Darner introduced the bill. Crane was still irritated by what he considered Senator Darner's neglect, and he picked some holes in the bill, which he put up to Senator Stewart. No doubt some of them were weak points, but in the main the opposition came from a lack of understanding the purpose, and in that day when populism had emerged to power, there was a fear of a joker in every thing that was not fully understood. Stewart opposed the bill, and it was defeated.

The Bill at Home

Wenzel Hiersche received a copy of the proposed bill, and his thought was that it had some hidden features. He went over to Frank Sands, and they looked it over. They decided that it was too big a bill to thoroughly analyze, and pass judgment on, in the short time they had to do so, so an objection went in to the passage of the act. Sands says: "I then saw the underlying principle was sound, but I thought we ought to have more time to consider it ; what it would do and not do."

The criticism of A. B. Wood was that such a bill would do in California, "where the land had a basic value, but here our lands had no value of consequence." Captain W. R. Akers came to the defense of the proposed principle, and in two years that followed it was pretty well threshed out, and practically approved. Senator Akers, who was chosen from this district for the legislative session of 1895, went into the work with thoroughness. He secured the co-operation of Senator Stewart, again there from Dawes county, and the bill became a law in April, 1895.