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 qualification--expresses 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 possession--the _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.Troplong--the legist, the orator, the philosopher--does 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.