FRATERNAL INSURANCE iN THE UNITED 



STATES. 



BY B. H. MEYER. 



[Balthasar Henry Meyer, professor University of Wisconsin, and mcmlocr of railroad 

 commission, born Mequon, Ozaukee Co., Wis., May 28, 1866; educated at the Oshkosh 

 normal school, University of Wisconsin, and University of Berlin; has conducted in- 

 vestigations for the United States Census Bureau and Interstate Commerce commis- 

 sion; now in charge of division of transportation, Carnegie institute. Author, Railway 

 Legislation in the United States, etc.] 



There are in the neighborhood of six hundred fraternal 

 beneficiary societies in the United States, with an aggregate 

 membership of about five milUons. Approximately one half 

 of these societies maintain systems of benefits which are 

 chiefly remedial, and which can not properly be characterized 

 as systems of insurance. During the year 1899, one of the 

 largest orders providing this kind of benefits expended $3,119,- 

 125.47 in relief work. Yet the organization in question is not 

 a fraternal insm-ance society. It simply does relief work on a 

 grand scale. 



Very different in nature are the benefit systems and pro- 

 tective features of the other half of the fraternal system. The 

 societies of this class may engage in rehef work similar to that 

 of the other class, but they attempt more and something 

 fundamentally different. They bind themselves by contract 

 to pay a certain sum of money as relief, benefit, or protection, 

 on the occurrence of certain events; such as sickness, disabihty, 

 death, etc. The important consideration in these cases is the 

 fact that a specific sum of money is to be paid to some bene- 

 ficiary as soon as certain designated contingencies have arisen. 

 This sum of money is named in the certificate, together with 

 the name of the beneficiary, the amount of his periodical con- 

 tributions, etc. In view of the fact that so many persons con- 

 nected with fraternal societies object to the use of old line 

 terms, it may be well to explain that the writer selected the 

 title of this paper, Fraternal Insurance, after some dehberation. 

 It is his intention to confine this discussion to what is ex- 

 pressed in the title ; namely, to insurance carried on l^y frater- 

 nal societies. Here one is at once met by the objection that 



232 



