The doctrine of revelation is so clearly set forth on this subject, that I need not delay for the sake of dwelling upon it. It will be sufficient to refer to the prohibitions in the decalogue against stealing and coveting, and to the various precepts in the New Testament respecting our duty in regard to our neighbor's possessions.

I proceed, in the next place, to consider,—

III. The modes in which the right of property may be acquired. These may be divided into two classes: first, direct; second, indirect.

First Direct.

1. By the immediate gift of God.

When God has given me a desire for any object, and has spread this object before me, and there is no rational creature to contest my claim, I may take that object, and use it as I will, subject only to the limitation of those obligations to Him, and to my fellow-creatures, which have been before specified. On this principle is founded_my right to enter upon wild and unappropriated lands, to hunt wild game, to pluck wild fruit, to take fish, or any thing of this sort. This right is sufficient to exclude the right of any subsequent claimant; for, if it has been given to me, that act of gift is valid, until it can be shown by another that it has been annulled. A grant of this sort, however, applies only to an individual so long as he continues the locum tenens, and no longer. He has no right to enter upon unappropriated land, and leave it, and then claim it afterward. by virtue of his first possession. Were it otherwise, any individual might acquire a title to a whole continent, and exclude from it all the rest of his species.

2. By the labor of our hands.

Whatever value I have created by my own labor, or by the innocent use of the other means of happiness which God has given me, is mine. This is evident from the principle already so frequently referred to; namely, that I have a right to use, for my own happiness, whatever God has given me, provided I use it not to the injury of another. Thus, if I catch a deer, or raise an ear of corn upon land otherwise unappropriated, that deer, or that corn, is mine. No reason can possibly be conceived, why any other being

should raise a claim to them, which could extinguish, or even interfere with mine.

This, however, is not meant to assert, that a man has a right to any thing more than to the results of his labor. He has no right, of course, to the results of the labor of another. If, by my labor, I build a mill, and employ a man to take the charge of it, it does not follow that he has a right to all the profits of the mill. If I, by my labor and frugality, earn money to purchase a farm, and hire a laborer to work upon it, it does not follow that he has a right to all the produce of the farm. The profit is, in this case, to be divided between us. He has a right to the share which fairly belongs to his labor, and I have a right to the share that belongs to me, as the proprietor and possessor of that which is the result of my antecedent labor. It would be as unjust for him to have the whole profit, as for me to have the whole of it. It is fairly a case of partnership, in which each party receives his share of the result, upon conditions previously and voluntarily agreed upon. This is the general principle of wages.

Secondly. The right of property may be acquired indirectly.

1. By exchange.

Inasmuch as I have an exclusive right to appropriate, innocently, the possessions which I have acquired, by the means stated above, and, inasmuch as every other man has the same right, we may, if we choose, voluntarily exchange our right to particular things with each other. If I cultivate wheat, and my neighbor cultivates corn, and we, both of us, have more of our respective production than we wish to use for ourselves, we may, on such terms as we can agree upon, exchange the one for the other. Property held in this manner is held rightfully. This exchange is of two kinds: first, barter, where the exchange on both sides, consists of commodities; and, second, bargain and sale, where one of the parties gives, and the other receives, money for his property.

2. By gift.

As I may thus rightfully part with, and another party rightfully receive, my property, for an equivalent rendered,

so I may, if I choose, part with it without an equivalent; that is, merely to gratify my feelings of benevolence, or affection, or gratitude. Here, I voluntarily confer upon another the right of ownership, and he may rightfully receive and occupy it.

3. By will.

As I have the right to dispose of my property as I please, during my life-time, and may exchange it or give it as I will, at any time previous to my decease, so I may give it to another, on the condition that he shall not enter into possession until after my death. Property acquired in this manner is held rightfully.

4. By inheritance.

Inasmuch as persons frequently die without making a will, society, upon general principles, presumes upon the manner in which the deceased would have distributed his property, had he made a will. Thus, it is supposed that he would distribute his wealth among his widow and children; or, in failure of these, among his blood relations; and in proportions corresponding to their degree of consanguinity. Property may be rightfully acquired in this manner.

