New-York tribune., 1915-03-28
Register Hopper on Torrens System
Says Study York Law He Finds Simply
Semblance of the Original Measure in Force in Mlasachu-
ettsT Illinois and Other States.

Z that we have this incongruity-a pup
/ lie system without a public assurance
fund, but with private corporation IN
surance substituted in place Of II.
In an address before the New YORK
State Bar Association on January 20,
1908 just before the New York law
was passed, Judge Davis, OF the Massa-
chusetts Land Court, said:
1T Is perfectly possible, as has been
demonstrated, to draft an act that Will
neither work in practice nor even be-
gin"
This is what the New York commits
sion succeeded in doing-they made a
law that did not even begin. But ap-
parently to make the failure doubly
sure, the law was amended in 1910 by
allowing titles once registered TO be
withdrawn, thus taking away the per-
manency Of the system.
recognized early in 1914 that it was
idle to simply find fault with condi-
tions, bad as they were, but that It
was necessary to back up any amend
ments TO the law by proof OF ability
70 demonstrate their soundness. Sug-
gestions were made TO present amend
ments TO the 1914 Legislature, but 1t
was decided wiser 10 defer action until
another year, when our locality index
would be nearer completion. The sub
iect was faithfully studied during 1914.
The fact that the locality index work
Of the office, which was drawing TO a
close, could be put to public benefit by
its use under the TOrrens law prop
erly amended, was generally known.
In October my attention was called
to the fact that the Real Estate Board
of New York had appointed a Torrens
law committee, with Professor Reeves
at its head. The presence on this
committee of the solicitors of the four
leading title companies OF the city
caused me at first TO view this commit
tee with suspicion as being a case OF
Greeks bearing gifts" but | was as
sured that the Craftsmanship Of Pro-
fessor Reeves was a guarantee OF the
disinterestedness of the committee,
and consented, although | must con-
fess with some misgivings, 10 have the
proposed necessary changes IN the Tor
rens law submitted 20 this committee.
After two months of work the recon-
merdations of my Office, except as 20
certain minor details, we're in all fun
damental matters completely ignored.
The amendments Of Professor
Reeves's committee Boylan Ahern
bilD do not change the present law
in any particular that tends 70 reduce
cost, shorten time or make the law
more workable. | can see no purpose
that the Boylan-Ahern bill serves eI-
cept to divert attention from the main
points at issue, and, by pretended
claims of correcting the law, throw
further discredit upon it by a new fail
ure The Boylan-Ahern amendments
leave the law where it was before-a
corporation ridden measure, weighted
down with the selfish attempt to save
corporate profits.
Professor Reeves has presented the
title company side in as able and ef-
fectiye manner as it is possible for il
10 be presented, but that side is not
the side Of the public interest. The
! truth is. there Is no place for a title
company in a true Torrens law. and
would be neglectful of my duty as a
/ public officer and as the registrar OF
/ titles in this county if | failed 10 do
what | could TO establish a true Tor
rens system in the public office o.
which | have charge. have no pri-
| vate axe TO grind and no interest IN tho
matter except as pubic othcer with
/ a sworn public duty. to perform. go,
Professor Reeves has come out with
a statement, published in the press on
/ March 90 and 81, illed with generali.
! tics. but containing very few facts, and
some statements which ere misleading