the only two questions in which, contrary to the general spirit of this republic, law has taken the character of a plunderer.  Slavery is a violation, sanctioned by law, of the rights of the person.  Protection is a violation perpetrated by the law upon the rights of property; and certainly it is very remarkable that, in the midst of so many other debates, this double legal scourge, the sorrowful inheritance of the Old World, should be the only one which can, and perhaps will, cause the rupture of the Union.  Indeed, a more astounding fact, in the heart of society, cannot be conceived than this:—­That law should have become an instrument of injustice.  And if this fact occasions consequences so formidable to the United States, where there is but one exception, what must it be with us in Europe, where it is a principle—­a system?

M. Montalembert, adopting the thought of a famous proclamation of M. Carlier, said, “We must make war against socialism.”  And by socialism, according to the definition of M. Charles Dupin, he meant plunder.

But what plunder did he mean?  For there are two sorts—­extra-legal and legal plunder.

As to extra-legal plunder, such as theft, or swindling, which is defined, foreseen, and punished by the penal code, I do not think it can be adorned by the name of socialism.  It is not this which systematically threatens the foundations of society.  Besides, the war against this kind of plunder has not waited for the signal of M. Montalembert or M. Carlier.  It has gone on since the beginning of the world; France was carrying it on long before the revolution of February—­long before the appearance of socialism—­with all the ceremonies of magistracy, police, gendarmerie, prisons, dungeons, and scaffolds.  It is the law itself which is conducting this war, and it is to be wished, in my opinion, that the law should always maintain this attitude with respect to plunder.

But this is not the case.  The law sometimes takes its own part.  Sometimes it accomplishes it with its own hands, in order to save the parties benefited the shame, the danger, and the scruple.  Sometimes it places all this ceremony of magistracy, police, gendarmerie, and prisons, at the service of the plunderer, and treats the plundered party, when he defends himself, as the criminal.  In a word, there is a legal plunder, and it is, no doubt, this which is meant by M. Montalembert.

This plunder may be only an exceptional blemish in the legislation of a people, and in this case, the best thing that can be done is, without so many speeches and lamentations, to do away with it as soon as possible, notwithstanding the clamours of interested parties.  But how is it to be distinguished?  Very easily.  See whether the law takes from some persons that which belongs to them, to give to others what does not belong to them.  See whether the law performs, for the profit of one citizen, and, to the injury of others,