206 INSURANCE 



In recent years the demand for certain forms of State insurance, 

 particularly State hail insurance, has become very insistent. A 

 good example of this is the Saskatchewan hail insurance conducted 

 by the rural municipalities of that province. 



Saskatchewan's Experience. In the United States speakers 

 and writers in recent years paint glowing pictures of Saskatche- 

 wan's success with state hail insurance. The experience of this 

 province is therefore worthy of some attention. Saskatchewan, 

 justly famous for its farmers' cooperative grain elevators and for 

 other successful cooperative enterprises, is a prairie province, 

 only a small fraction of whose area is as yet under tillage. Out 

 of an area of 155,764,000 acres, only 2,900,000 acres are "in farms." 

 The area hi grain is of course but a small fraction of the farm area. 

 Here a law was enacted in 1912 providing a system of insurance of 

 the standing crops of wheat, oats, barley, flax, rye, and speltz 

 against loss by hail. The law was revised in 1915, and again 

 revised in 1917. Let us first examine it before the 1917 changes 

 were introduced. The maximum amount of compensation allowed, 

 in case of total loss, was $5 an acre, and the minimum, 25 cents 

 an acre. A tax of four cents an acre on all lands (except such as 

 might l?e withdrawn) was levied to cover the losses. That is, a 

 farmer paid $6.40 to secure $800 protection on a quarter section, 

 i.e., 160 acres. The levy of the four cents an acre applied to all 

 lands except those formally withdrawn by written notice prior 

 to June 1. One or more quarter sections could be so withdrawn 

 provided (a) they were fenced in and used by the owner for grazing 

 and hay purposes; (b) unpatented quarter sections on which the 

 settler has less than 25 acres under cultivation; (c) any fenced 

 quarter section having less than 25 acres under cultivation. Each 

 rural municipality enjoyed complete home rule as regards the 

 adoption or rejection of the scheme. A majority vote for the 

 scheme, at a referendum for that purpose, made it operative in 

 the municipality till a further referendum should be had. The 

 moneys collected were paid into a common pool and administered 

 by a commission of three persons, two of whom represented the 

 municipalities, and one the government. Some statistics will 

 show the workings of the law during its first few years. 



At the first elections after the Act, 115 rural municipalities 

 voted to come under it, representing 20,000,000 acres of land. 

 The first year's business showed losses and administration expenses 

 of $777,697.59, and a net revenue of $788,389.50, thus leaving a 

 surplus for reserve of $10,691.91. 



