304 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY, 



should, on the contrary, have appealed to the reason and freedom 

 of man. In fact, it is not only at the "banquet of Nature," as Malthus 

 asserts, that the new-comers demand a place, it is more, and above all 

 at the banquet of humanity ; they are men, and men have called them 

 into existence : did any one consult them before giving them the light ? 

 And if their parents have brought them to life without their consent, 

 is it not on the implied condition that they will furnish them a share 

 of subsistence in exchange for a share of work ? When a child is 

 born into a family, it is rightly said, none of his brothers has the right 

 to prevent his sharing in the property of their father ; likewise, there 

 are no " cadets " in a nation. If the family fails, there is still above 

 it the great national family ; a solidarity exists between all the citizens 

 of the same country. It is by reason of this that you, legislators, 

 unable to establish a law to regulate the multiplication of the species, 

 have implicitly accepted certain charges in regard to the children who 

 are born, in the event of the failure of their natural fathers and 

 mothers. Such children are neither " usurpers " nor " intruders," for 

 they are not themselves responsible for their birth, and you have no 

 right to say whether you will accept or reject them, for there is act- 

 ually enough of subsistence for all. The Darwinians will presently 

 show us the necessity of society taking precautions for the future, but 

 the present charge, nevertheless, exists, and we must execute it. In 

 the existing society the capital is not lacking, but all the men have not 

 their share ; this state of affairs, the inevitable effect of economical 

 laws, creates in the laborers a condition of inferiority and servitude. 

 Here, then, is a place for the intervention of reparative justice in the 

 form of public assistance. Is the man who, in the midst of a dearth, 

 refuses to sell his corn, or who buys a large quantity of corn to take it 

 out of the market, exercising his right? He might, perhaps, claim 

 that he was the legitimate proprietor of the product of his fields or of 

 his purchases. But the identical principle on which property is founded 

 that is, the right to work for a living limits it by the equal right of 

 another. Society has not hesitated to impose restrictions and obliga- 

 tions as to many points on proprietors who assume to be " absolute "; 

 it prevents them from blocking the course of circulation ; it expropri- 

 ates for causes of public use ; it punishes the man who burns his 

 goods ; it can exact an indemnity from the one who lets his property 

 go to waste. As a rule, no right relative to exterior objects can be 

 absolute ; there is always a place for reciprocal limitations, and con- 

 sequently for conventions and compromises. Respect for already 

 existing properties, and for the established order, can not, in strict 

 right, be exacted from the new-comer unless some means of existence 

 are reserved for him. Here is a relation of contract, a tacit conven- 

 tion : I agree to respect your means of living, on condition that you 

 respect mine ; I consent to respect your right to live, on condition that 

 I do not see mine destroyed. There is then a stipulative relation which 



