LAND REGISTRATION IN SAMOA.

Samoa Weekly Herald, Volume 1, Issue 3, 10 December 1892, Page 3

LAND REGISTRATION IN SAMOA.

We published in our advertising columns last week a notice by the consular representatives of the Treaty Powers stating that the Powers were in accord in withholding their sanction from those sections of the Real Property Ordinance, IH9I, as enacted by the fchiof Justice of Samoa, which refer to surveys of land, and from the fee for registration of title as set forth in the scale of fees, and that these portions of the Ordinance aro not binding on tho citizens and subjects of tho Three rowel's. "Were it not generally known that ono of the Powers has has declared tho whole Ordinance ultra vires, and that it is certain the other two will coincide in this opinion, and instruct tho Consuls here accordingly, we should have come to the conclusion that the remainder of tho Ordinance was operative and binding, as the form of the notice would seem to imply. The explanation appears to be that one of the Powers objected to tho surveys and fees, overlooking, or at all events not considering, the graver and more important objection which underlies the Ordinance itself. It remained for another of tho Powers to draw attention to this. While we fear there is littlo reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusion arrived at, we think it is a most unfortunate thing that it should be so, for tho Ordinance embodies tho simplost and most admirable system of land registration ever devised. The system owes its origin to Mr. Torrens, of South Australia,- and it has been stated that tho British mercantile shipping registration gave him the idea, which to amplified and developod. Tho statute which was the result of his labours was known as the Torrens Act. Tho merits and advantages of the system were so manifestly great that several colonies, including New Zealand and Fiji, soon adopted it, and efforts have been made, with a probability of ultimate success, to introduce it into England. In New Zealand, where it is optional with persons who hold land acquired before the system was introduced to retain their old titles or convert them into titles under the new system, people cheerfully pay the expenses of conversion, and we have no doubt that had it been possible for the Eeal Property Ordinanco to como into full operation landowners here would soon have understood and appreciated its advantages, and willingly paid the very reasonable fees to which objoction has been made. It is rather curious that the two foatures in tho Ordinance selected for nttack should bo two which are absolutely essential to any system of land registration, for surveys are indispensable and fees unavoidable. The system which the Chief Justico has cndoavorod to introduco is, however, more than more registration, and we could have understood objections being raised to 'tho provisions of tho Ordinance relating to trusts, transmissions, intestacy, covenants, and powors in mortgflgos and leases and other matters dealt with in the Ordinance, for all these affect, modify or alter in a groatcr or lesser degree the existing lnws of the States to which our foreign residents are subject. They aro all admirable in themselves, and eminently desirable, but not within the scope of tho Powers conferred upon the Chief Justice by the Treaty, for the Supreme Court is limited to the devising of a system of registration only. It seems to us, however, that the particular objections which have been raised are both ill-advised and unsound, anil that tho provisions of tho Ordinanco reforred to aro clearly within tho powers with which tho Court hns beon invested. Tho Treaty imperatively directs that " The Court shall niiiko provision for a complete registry of nil valid titles to land in tho islands of Samoa which are or may bo owned by foreigners." Whnt is tho system of registration to bo ? Is it to bo ono which simply records and perpetuates tho shoals of dofectivo deods and dirty scraps of papor which have boon shovelled into tho Land Commission, and which thon returns tho precious documents to thoir owners, with a memorandum that tho title contained in them has been declared to be n valid ono, accompanied in somn coses by un unreliable sketch of tho land, and in some case* by no plan at all, or nro tho ragged fragments, tho mouldy, musty, and, in not a few cases, illegible manuscripts to bo relegated to the obscurity of a pigeon hole, and a clean, wholesome certificate of titlo to bo issued, with an accurate description and plan ? If tho formor, tho registration would bo practically worthless, and the bare cost of recording (for it in absurd to suppose this could bo dono without charge) woidd bo far greater than tho fees under tho Ordinance. If the bitter, thon the Chief Justice is not only right in demanding that accurate surveys should bo made, but ho would bo quite justified in refusing to issue any eortincato until his demand had boon complied with, In this connection what doos the say 1 faction V. provides that a grant issued on a title confirmed by the Court shall runUin proper words of description and a diagram of the land on such scale m the Court may direct. In rWlimi. C. ud (IV. it in provided Dint whoa the owner of land ttndor the Ordinance purposes transferring, subdividing, or otherwise dealing with it lie may be required to produce and deposit a pUu, oa ft pntuibed stole,

prepared by an authorised surveyor. Whatre&sonahe objection can bo made to this ? No matter what system of registration wore adopted, no Court or Judge, guided to any extont by common sense or ordinary prudence, would issue anything in the shape of a certificate of title without these simple and reasonable requirements being complied with. They arc essential nliko for the protection of the Court and the landowners themselves. So far as the scale of fees under the Ordinance is concerned, the subjoined comparative table shows that on the whole tho foes under the Ordinance are much lower than those payable in New Zealand under the Land Transfer Act. Ve have not a copy of the Fiji Ordinance, but wo are undor tho impression that a comparison of tho scale of fees under it would show a similar result. In the subjoined table both scales are shown in English money.

scale or Fees. £ « £ s. Ce::Mrjtion of erant nr certificate of: L 0 10 title Registration of mortgage, transfer, or encumbrance .. .. ~ ..: 10 10 Registering leal,' .. .. -A 10 5 Registering transfer or discharge oil mortgage or encumbrance or transfer or surrender of lease .. 5 5 For extension of mortgage or lease 10 5 For every power of attorney 10 5 For every revocation order .. ~ 10 6 Noting caveat 10 10 Cancelling or withdrawal of caveat and service of notice to caveat or caveatee ..5 5 For every search .. '1 3 For every general search 5 5 For every instrument declaratory of trusts and for even- will or other instrument deposited 10 5 For registering recovery by proceeding in law or re entry by a lessor .. 10 j 5 For registering vesting of lease in mortgagee or consequent on refusal of assignees to accept the simc .. 10 5 For entering notice of writ or order ofi supreme Court t io : 10 Taking acknowledgment of married I Taking declaration in case of lost grant: or other instrument, nr ~ I.vr.- production of the duplicate is dispensed; with TakiDg affidavit or statutory declaration 5 i 5 For certified copy, first live folios of T> ; words each -. .. 5 5 For every folio or part folio after first live j Od lOd When any instrument ]iuri«,rts to deal with land Included In n.orc than one grant or certificate lor raeli registration memorial alter the ln>t! '.' 3 For every nutstnitdini: interest noted un certificate of titlo 6 For every notice, to produce deeds or' instruments | 5 For the exhibition of every deiH.sitcdj Instrument or for exhibiting deeds] surrendered by applicant proprietor] 5 For entering notice of marriage or death 10 For every registi atiou abstract.. ..11 0 For cancelling same I » I