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 11.

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

man's purse on the alternative that I will shoot him if he deny me, he may surrender it rather than be shot; but I have no right to present such an alternative, and the consent of the owner renders it no less a violation of the right of property. If I inflame a man's vanity in order to induce him to buy of me a coach which he does not want, the transaction is dishonest; because I have gained his will by a motive which I had no right to use. So, if I represent an article in exchange to be different from what it is, I present a false motive, and gain his consent by a lie. And thus, in general, as I have said, a transfer of property is morally wrong, where the consent of the owner is obtained by means of a vicious act on the part of the receiver.

The right of property may be violated,

1. By taking property without the knowledge of the owner, or theft. It is here to be remembered, that the consent of the owner is necessary to any transfer of property. We do not vary the nature of the act by persuading ourselves that the owner will not care about it, or that he would have no objection, or that he will not know it, or that it will never injure him to lose it. All this may or may not be; but none of it varies the moral character of the transaction. The simple question is, Has the owner consented to the transfer? If he have not, so long as this circumstance, essential to a righteous transfer, is wanting, whatever other circumstances exist, it matters not,—the taking of another's property is theft.

2. By taking the property of another, by consent violently obtained.

Such is the case in highway robbery. Here, we wickedly obtain control over a man's life, and then offer him the alternative of death, or delivery of his property. Inasmuch as the consent is no more voluntary than if we tied his hands, and took the money out of his pocket, the violation of property is as great. And, besides this, we assume the power of life and death over an individual, over whom we have no just right whatever. In this case, in fact, we assume the unlimited control over the life and possessions of another, and, on pain of death, oblige him to surrender his property to our will. As, in this case, there is a double

and aggravated violation of right, it is, in all countries, considered deserving of condign punishment, and is generally rendered a capital offence.

3. By consent fraudulently obtained, or cheating. This may be of two kinds :

1. Where no equivalent is offered, as when a beggar obtains money on false pretences.

2. Where the equivalent is different from what it purports to be; or where the consent is obtained by an immoral act on the part of him who obtains it. As this includes by far the greatest number of violations of the law of property, it will occupy the remainder of this section, and will require to be treated of somewhat at length.

We shall divide it into two parts:-1. Where the equivalent is material; 2. Where the equivalent is immaterial.

I. WHERE THE EQUIVALENT IS MATERIAL. This is of two kinds :-1. Where the transfer is perpetual; 2. Where the transfer is temporary.

FIRST. Where the transfer of property on both sides is perpetual. This includes the law of buyer and seller.

The principal laws of buyer and seller will be seen from a consideration of the relation in which they stand to each other. The seller, or merchant, is supposed to devote his time and capital to the business of supplying his neighbors with articles of use. For his time, risk, interest of money, and skill, he is entitled to an advance on his goods; and the buyer is under a correspondent obligation to allow that advance, except in the case of a change in the market price, to be noticed subsequently.

Hence, 1. The seller is under obligation to furnish goods of the same quality as that ordinarily furnished at the same prices. He is paid for his skill in purchasing, and of course he ought to possess that skill, or to suffer the consequences. If he furnish goods of this quality, and they are, so far as his knowledge extends, free from any defect, he is under obligation to do nothing more than to offer them. He is under no obligations to explain their adaptation, and direct the judgment of the buyer, unless by the law of benevolence. Having furnished goods to the best of his skill, and of the ordinary quality, his responsibility ceases, and it is