The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1920-02-21
0LSNESS MAKES
REPLY TO HAIL
| SYSTEM ATTACK
iState Insurance Commissioner
Anal alyzes Objections of
Mr.. Packard
CHARGES INCONSISTENCY
Says Assistant Attorney Gener-
al Pleads for Still Greater
Socialism
CHARGES INCONSISTENCY

:. a. DlSncSS, commissioner Of in
Surane, today issued the following
statement in response to AN attack
upon the T"wnl"y press claim for tn"
state hail Insurance plan. written by
Assistant Attorney +. H. pakard, and
which The Tribune published, in this
column February II:
1t is with reluctance that | ask
space in the press for anything, OK,
ccpt when departmental reports must
be published as required by law. But
the appearance of such statements as
the one published by Mr. Packard in
The Tribune for February II. as we'll
as your editorial in the same issue,
makes it imperative that the false and
misleading conclusions presented,
should be refutcd or corrected.
| had hoped that the state hail in
1t was generally supposed that the
principle was acceptable to the entire
people, and unasSailablc therefore, as
such. Not that the law is perfect, in
itself. nor the management of it: not
at all. Being responsible for the sue
cesSful administration of this law, we
welcome any constructive suggestion
and wholesome criticism. But. does
the article referred to contain any
such?
ANALYSES STATEMENT
Mr.. Packard states that according
to the state insurance department
(mcanin. the annual report of 1918
business there were $.,6037 81 | vi
written by. the line companies in the
acre OH $1,000 risks. or .52H cents for
s. 90 indemnify which is. the amount
paid 'ununr' STATE 'iilslii;ncc.' -. The in
ference here is. If course, that this
rate is not excessive. as the line com
1,anieS profit for the entire state was
only Il little over $1,000 for that year.
IT is true that the companies have Op-
But agents never did. Fifteen to 2OT,
fer gcttin. the business is a biz item
and this is reduced under the stat"
system to less than s.: for every SlOD
paid IN premiums.
1t is hardly correct to state that
the average premium paid line com
panics in 1918. was u cents per acre.
All the companies (rXccpt the two
mutualS and the StHtc). charged two
percent more. or - cents an acre on
all business written west cf tn" river,
also on all barley, rye and speltZ over
the whole state. This would probably
bring tn" rate up to 81 cents an acre
for $40 insurance for 1918.
APPLYING 1918 RATES
But, why apply 1918 rates TO 1919
business: Let us therefore, discuss
and compare the cost Of state VS.. line
insurance on the basis of rates and
conditions during the past season.
The fact is. that no insurance wa !;
written in 1919 Except by the State
and one or two mutual companieSy a
less than lO percent or 81 per arr"
on SO risks. This makes 70 cents an
acre on 81 risk. But this i not all.
on the west side Of the Missouri II
premium Of T. percent WAS charged
and this rate was applied also to bar
ley. rye and spel'Z over the entire
state. AS this rate was also charged
in Il block of several counties in the
central part Of the state. ii is evident
that the average must II" much more
than 81 per acre on so risks. | have
no figures To show what acreage would
he subject to the 12R rate. but we
know il must be considerable. Now
then. it is probably safe to assume
that II percent or q cents an acre
would be Il fair average cost of insur-
ance for 81 protection. for the T. mill
ion acres approximate insured in
the state fund during 1919.
This gives Us S9.24O 600 gross pre-
miumS. based on the line companies
rates. that our farmers would have
had to pay for the same protection.
that they now get for v:;.S4O.OOO or AT
a ,a in. of 81 100000. Granting that
- nlu>L .'rIdn.t tie :; ,7ent fiat tax on
III IL III, d
amounting u Nl>U."rU. which Il
<Cortinuod or Page Threo)