qual distribution of property, then, the illustration of Dr. Paley, while amusing and ingenious, is by no means a fair and correct representation of the case. The argument which it conveys is sophistical.

§ III. - MODES IN WHICH PROPERTY MAY BE ACQUIRED.

The First Ownership. The first ownership of all things lies with the Creator of all, and is his gift to his creatures. So far as I have need of these things, and no one else has, by any reason, a higher claim to them, I may regard that which I find ready at my hand, and adapted to my wants, as the gift of the Creator to me, his creature. That I need it, and can have it without interfering with the rights of others, in itself constitutes in some sort a title to the thing. Such is the case as regards the spontaneous productions of the earth, game running wild in the forest, unclaimed lands, etc. Such, in the primitive state of society, was the case with most of those values which were in that rude stage of civilization possessed.

Acquisition by Effort. But, aside from this primitive acquisition by gift from the Creator, the chief mode in which property may be acquired is by labor. As society advances, and man's wants increase, he no longer depends on those spontaneous productions of the earth found ready at his hand, and which may be regarded as the direct gift of God to man. The cave which has hitherto sheltered him, is exchanged for a more comfortable abode; the simple fruits that have satisfied his hunger, are replaced by food of greater variety and abundance; the skins of animals, that constitute as yet his clothing, are laid aside for some more convenient apparel; and these advances are all the product of labor. To obtain these better accommodations

he fells the forest, he builds, he tills the ground, he plants, he weaves, he spins; and what he thus acquires as the result and reward of labor, becomes his own, because the labor with which it was procured was his own; and no one has a right to take it from him without his consent, and without just compensation.

There is, however, a limitation to be here considered. He who acquires property by labor is entitled to the proceeds of that labor only, and not to the proceeds of those previous values on which that labor may be expended. If I cultivate land belonging to another, or make use of tools and implements which are the property of another, this land, these tools and implements, are already existing values, on which the labor of others has previously been bestowed; and when I unite my labor with theirs, as I do in making use of these things, I am entitled manifestly not to the whole, but only to a share of the proceeds. It is right that he who has bestowed labor on the land, in acquiring possession of it, and preparing it for cultivation, and on the tools and implements which he has invented and manufactured, and which I have used, should receive the benefit of his labor, as well as I of mine.

It

Acquisition by Exchange.-That which I have acquired, and which is rightfully my own, I may not choose to keep. may be more in quantity than I need for my own use; or I may prefer some other value in place of it. I may part with it, therefore, for something in return; and this is exchange. This is still another mode of acquisition; and what is thus acquired, becomes my property as really and rightfully as if my own labor had been expended originally and directly in its production.

A great part of the actual possessions of any man in civilized society are thus acquired; comparatively few of

the things which he calls his own are the direct product of his own industry. For the most part, we neither build our own houses, nor make our own garments, nor prepare our own food, but employ the labor of others for these purposes.

Acquisition by Gift and Inheritance.- Another mode of acquisition is by the conferring of value gratuitously, as when I receive a gift from a friend, or when property is left me by inheritance. The rightful owner of any possession may, if he chooses, part with the same without receiving an equivalent in return. It is at his disposal, and he may convey the right of ownership now vested in him to whomsoever he pleases. When this is done informally, it is called a gift. When property is conveyed by will, or by due forms of law, at the decease of the original owner, it is termed inheritance.

Question as to Right of Possession. Does mere possession, in any case, confer the right to possess? Suppose I have, by dishonest means, obtained possession of valuable property; suppose, moreover, that the rightful owners are all dead, and that no one has now any better claim than myself to this property-that is, no one has any claim at all;- does my possession, the fact that it is now in my hands, entitle me to keep possession of it? Dr. Wayland answers yes; I have no moral right to the property, but I have the right to exclude others from it, who have no better claim than I have. This may be; and yet I may have no right to retain possession of it myself. The state, in such a case, becomes the proper recipient. I may under obligation to give up the property to any individual claimant, but I may be under obligation to give it up to society for the benefit of the whole. The mere fact that

not be

the property is now in my hands gives me no right to retain possession, inasmuch as it came into my hands unlawfully. There may be cases where simple possession entitles the holder to retain; as where no right of another is violated in the original acquisition; where the object acquired is, previous to its acquisition, the property of no one individual, as in the case of fruits growing by the roadside, or nuts in the forest, or game on the prairie, or land lying unclaimed in a new and uninhabited territory. In such a case, simple possession holds good against all subsequent occupancy by another. But such is not the case now supposed.

The principal modes in which property may be acquired, are those now stated — viz., by the direct gift of the Creator, by labor of acquisition and production, by exchange, by donation and inheritance.

§ IV. - DIFFERENT KINDS OF PROPERTY.

Personal and Real. - It has become usual to divide property into two kinds or classes-personal, and real; the latter including possessions in land, houses, etc.-whatever is in its nature a fixture, not easily moved; the former including all other species of property, such as admits of transfer from place to place. That which we term real estate, was not probably, at first, recognized as property at all, but became so only as society and civilization progressed. The cave that sheltered the wanderer, and the pasture that fed his flocks, were his only so long as he occupied them. After that, they were free to the next

comer.

History of Property. The first objects of property were probably the fruits of the earth, the spontaneous pro

ducts of the soil, which became the property of the individual by the simple act of gathering and appropriation to his own use. The labor of acquiring these fruits might have been very slight; but it was sufficient to constitute a difference between him who had, and him who had not, in this manner acquired possession. Soon the products of the chase would be added to the list of rightful possessions; and these, as they would require more labor and skill in the acquisition, would for that reason belong, by a still clearer right, to the individual who had acquired them.

In like manner, tools and implements for the chase, or for the gathering and preparing of the fruits of the earth, tents, weapons of protection, and whatever of the like sort was early found necessary to the comfort and subsistence of man, would come to be regarded as property. In the progress of time, flocks and herds of domestic animals would constitute a portion of the wealth of man. Not until the country became somewhat thickly inhabited, and man began to turn his attention to the cultivation of the soil, would land itself come to be regarded as property; and then only as each occupant expended labor on the soil, and mingled his products with it, would he acquire a right of individual appropriation.

Accordingly, among the earlier and less civilized nations, we find no trace of property in land. The North American native tribes seem to have known nothing of it. The Scythians, while they appropriated cattle and horses, left their land in common. When Cæsar invaded Britain, he seems to have found no traces of property in land. This species of property came to be a permanent possession, probably, not until the organization of society, and of civil government, fixing by law the right of the individual to