diction, 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