The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-08-05

October terni--tlie argument to be October
IA, / believe. We have no doubt about the
decision. You Will observe that our chief
justice relied upon decisions OF the United
States supreme court. The litigation OF
the constitutionality OF the act has of
course much hlndered Its use by the pub
lie. We have had los applications for
original registration. Some OF the appli-
cations have covered large tracts OF land
In the vicinity of Boston, which after reg
istration were cut up into hundreds OF
house lots and many OF the lois have been
sold and transfer certificates in largs
number Issued Many applications have
been made for the purpose of clearing up
defects In titles, which can usually be ef-
fectually done by giving actual notice by
an officer or registered letter to all per-
sons who can claim an adverse interest.
Sometimes these questions have been
tried out before one of the judges, ana d
decision of this court is generally con-
elusive. Several appeals have been taken,
but these have been abandoned except In
one or two recent cases the fate Of which
! do not know. A decision by the United
States supreme court sustaining our law
will make lin due time) this the system
OF land registration throughout the coun-
try am very truly yours,
Leonard A. Jones.
Copy of a letter written by Judge Davis
to Eugene G. Massie Of Richmond
fear that / can not add anything to the
suggestions which Judge Jones has already
made TO YOU. but If restating them from
my own STANDPOINT will be of any assist
auce to you, | am very glad to do IL.
The original Torrens act was an adj
ministratiye rather than a legal system.
IT was framed by business man and not
by a lawyer 1t was land Office and
not court and it amounted to the estab-
lishment of a new administrative DEPART
ment in new country, unhampered either
nv an old and complicated legal system
already in existence or by written con-
stituton. 1t coul6 not be used in Massa-
ehusetts. nor, | think in any American
State; first, because of the constitutional
difficulty in regard to comforting Judicial
powers on ministerial officers, (ses State
IS. Suilhert. SIS Ohio st. 500, and. second,
because while it might readily be adapted
to new country with new methods, like
the Philippine ISLANDS or Cuba or the
Klondike, (where it is said to be working
admirably, It's machine Will not gear
into the machinery of a long established
system of titles resting partly on~eommon
law and partly on statute The objection
to the Illinois syStem--and, to my mind,
1 it Is a fatal obiection--ls the statute oil
limitations II is our experience here and
l am told by friends in Chicago that it
is also their experience there, that people
do not make application under tie Tor
rens system, with all the expense ana
trouble necessarily incident thereto, eth
er for fun or for the benefit of posterlty.
They come In for business; because they
have land to which they want to obtain
a marketable title for mme3iate use. II
we would havo consented 10 amend our
act so that 1t should provide for even
n short stat.te OF limitations or the right
to q writ of review for one year, our
supreme court would have unanimously
sustained its constitutionality but We feel
strongly that either of these provisions
would lie fatal to the practical operation
of the system
The great defect in the Ohio act (aside
from the fatal constitutional defect about
, judicial powers in ministerial ofhcers) TO
, my mind was that it provides for an eN
] parte statement OF the number and char
acter of possible adverse interests In
stead of providing for an independent
4 judicial investigation and determination
. in the matter. 1t is our experience thai
this independent examination by an Off
r Ger of the commonwealth is abzolutel.
. necessary to the protection of the public
. aud an act that could be used for frau(
e or injustice would quickly be wiped of
0 the Statute books.
i The trouble with the California system
: is that 1t operates through the ordinary
! Stale courts. 1t is our belief and expe
J. rience that this can not successfully b,
: done The common law courts have
a no proper machinery for handling rea
a estate matters as couveyanclng is now den
ia in this State, anu people who have Meth
Ii er liking nor confidence in the 'Torren
" system are beginning to use our cnur
+; as a court for the trial Of real es.at
" questions for this reason alone
ID Our method of having a complete ab
5, stract Of title filed by the examiner no
where appears in our act. 1t is simply
m matter of practice With us, and perh7l
rs we have no warrant for it at all, w
: introduced 1t because OF my own persona
at experience In revising titles TO lands take
m by the commonwealth Tin which ] ha
No been employed for several years prior I
al my appointment here). Judge Jones feel
10 very strongly in regard to the neces i
NJ for this. No matter how good a con
N, veyance an examiner may be tand W
All have found by practice the absolute neces
-s sity of appointing as official examiner
45 the best conveyancere obtainable) 1t
N necessary to a safe and proper adjudlca
nj ton, or even the issuing OF a formal de
al cree by the court that the judge shoul
h. have the little itself before him al
r. should have made himself familiar wit
la, 1t. In drafting a new act, I should max
ne this obligatory.
IN To work safely and successfully, slo
re progress is necessary. The process
NJ elimination, slow but continuous. l do n
nv think that any system which attemptC
n wholesale change OF the method
ns tenure and transfer OF real estate wou
nd prove practicable.
no Finally, we are satisfied that the Mass
chusetts act has proved itself, from actu
"A operation Ito quote q recent author OF (
~. Harvard Law Review, 'quick, chea
Ia convenient. substantially falr-noyel, b
his not arbitrary" and, in a word, practlC
and successful Whether it will prove
II be popular or not. We can not possit
tn tell. Considering the tendency of 4
hv suit brought to test its CONSTITUTIONAL
nd which has hung over US from the tn
,an the court started, we have had su
III prlsingly large amount Of cases. VIII
that question Is finally disposed of Ct
,aa case has been specially assigned at Was
tha ington for 0ctober), we shall know mt
tts about it. Present Indications are that
500 shall have all the work that we can SAT-
d. attend TO. Private little insurance co
ri. panies and eonyeyancers who have co
,nS veyancing plants that practically amou
Nv to private insurance companies are.
course. opposed TO the system. OH
~. conveyances are, however. beginning
find that they can make more money |
der the registration act than under
a., old method. Respectfully submitted,
slT. Iau,ne n Hill