"From equivocation to equivocation," says M.Michelet, [65] "property would crawl to the end of the world; man could not limit it, were not he himself its limit.
Where they clash, there will be its frontier." In short, individuality of being destroys the hypothesis of communism, but it does not for that reason give birth to domain,--that domain by virtue of which the holder of a thing exercises over the person who takes his place a right of prestation and suzerainty, that has always been identified with property itself.
Further, that he whose legitimately acquired possession injures nobody cannot be nonsuited without flagrant injustice, is a truth, not of INTUITION, as M.Troplong says, but of INWARD SENSATION, [66] which has nothing to do with property.
M.Troplong admits, then, occupancy as a condition of property.

In that, he is in accord with the Roman law, in accord with MM.

Toullier and Duranton; but in his opinion this condition is not the only one, and it is in this particular that his doctrine goes beyond theirs.
"But, however exclusive the right arising from sole occupancy, does it not become still more so, when man has moulded matter by his labor; when he has deposited in it a portion of himself, re-creating it by his industry, and setting upon it the seal of his intelligence and activity?
Of all conquests, that is the most legitimate, for it is the price of labor.
"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.