New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-03-07
Register Answers Criti-
cism Relating to Torrens
Law Amendments.
SAYS ACT HAS LAW
AND BUSINESS SIDE
Remarks Cover Law Points, but
Disregard Business End,
He Declares.

= reply 10 the criticism on the Bennett
Burke bill by Professor Reeves. Mr.
Hopper helped to frame this bill. His
answer 10 the remarks Of Professor
Reeves. IN part, follows:
Professor Alfred q. Reeves has set
forth At length the point Of view Of the
Real Estate Boards committee, OF
which he Is chairman, toward the
amendments TO the Torrens law, which
are nov before the Legislature. II Is
true, as Professor Reeves says, that
the present law has many 'glsring de-
fec,s These hsve resulted IN the fail
rrc Of the law in New York. The
chRirmsnship OF Professor Reeves gave
rise 10 q hope that genuine attempt
would lie made by this committee Ia
correct these manifest defects and in
clude the fundamental requirements
for success which are part of the law
o. other states, and which are lacking
IN the present New York law. In this
there has been complete disappoint-
ment
81 have criticised the work Of this
committee. not so much for what il
mas done as for what il has omitted "a
40. The committee has recommended
numerous changes. but the majority OF
these ere verbal, and the rest are large
II matters Of detail about which no
enc disputes. Most Of these recon-
rerdauons have been followed in the
Pennett- Burke bill which l advocate.
The Torrens system has its law side
and lis business side. The committee
o. which Professor Reeves is chair
man is composed entirely OF lawyers,
and The law points are doubtless fully
covered from the viewpoint Of legal
techuicaljty, but there is utter dlsre-
GARD or lack % comprehension OF the
business requirements from the view
ro,rt Of me public interest and beneht.
The iuteres. of the corporate ofhclal
examiners title companiesl. whose IN
teres- is iu the profits 10 be gained
from .hc examination o. titles - pro
tec.ct. but this is opposite 20 that o.
the public interest, 20 winch Hit!e al
tcu.ion has been paid.
-Four of the attorneys on the com
r..,ee OF the Real Estate Board are
resrectiyely solicitors for the four
leading title companies Of this city.
These men are Of the highest persona
integrity. and have had large eXper-
e-ce in title matters. A loyalty on
+reif mart 20 the corporations by whom
thew are employed is commenoao!e,
and ! have no fault 10 find with them
FOR j.. hu. q successful Torrens law
means the destruction OF the business
a. private examination and guaranty
a. titles which has been so extremely
NOTABLE 70 these companies IN the
pa,.. do not make these statements
.- any spirit Of personal criticism. but
merely as statements OF fact. which
aro nstent and conceded by all. Two
facts are IN conspicuous contrast:
"Firs, The Torrens system is sue
+. cess .n every state and country where
s. ma, been faithfully tried.
Second The New York Jaw mas been
"l. is merely an act Of intelligence
therefore. 10 look into the law and ind
tao differences which account for TINS
failure. These are mainly summed NJ
ir the first three Of the four points
which 7 have heretofore emphasized
These three vital features are found N
every successful TorreLS law ever en-
acted in Australia. England, Canada
-.s-acrusctts. Illinois and other
states. They arc lacking in New lort
State alone. These are.
An official examiner, who j. publ'
officer responsible directly and solely
% the court. a compulsory Insurance
turc and permanent registration.
On the face Of seven years Of fail
urc. a better explanation than ths'
given BIZ Professor Reeves must b'
presented TO account for the failure OF
this committee 10 touch upon these
vital matters: .,
The official examination Of titles
and a monopoly for the public good.
Professor Reeves objects 10 the
Bennett Bourke amendment providing
FOR officially appointed examiners or
me ground that IT would make an ON
cal monopoly, subject to otficial abuse
This kind Of argument has been ad'
vsnced from tine immemOrisl when
ever any public function once allowec
70 become exploited by private ind
v.duals has been returned to pubic
control
The business Of title examination
IL in its nature what economists cal
p natural monopoly Professor Keeve'
asks for competition Competition II
the title business simply means al
vision Of the field, duplication o.
operating plants and an increase "
cost. Thirty years ago there was ou
one title company Iltie Gusrsn
zee and Trust Company. Next came
the Lawyers Title and Trust Compsn!
70 compete The two companies were
soon engaged in a close working agree
ment as TO rates and policies. Ih'
rnsncisl success OF these two com
rau!es attracted & third-the New 1ori
Iltle Insurance Company also u
compete Again there was poohn'
g. interests in regard 20 rates-th'
public getting none Of the beneh'
These three companies each have
'Nisnt,' built al a cost reputed 70 %
early 100000 each My office u
Jst completing the first public titi'
plant constructed on commercial lines
Any one Of these four plants is ace
ouate 10 take care Of all the title busi
ress Of New York County, without an!
e1bstantisl increase in plant equip
\ ment.
Under Professor Reeves's plan, IN
community must pay for the mamie
rance o. four complete operating
PANTS and a. community get TN
'eneht % but one, and, in ADDITION
rlst pay enough more TO make VIVA
'ae corporation perchsnce will deem
satisfactory TO them addition u
their dividends and already swolle'
surplus funds. Il is estimated tina
me owners Of property in New Yor
CITY have paid upward Of SlOO,OOO,oo
IN title fees in the last twenty-hv
Years. 1t is estimated that, If IN
tile companies should decide to CIV
up their profitable prerogative in ia
vor % the Torrens system and gra
cIously consent TO act as Official eX
aminers, their fees at present rate
for acting as such examiners woul
;ggrogate about $30,000.000 for Man
tsttsn alone. We find in this economi
Tread and butter condition the tru
cyplana+iou of the attitude of It'll