670 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



is one with, which, the courts of Christendom are engaged in an 

 interminable wrestle. Their anxiety shows that they regard the 

 settlement of that question in any particular case as a great point 

 gained one way or the other. 



I have said that property is a right to something. It is rather, 

 as Macleod says, " an aggregate or bundle of rights." This ag- 

 gregate is not the same for all classes of property. Hence in order 

 to define property we must classify it. Before attempting this, let 

 us inquire how it comes about that there is such an institution 

 existing among men. We can all feel, if we can not formulate, a 

 definition which will suffice for this purpose. I do not exactly 

 know the limits of my property-rights, nor which of the rights 

 that I have to-day may be taken away from me to-morrow, but I 

 am severely conscious of the fact that I am chiefly occupied in a 

 struggle to make that mine to-morrow which is not mine to-day, 

 and I want to know how I came to be engaged in this struggle ; 

 how the universe happens to be divided into the mine and the 

 not-mine ; and by what warrant the one is transmuted into the 

 other ? 



I know of but one economist who introduces the science of po- 

 litical economy by founding it upon the right of property. The 

 late Prof. J. M. Sturtevant begins his text-book of " Economics " 

 in this wise : 



" The science we are about to expound is the logical develop- 

 ment and application to a special group of phenomena, of a single 

 law of nature, as truly as physical astronomy is the logical devel- 

 opment and application to the phenomena of the solar system, of 

 the law of gravitation. The law of nature to which we refer may 

 be thus enunciated : 



" Every man owns himself, and all which he produces by the 

 voluntary exertion of his own powers. 



" Every science must assume something. Ours must assume 

 that the idea of ownership is perfectly clear and intelligible to 

 every one. It is a simple intuition, which originates in the spon- 

 taneous action of every human mind, and is therefore indefinable. 

 It ranks in this respect with the idea of personality of moral obli- 

 gation and of causation." 



This statement of the case must be rejected. Property may be 

 universal among human beings, though this is extremely doubt- 

 ful. But certainly the idea is not clear and intelligible to every 

 one. It would be nearer the truth to say that it is not yet clear 

 to any one. Even the notion that every man owns himself is not 

 universal. A great many human beings are still owned by mas- 

 ters, and millions more by their kings. The conscripted soldiers 

 of Europe do not own themselves. They are owned by the state. 

 And this ownership by the state, by a king, by a slaveholder, is 



