T'\'rn:i) statics - ixsruwri', \\'i> 'niRii'T 



borders of tlie home township. The>' could write insurance against loss or 

 damage by fire only. This hiw, thf)uglu evidently too restrictive in its 

 provisions regarding business territor}- and the risks that might be assumed, 

 ai)pears to have become the model for similar laws in the north central 

 States generally, and for some twelve other vStates situated further south or 

 west. 



The early New York law was repealed in 1862 ond it was not until 

 1879 that a second law, somewhat more lil)eral in its provisions, was enacted. 

 In the meantime Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio and 

 Indiana had enacted farmers' nmtual fire insurance laws. These laws and 

 also the second New York law generally permitted that a number of con- 

 tiguous townshi]is or an entire county should form a ])usiness territory. 

 All kinds of farm ])ro])erty might be insured and the lightning hazard as 

 well as that of tire might be assumed. h",.\ce])t the Indiaiia law the}- dif- 

 fered from the New York law of 1879 in that they placed the companies thus 

 organized under the supervision of the res])ective State insurance depart- 

 ment". This stejj was not taken by Ntw York until igog. By i8go practi- 

 cally ev-.-ry State in the Middle West and several of those in the South had 

 a farmers' mutual fire insurance law. 



The present laws upon this subject, while similar in nuiny respects, are 

 by no means equally complete or practical in all their provisions. It may 

 hv said that at ])resent twenty-five States have fairly satisfactory farmers' 

 mutual fire insurance laws. vSeveral other States have scattered provi.sions 

 in their laws as to fire insurance in general which ai)ply ])articularly to 

 farmers' mutual com])anies. In a few States, having laws which make no 

 special reference to farmers' insurance organizations, the companies ope- 

 rate either under special charters or under laws api)lying to all classes of 

 mutual fire insurance com])anies. In .six States, all in the South or South- 

 West, no record of companies of this kind has been found. 



The older farmers' mutual insurance laws have in practically ever}' 

 instance been variously amended. The trend of these amendments has 

 been to enlarge the business territory permitted and give more scope 

 to the activities of the companies. In several instances they are allowed 

 to ojjcrate in an entire State. As a rule however the laws prescribe for them 

 territories varying from one to five counties. While many of the companies 

 have availed themselves of the provisions allowing such enlargement, the 

 great majority still operate in a single country while a few still confine them- 

 selves to a single township. 



There has been a growing tendency, especially in the Southern States, to 

 allow the farmers' nuitual societies to include windstorm among the hazards 

 they assume. Mr. \'. N. Valgren states in the i)aper cited at the beginning 

 of this article that the ])ractice is not to be reconnuended. " Each group 

 of farm buildings, and to a considerable extent each building within the 

 group, is a distinct and sei)arate risk with respect to the fire and lightning 

 hazards, but this is not true with respect to the windstorm hazard... The 

 practice which is rapidly gaining favour in the Middle West of o])crating a 

 State-wide windstorm insurance company through the co-operative efforts 



