The daily morning journal and courier., 1906-09-29
CENTURY or FIRES WITH GREAT
 LOSS,

CII1NI U M OL Y ALSAEl w A 1 IL NHAkALkA Il LOSS.
 In 1853 David D. Dana published in
 Boston his work called "The Fireman"
 in which he gives a list of what he
 denominates large fires (to-day they would be called conflagrations), which had occurred in this country in the previous fifty years. The record, as a
 matter of fact, began with the fire of
 Boston, March 20, 1760; but this is the
 only city where any data are given
 previous to the yerr 1900, hence the
 list given by Dana may be said to rep resent the fire loss for the first half of the century from what were called large fires. Dana does not enumerate any fire where the loss was less than
 $20, 900. There are, however, a very few, possibly not over per cent.
 as low as this figure, and from that
 point the upper limit is 100000
 There were two fires in the first half of the nineteenth century which
 reached this $17,Ooo,00O figure, one being
 the fire in New York in 1885, while the
 other was the fire insan Francisco in
 1851. Danas statistics appear to be
 quite complete, probably as complete as
 could be gathered The aggreate pro-
 duced by his researches make a total of $1991 100000, caused by so-called large
 or confiagratioa1 fires.
 Fifty years later, or, to be exact, forty-eight years, The National Board for 1906,published a list of whot they call congratulations, which occurred between 1866 and 1906, In other words they practically cover the firty years succeeding Dana's record. No fires enumerated by the national board, in- Volved a loss of less than S50,000 and the largest were of course the well known Chicago fire in 1871, of S165 00O.- 900 caused by so-called large or conf- gation fires
 Fifty years later or to be exact, forty-eight years, the national board for l906 publish a list of what they call conf1agrations, which occurred between 1866 and 1906. In other words they practically cover the fifty years from Dana's record. No fire enumerated by| the national board involved a loss of less than $500,OOO and the largest were of course the well known Chicago fire of 1871, of $165,000O0O and the Boston fire the succeeding year of $70,00O, 900. while the third is the Baltimore fire in 1894, with a loss of $500O0, ,00O and the 1871 of $16,OOOO0O, total loss amounts to 100000,
 It should be noted that the minimum fire enumerated by the national board is twenty-five times greater than the minimum fire enumerated by Dana: and yet in the second half century the loss from large fires or conhagrations is nearly three times as large as if was in the earlier period The maximum fire enumerated in the first period is $17,Oo0,000, while in the second period it is (Chicago) $165OOO000, or practical ly ten times as large.
 The statistics from the last period | are from the national board of under writers up to the close of 1905. Since the San Francisco conflagration has oc- cured and with a loss of $25O ,0oO, ,ooO a | new maximum is established. This | maximum Is fifteen times greater than the earlier The first period has twen- | ty-six fires with losses equal to or in | excess of S,00O,0o0, while the second period has, to the close of 1905, seventy eight such fires, This million dollar fires thus show an increase of three times for the latter as compared with the earlier period.
 The totals given about ar ethe total fire or property losses, as distinguished from the insurance loss The first rep- resents the total loss caused by fire while the latter is that portion of tbe loss which is returned to the insured | oy the insurer, In the long run the in- surance loss is about so per cent. of the total property loss. Thus, for a period of thirty years (1S75 to 1904, inclusive, the Chronicle fire tables report A nrnn- erty lass of $S,00,000,OOO, while the in- suranee loss was s2,2O7 ,OOO, ,oo0. which is }l per cent. During this same ner,o6 (1S76 to 1904, inclusive) The propertv loss from large or conf1agration fires IS listed by the national hoard amounted to $272 100000, and the ins,r ance loss, being 60 per cent. of this was Sl6S,oOO,OoO practically 1-2 per cent of either the property or insurance ass pa11sAd hv O il 6rnr T..