5. By possession.

In many cases, although a man have no moral right to property, yet he may have a right to exclude others from it; and others are under obligation to leave him unmolested in the use of it. Thus, a man has by fraud obtained possession of a farm, and the rightful owners have all died: now, although the present holder has no just title to the property, yet, if it were to be taken from him and held by another, the second would have no better title than the first; and a third person would have the same right to dispossess the second, and in turn be himself dispossessed, and so on for ever; that is, there would be endless controversy, without any nearer approximation to justice; and hence, it is better that the case be left as it was in the first instance; that is, in general, possession gives a right, so far as man is concerned, to unmolested enjoyment, unless some one else can establish a better title.

6. And hence, in general, I believe it will hold, that while merely the laws of society do not give a man any

moral right to property, yet, when these laws have once assigned it to him, this simple fact imposes a moral obligation upon all other men to leave him in the undisturbed possession of it. I have no more right to set fire to the house of a man, who has defrauded an orphan to obtain it, than I have to set fire to the house of any other man.

To sum up what has been said, property may be originally acquired either by the gift of God, or by our own labor: it may be subsequently acquired either by exchange, or by gift during life, or by will; but, in these cases of transfer of ownership, the free consent of the original owner is necessary to render the transfer morally right; and, lastly, where the individual has not acquired property justly, yet mere possession, though it alters not his moral right to possession, yet it is a sufficient bar to molestation, unless some other claimant can prefer a better title. These, I think, comprehend the most important modes by which the right of property can be acquired.

That principles somewhat analogous to these are in accordance with the laws of God is, I think, evident from observation of the history of man. The more rigidly these principles have been carried into active operation, the greater amount of happiness has been secured to the individual, and the more rapidly do nations advance in civilization, and the more successfully do they carry into effect every means of mental and moral cultivation. The first steps that were taken in the recovery of Europe from the misery of the dark ages, consisted in defining and establishing the right of property upon the basis of equitable and universal law. Until something of this sort is done, no nation can emerge from a state of barbarism.*

And hence we see the importance of an able, learned, upright, and independent judiciary, and the necessity to national prosperity of carrying the decisions of law into universal and impartial effect. It not unfrequently happens that, for the purposes of party, the minds of the people are inflamed against the tribunals whose duty it is to administer justice; or else, on the other hand, for the same purpose, a

* Robertson's Preliminary Dissertation to the History of Charles V.

flagrant violation of justice by a popular favorite is looked upon as harmless. Let it be remembered, that society must be dissolved, unless the supremacy of the law be maintained. "The voice of the law" will cease to be "the harmony of the world," unless "all things," both high and low, " do her reverence." How often has even-handed justice commended the chalice to the lips of the demagogue; and he has been the first to drink of that cup which he supposed himself to be mingling for others!

SECTION II.

MODES IN WHICH THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY MAY BE VIOLATED BY THE INDIVIDUAL.

I have already remarked, that the right of property, so far as it extends, is exclusive both of the individual and of society. This is true in respect to both parties. Thus, whatever I own, I own exclusively both of society and of individuals; and whatever either individuals or society own, they own exclusively of me. Hence, the right of property is equally violated by taking viciously either public or private property; and it is equally violated by taking viciously, whether the aggressor be the public or an individual. And, moreover, it is exclusive to the full amount of what is owned. It is, therefore, as truly a violation of the right of property, to take a little as to take much; to purloin a book or a penknife as to steal money; to steal fruit as to steal a horse; to defraud the revenue as to rob my neighbor; to overcharge the public as to overcharge my brother; to cheat the post-office as to cheat my friend.

It has already been observed, that a right to the property of another can be acquired only by his own voluntary choice. This follows, immediately from the definition of the right of property. But, in order to render this choice of right available, it must be influenced by no motives presented wrongfully by the receiver. Thus, if I demand a