112 STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. 



the court in the name of his heirs or devisees — if he leaves a will — but the 

 certificates shall show on their face the descent or devise — after final 

 settlement of the estate and after the expiration of the time within which 

 claims may be presented by creditors of the deceased, the heirs receive a 

 certificate. 



There is generally provided an assurance fun"d -by requiring that on 

 original registration, and on registration in favor of heirs or devisees, 10 

 per cent of the assessed value of the land shall be paid to the public 

 treasurer. From this fund compensation is to be made to any one who, 

 Avithout negligence on his part, sustains loss or damage through fraud or 

 negligence in the registration of the title. This indemnity fund is pro- 

 vided for in recogniton of the fact, taught by experience, that no system 

 of registration has ever been devised in which there is not some liability 

 to mistake, causing loss. As a fact, however, where the system has been 

 in operation for years the calls made on this fund have been rare and 

 insignificant. It does not follow from this feature that the Torrens Sys- 

 tem is a system of guaranteeing titles. Neither the state, nor anyone^ 

 else, becomes guarantor of title to the holder of the certificate — he keeps 

 the land simply because it passed to him by the entry on the register — 

 and is therefore his land. 



The Torrens is not a new and untried system. It has long been in use 

 in certain parts of Europe — at least its fundamental principles have been 

 there applied, in some places, for centuries. In Australia — whence we 

 derived our useful ballot system, it has been in operation since 1858. In 

 this country, Massachusetts, Illinois, Minnesota, California and Oregon 

 have Torrens acts — though only in Massachusetts and Illinois have they 

 been long enough on the statute books to have been given a trial. The 

 accounts from Massachusetts — where there is a law better in some re- 

 spects than that of Illinois — are most favorable. Objections which have 

 been raised to the system on the grounds of unconstitutionality have 

 been met and overcome in the Supreme Courts of Illinois, Massachusetts 

 and Minnesota and it is now clear, from the interest taken in the matter 

 in many other states, that before long statutes embodying the fundamental 

 principles of the system will be adopted quite generally throughout the 

 United States. 



It is not claimed that the system is absolutely perfect — no humanly de- 

 vised system can be — but that it has great advantages over our present 

 system for the landowner, can hardly be denied by any unprejudiced and 

 disinterested person who studies it. 



