FARMERS ' MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANIES. 13 
panies one or more of the officers were charged with this duty. The 
345 other companies giving information on this point reported va- 
rious combinations of the plans already given. So far as any plan 
can be spoken of as most common it is that of leaving the adjust- 
ment of losses to the directors, each acting for the company as a rule 
in his own neighborhood.' While this plan may be the cheapest, a 
greater uniformity in adjustments is doubtless secured by employing 
in so far as possible the same official or employee of the company 
for all adjustments. 
Seven hundred sixty-one companies reported providing in their 
by-laws for appeal to a special arbitration committee in the case of 
disagreement with the insured as to the indemnity due liim. Sixty- 
eight companies reported that the insured had the privilege of an 
appeal to the board of directors in the case of such disagreement, 
and 76 other companies had various arrangements to cover cases of 
disputes with the insured in connection with the adjustment of losses. 
Twelve companies stated that no provision was made in their by- 
laws covering cases of disagreement, while 244 companies did not 
answer the question relating to this matter. 
SURPLUS AND REFUNDS. 
The replies of 764 of the 1,091 companies which gave information 
concerning the policy of the company with regard to a reserve or 
surplus stated that the company did not make any effort to keep on 
hand any surplus fund, and 57 companies simply reported a specific 
amount now on hand. Seventy-five companies made an effort to 
have on hand a surplus equal to a fixed percentage of the insurance 
in force, while 19 companies aimed to keep on hand a surplus based 
on the premium collected on policies then in force. The reports re- 
ceived from 176 companies indicated that they had " some " surplus 
on hand without either giving the amount of such surplus or stating 
the plan followed by the company with regard to the amount of such 
fund. The large majority of these companies, therefore, have no 
fixed plan with regard to reserve or surplus. The maintenance of a 
reasonable surplus appears to be favored to an increasing extent, 
however, by the leading representatives of farmers' mutual insurance. 
A surplus amounting to $2,000 or $3,000 per million of insurance in 
force is generally considered to be sufficient for companies whose 
risks involve no conflagration hazard. 
Only 648 companies gave replies to the question covering the policy 
of the company in respect to the return of excess premium deposits 
and only 37 of this number reported actually making any such re- 
fund to the policyholder, thus again indicating that the majority 
