Vivre　en　travaillant；　ou　mourir　en　combattant_　（to　live　working；　or　die　fighting）；　when　the　most　enlightened　of　the　modern　economists　claim　for　every　man　the　right　to　labor　and　to　live；they　only　propose　this　interdict；　_adipiscendae　possessionis_；　which　embarrasses　M。　Troplong　so　seriously。　　And　what　is　my　object　in　pleading　against　property；　if　not　to　obtain　possession？　　How　is　it　that　M。　Troplongthe　legist；　the　orator；　the　philosopherdoes　not　see　that　logically　this　interdict　must　be　admitted；　since　it　is　the　necessary　complement　of　the　two　others；　and　the　three　united　form　an　indivisible　trinity；to　RECOVER；　to　MAINTAIN；　to　ACQUIRE？　　To　break　this　series　is　to　create　a　blank；　destroy　the　natural　synthesis　of　things；　and　follow　the　example　of　the　geometrician　who　tried　to　conceive　of　a　solid　with　only　two　dimensions。　　But　it　is　not　astonishing　that　M。　Troplong　rejects　the　third　class　of　_actions　possessoires_；　when　we　consider　that　he　rejects　possession　itself。　　He　is　so　completely　controlled　by　his　prejudices　in　this　respect；　that　he　is　unconsciously　led；　not　to　unite　（that　would　be　horrible　in　his　eyes）；　but　to　identify　the　_action　possessoire_　with　the　_action　petitoire_。　　This　could　be　easily　proved；　were　it　not　too　tedious　to　plunge　into　these　metaphysical　obscurities。

As　an　interpreter　of　the　law；　M。　Troplong　is　no　more　successful　than　as　a　philosopher。　　One　specimen　of　his　skill　in　this　direction；　and　I　am　done　with　him：


Code　of　Civil　Procedure；　Art。　23：　　〃_Actions　possessoires_　are　only　when　commenced　within　the　year　of　trouble　by　those　who　have　held　possession　for　at　least　a　year　by　an　irrevocable　title。〃


M。　Troplong's　comments：


〃Ought　we　to　maintainas　Duparc；　Poullain；　and　Lanjuinais　would　have　usthe　rule　_spoliatus　ante　omnia　restituendus_；　when　an　individual；　who　is　neither　proprietor　nor　annual　possessor；　is　expelled　by　a　third　party；　who　has　no　right　to　the　estate？　　I　think　not。　　Art。　23　of　the　Code　is　general：　it　absolutely　requires　that　the　plaintiff　in　_actions　possessoires_　shall　have　been　in　peaceable　possession　for　a　year　at　least。　　That　is　the　invariable　principle：　it　can　in　no　case　be　modified。　　And　why　should　it　be　set　aside？　　The　plaintiff　had　no　seisin；　he　had　no　privileged　possession；　he　had　only　a　temporary　occupancy；　insufficient　to　warrant　in　his　favor　the　presumption　of　property；　which　renders　the　annual　possession　so　valuable。　　Well！　this　_ae　facto_　occupancy　he　has　lost；　another　is　invested　with　it：　possession　is　in　the　hands　of　this　new…comer。　　Now；　is　not　this　a　case　for　the　application　of　the　principle；　_In_　_pari　causa　possesser　potior　habetur_？　　Should　not　the　actual　possessor　be　preferred　to　the　evicted　possessor？　　Can　he　not　meet　the　complaint　of　his　adversary　by　saying　to　him：　　‘Prove　that　you　were　an　annual　possessor　before　me；　for　you　are　the　plaintiff。　　As　far　as　I　am　concerned；　it　is　not　for　me　to　tell　you　how　I　possess；　nor　how　long　I　have　possessed。　　_Possideo　quia　possideo_。　　I　have　no　other　reply；　no　other　defence。　　When　you　have　shown　that　your　action　is　admissible；　then　we　will　see　whether　you　are　entitled　to　lift　the　veil　which　hides　the　origin　of　my　possession。'〃


And　this　is　what　is　honored　with　the　name　of　jurisprudence　and　philosophy；the　restoration　of　force。　　What！　when　I　have　〃moulded　matter　by　my　labor〃　＇I　quote　M。　Troplong＇；　when　I　have　〃deposited　in　it　a　portion　of　myself〃　＇M。　Troplong＇；　when　I　have　〃re…created　it　by　my　industry；　and　set　upon　it　the　seal　of　my　intelligence〃　＇M。　Troplong＇；on　the　ground　that　I　have　not　possessed　it　for　a　year；　a　stranger　may　dispossess　me；　and　the　law　offers　me　no　protection！　　And　if　M。　Troplong　is　my　judge；　M。　Troplong　will　condemn　me！　　And　if　I　resist　my　adversary；if；　for　this　bit　of　mud　which　I　may　call　MY　FIELD；　and　of　which　they　wish　to　rob　me；　a　war　breaks　out　between　the　two　competitors；　the　legislator　will　gravely　wait　until　the　stronger；　having　killed　the　other；　has　had　possession　for　a　year！　　No；　no；　Monsieur　Troplong！　you　do　not　understand　the　words　of　the　law；　for　I　prefer　to　call　in　question　your　intelligence　rather　than　the　justice　of　the　legislator。　　You　are　mistaken　in　your　application　of　the　principle；　_In　pari　causa　possessor　potior　habetur：_　the　actuality　of　possession　here　refers　to　him　who　possessed　at　the　time　when　the　difficulty　arose；　not　to　him　who　possesses　at　the　time　of　the　complaint。　　And　when　the　code　prohibits　the　reception　of　_actions　possessoires_；　in　cases　where　the　possession　is　not　of　a　year's　duration；　it　simply　means　that　if；　before　a　year　has　elapsed；　the　holder　relinquishes　possession；　and　ceases　actually　to　occupy　_in　propria　persona_；　he　cannot　avail　himself　of　an　_action　possessoire_　against　his　successor。　　In　a　word；　the　code　treats　possession　of　less　than　a　year　as　it　ought　to　treat　all　possession；　however　long　it　has　existed；that　is；　the　condition　of　property　ought　to　be；　not　merely　seisin　for　a　year；　but　perpetual　seisin。

I　will　not　pursue　this　analysis　farther。　　When　an　author　bases　two　volumes　of　quibbles　on　foundations　so　uncertain；　it　may　be　boldly　declared　that　his　work；　whatever　the　amount　of　learning　displayed　in　it；　is　a　mess　of　nonsense　unworthy　a　critic's　attention。

At　this　point；　sir；　I　seem　to　hear　you　reproaching　me　for　this　conceited　dogmatism；　this　lawless　arrogance；　which　respects　nothing；　claims　a　monopoly　of　justice　and　good　sense；　and　assumes　to　put　in　the　pillory　any　one　who　dares　to　maintain　an　opinion　contrary　to　its　own。　　This　fault；　they　tell　me；　more　odious　than　any　other　in　an　author；　was　too　prominent　a　characteristic　of　my　First　Memoir；　and　I　should　do　well　to　correct　it。

It　is　important　to　the　success　of　my　defence；　that　I　should　vindicate　myself　from　this　reproach；　and　since；　while　perceiving　in　myself