358 BOAED OF AGRICULTURE. 



of its value you agree to carry 66§ per cent, of the value of that house, 

 and the owner agrees to carry one-third. If you pay a partial loss in full 

 you not only pay Otlj per cent., but 100 per cent. In that case the man is 

 carrying none of the risk; the company is carrying all of it. I believe we 

 ought to pay our insurable proportion of a partial loss. 



Now, the question of doing right is the one we are discussing. I 

 know there are some .companies in Indiana that pay half of the insurance. 

 One of them was represented here a year or two ago. The representative 

 of that company told us then what a cheap rate of insurance they had. 

 That is all right, and if you wipe out the other half it will be still cheaper. 

 You would have to go into two companies of that kind to get insurance. 

 In thirty-five years our assessments have averaged us 19 cents on the 

 hundred, and yet the companies whose representatives came here and said 

 they paid half the insurance have had in some years assessments higher 

 than ours. I believe justice should be done to all our members. I know 

 there is a difference of opinion in our territory on the matter of paying 

 partial losses in this way. When we come to discuss this question and 

 make it plain to the members who have sustained losses they are apt to 

 say it may be all right, but it does not put the money in their pockets. 



I shall give you another illustration. We may have a member who 

 has a barn insured for $1,500. This man has a great many broad acres 

 surrounding his home, and is in every way well supplied with this world's 

 goods. He has a son of 23 who is married, and to wliom he has given 

 forty acres of land adjoining his farm. On this forty acres the young 

 man builds a small barn at a cost of $150, which he insures for $100. His 

 father has his barn insured for $1,000. One night the lightning strikes 

 both the big and the little barns, damages the big one to the extent of 

 $150 and destroys the little barn entirely. Now, you all know tne com- 

 pany will pay the young man $100, because that is what it agreed to pay; 

 but under the theory that partial losses shall be paid in full the company 

 will have to pay the owner of the big barn $150. The owner of the big 

 barn has $1,350 of his i^ropcrty left intact, so he has not lost a cent. He 

 has taken no risk, he has carried nothing; the insurance company carried 

 the entire risk; but the young man who needed protection most has lost 

 $50. Why should we carry throo-tliirds in the one case and only two-thirds 

 in the other? I never could understand. That is paying valuation, not 

 insurance. 



Mr. Forbes: I am from Iowa, and I have been in the mutual insur- 

 ance business for twentj'-five years, but I find I have still a great deal to 

 learn about it. If you carry insurance on the $l,5ii0 barn and also on 

 the $150 barn, and if the latter is wiped out of exisfence and the former 

 is damaged tu the extent of $150, are you piiying a pro rata share to the 

 owners of these buildings in proportion to their losses, or in proportion to 

 what they have paid? Is it not a fact, if your theory is correct, that in 



