disgorge with the rest.

When we come to the land in the mountains we find that it averages poor,
yet the 160-acre law must be applied there also. To allow more would be
to give an opening to the smart one, who would take advantage as he has
always done; and as the country is pretty well tired of him we will save
future complications by tying him down to 160 acres like the rest. The
mountain farmer or rancher, with rare exceptions, gets his income from
the raising of pork or beef animals, which are rarely confined to the
owner's premises, but are allowed to roam and graze where they will, at
times as far as forty and fifty miles away from where they belong. And
as the mountaineer makes little if any provisions for the barn feeding
of his animals, outside of one or two milk cows and his few work
animals, and these last only through the work season and the bad weather
of whatever winter the locality may have, he will not find his business
of raising meat for the market curtailed in any respect. Should he need
more hay or grain ground, or ground for orchards or gardens, be will
always find it inside of his 160-acre inclosure, for there are none yet
among them who knows the possibilities of a 160-acre ranch under the
plow. And as none has yet been forced to put the plow into outside
ground, it can be taken for granted that they never will.

Where, then, is the reason why this class of farmers should be allowed
title to more land than the others? The range or grazing ground among
the hills and along the water courses will still be open to their
animals, and instead of the proposed change injuring their business, it
will, in these days of cheap barb-wire, stop the would-be cattle king
and speculative grabber from crippling or destroying it altogether, a
fate not unknown to some who have tried in a small way to make a living
from cattle raising.