alleged agricultural land, all the exceptions to reservation mentioned in the law; the actual ends aimed at were two—­water rights or timber.  In these cases Bob reported uncompromisingly against the granting of the final papers.  Thousands of acres, however, had been already conveyed.  Over these, naturally, he had no jurisdiction, but he kept his eyes open, and accumulated evidence which might some day prove useful in event of a serious effort to regain those lands that had been acquired by provable fraud.

But on the borderland between these sharply defined classes lay many in the twilight zone.  Bob, without knowing it, was to a certain extent exercising a despotic power.  He possessed a latitude of choice as to which of these involved land cases should be pushed to a court decision.  If the law were to be strictly and literally interpreted, there could be no doubt but that each and every one of these numerous claimants could be haled to court to answer for his short-comings.  But that, in many instances, could not but work an unwarranted hardship.  The expenses alone, of a journey to the state capital, would strain to the breaking point the means of some of the more impecunious.  Insisting on the minutest technicalities would indubitably deprive many an honest, well-meaning homesteader of his entire worldly property.  It was all very well to argue that ignorance of the law was no excuse; that it is a man’s own fault if he does not fulfill the simple requirements of taking up public land.  As a matter of cold fact, in such a situation as this, ignorance is an excuse.  Legalizing apart, the rigid and invariable enforcement of the law can be tyrannical.  Of course, this can never be officially recognized; that would shake the foundations.  But it is not to be denied that the literal and universal and invariable enforcement of the minute letter of any law, no matter how trivial, for the space of three months would bring about a mild revolution.  As witness the sweeping and startling effects always consequent on an order from headquarters to its police to “enforce rigidly”—­for a time—­some particular city ordinance.  Whether this is a fault of our system of law, or a defect inherent in the absolute logic of human affairs, is a matter for philosophy to determine.  Be that as it may, the powers that enforce law often find themselves on the horns of a dilemma.  They must take their choice between tyranny and despotism.

So, in a mild way, Bob had become a despot.  That is to say, he had to decide to whom a broken law was to apply, and to whom not, and this without being given any touchstone of choice.  The matter rested with his own experience, knowledge and personal judgment.  Fortunately he was a beneficent despot.  A man evilly disposed, like Plant, could have worked incalculable harm for others and great financial benefit to himself.  That this is not only possible but inevitable is another defect of law or system.  No sane man for one single instant believes that literal enforcement of every law at all times is either possible or desirable.  No sane man for one single instant believes that the law can be excepted to or annulled for especial occasions without undermining the public confidence and public morals.  Yet where is the middle ground?