| OCR Text |
Show 2 the hO:7leste2..c..er to 2.bsent himself five months out of the ve ar resuL2.bb_r so he could earn e nou gh to body and soul together while basking in the joy of living on his free . ]:ep m::er honestf:ad.2 2. Louise peffer has rendered the most criticism of these two homestead acts, ory deceitful (inviting not to certain failure) in farm tenancy. basic the mo s t +v.o acts 2.S ,,4 "unwise. this the as it appeals circuillstances it for surrounding depart a two _.I And the Gates, at the challenge fore- h2.8 labeled outset to the that view that Only clarification of the national the enactment of these measures tradition2 views mentioned above. from the is revisionist no these acts bore much b1 tter frui til eril.ar-ged homestead does explicitly dissert2.tion represents insofar It stated rise for the ·pclJ2.bly 2nt2.[oni8tic Paul :.r. subject, t:'1e as homesteader th2_t asserts conscr-va't i on, of on It must be unsuspecting she them judging responsible as we re DeaSures :"h:ci?les 2.uthorit::r +he se but 8SO FurtherDore, eril.ar-ge d homestead to the vigorous in that sense alone. Stated in more verett Dick, The Lure of t!le Lend: A Social istor'\1" of the PU_Dlic Lc.T,C.S i·l"'o t:e A-:2_c18S oi C01:fec-erz. t5._o to t:--:' -e:7 =-e (Lincoln: Un.i.vez-s i ty of lcbr-ael;a Press, 1970), y. JOo. 3::. Louise Peffer, T!"!.e Closirv: of the Public Dis"D032..1 27:':_ Rese!"l?tion Folic2_es, 1900-£:)0 (J-t2__n:02_'''d: :=tc.n::·Ol"G. l;niversity Press, 1951), Chapter VIII, D07:':ain: :p8.rticularly 4Paul rlent p. pp. W. C,lashington, 512. 166-68. Historv of Pu.olic Land Law Develon G2.tes, D. C. I Government Printing Of'[ice, 1968), |
