The daily morning journal and courier., 1901-02-06

number provided for in the net pre- miums.
 Company No. 9, GAIA per cent of the number provided for in the net pre- miums.
 Company No. 10, 93.37 per cent. of the number provided for in the net pre- miums.
 Company No. Il, 74.S9 per cent. of the number provided for in the net pre- miums. 1 Company No. 12, S6.52 per cent of the number provided for in the net pre- i miums. 1 Company No. 13, 74.95 per cent. of the number provided for in the net pre- l miums.
 Company No IA, 6145 per cent. of the number provided for in the net pre- miums. | number provided for in the net pre- miums.
 Company No. IS, 57.27 per cent. of the number provided for in the net pre- miums. All the companies named are doing business on what is known as the "mu- tual plan," which means that they load" the met premium highly, ana agree to return the unexpended balance in the treasury derived from saving in death losses and saving" in management expenses" and gain" in interest above the per cent. per annum required to keep the legal reserve good, calling it dividend" It would be more correct to call 1t rebate" and contingent rebate" at that.
 During 1899 the companies named are reported to have returned to their pol icyhoders dividends as follows, viz:
 Company No. 1, 25.65 per cent. of total premiums received
 Company No ?, 1867 per cent. of total premiums received.
 Company No. 3, 3.33 per cent. of total premiums received.
 Company No. 4, 11.57 per cent of total premiums received.
 Company No. 5, 1856 per cent of total | premiums received.
 Company No. 6, 1911 per cent of total | premiums received.
 Company No. I, 14.31 per cent of total premiums received.
 Company No. 8, 4.62 per cent. of total premiums received.
 Company No. 9, 1869 per cent. of total oremiums received.
 Company No. 10, 7.21 per cent. of total premiums received.
 Company No. il, S.64 per cent. of total premiums received
 Company No. 12, 6.57 per cent. of total premiums received
 Company No. 13. 11,34 per cent. Of total premiums received.
 Company No. IA, 1924 per cent. of total premiums received.
 Company No. 15, 4.04 per cent. of total received.
 Company No. 16, 511 per cent. of total premiums received.
 A glance at the above figures will show that the principal saving in life insurance at present is in "death loss ns. The saving is small or nothing in expenses, and the "sav- Ing" in interest was only a fraction of one per cent. in 1899 for all the com oanies doing business in the State.
 The above figures are very dry in ippearance,and are dry in reality unless )ne has a personal interest in them. To he insured man in the State of Con- ! 1ecticut who paid to the sixteen com- oanieS referred to the enormous sum or 2, 764,S6S in premiums during the year S99 they ought to possess some inter- st, and doubtless will.
 To the persons contemplating taking ut insurance the figures ought to be in- eresting, and suggestive. Errors ex- epted. the figures given are either off, al or directly deducible from official lgures. They make it clear that in- urance companies differ greatly in heir management and experience; for xarnple, while company No. 1 lost 77s4 'er cent. of the loss provided for in the let premium, company No. 16 lost but 7,27 per cent. of it, yet company No. i eturned to it's policyholders 122 per ent. of the total premiums it collected uring the year, while company No. 16 eturned to it's policyholders only 45 CT cent. The difference is illustrative. re very significant. x