10 BULLETIN 786, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
only recently begun to be considered seriously by these companies, 
and that a number of them have adopted a classification of their 
risks within the last year or two. This is especially true in the better 
developed rural sections of the country. Three main reasons may be 
given as to why the mutuals in these sections are adopting a classifica- 
tion of their risks. First, a demand for a closer approach to justice 
in the charges collected from the members, it being obviously unfair 
to apply the same rate of premiums or assessments to highly desirable 
risks as is applied to the more hazardous ones. To apply the same 
rate, for example, to a well- constructed stone or brick dwelling with 
slate or tile roof and provided with proper lightning protection, as is 
applied to an unrodded wooden barn, involves a very material dis- 
crimination against the better of the two risks. Secondly, it has been 
found that expediency as well as justice demands a reasonable classi- 
fication of farm risks. Without such classification it is possible for a 
larger company that does classify or rate its risks, by means of a 
competitive offer, to take away from an all-one-rate local mutual the 
most desirable risks in its territory. This can be done, of course, 
even though the cost of insurance in the local mutual on its one and 
only class of property be much lower than the average cost on the 
same property in the larger competing company. Lastly, it has been 
found that the recognition of certain loss-resisting features by means 
of suitable concessions in the classification and rates applied is one 
of the most practical ways of encouraging the general improvement 
of the risks within the business territory of the company. A sug- 
gested classification of farm risks may be found in Department Bulle- 
tin 530 of the United States Department of Agriculture. 
METHOD AND COST OF GETTING BUSINESS. 
* 
The question of who looks after the matter of soliciting business 
was answered by 1,141 companies. Three hundred sixteen com- 
panies stated that business was solicited by the directors only, 182 
by officers only, and 82 by directors and officers, making a total of 
580 companies soliciting business only through responsible officials 
of the organizations. Four hundred two companies reported solici- 
tation by special agents only; 65 by directors and agents; 31 by 
officers and agents ; and 16 by directors, officers, and agents. Forty- 
seven companies reported that no solicitation of business was done 
by any one, the company relying upon the initiative of those needing i* 
protection to apply for membership. Twenty companies returning 
questionnaires gave no information on the method of getting business. 
Since it is known that in many cases certain directors or officers 
are specifically designated agents for the solicitation of business it 
is probable that many companies reported securing business through 
