methods of government and affords an index to the temperament of the people.

In Germany, for example, we find in existence a bureaucratic, and a highly developed paternal form of government, which is closely reflected in all commercial and financial organizations. Minute attention to details and an orderly development of methods, coupled with an aggressive persistence, has made Germany one of the first of commercial powers. One of the features of paternalism is the compulsory insurance of working men, providing indemnity in case of sickness and accident, and pensions for invalidity and old age. Since 1885 the payments have amounted to not less than $800,000,000, contributed about equally by the employers and the employed. Whether the paternal spirit which regulates and limits all does not ultimately limit the initiative of the individual, is yet to be determined.

In England there is a disposition to adhere to custom and established precedents. Suggested changes are considered with caution and innovations are met with a resistance that sometimes degenerates into stubbornness, though English character is remarkable for the fact that innovations and changes once grasped are thoroughly carried out. In thought and action the people are conservative, serious and mindful of the responsibilities attached to vast interests at home and in many foreign lands. Slow but sure is the policy of the government and of the institutions. The government forms an almost complete antithesis to that of Germany, being unpaternal to an extreme, the whole idea of government being the least interference in private or commercial matters. There are no laws regulating the conduct of life insurance companies beyond the simple requirement that the companies formed prior to 1870 shall file with the Board of Trade at least once in ten years a complete statement of their financial condition. In the case of companies formed since 1870, reports must be filed once in five years. In practice the period has practically been reduced to five years in all cases. The class of investments, standard of reserves, etc., are left entirely to the discretion of the companies, but the interests of the policyholders are fully protected under the admirable enforcement of the common law.

In the United States we have a government, which combines strong principles with a pliability easily conforming to the necessities of a rapidly increasing people living widely apart and under different climatic and other conditions. The government is alert, aggressive and full of initiative, but we are hampered by a continual flood of ill-considered legislation and a lax administration of the statutes The energy of the people has been quickened, not so much through our superiority in education or natural endowments, as by the fact that for three hundred years we have been developing the resources of an immense country requiring all our forces and calling out all our energies in the process, while the scale of enterprise has been in proportion to the immense extent of country and the needs of a vast and fast growing population. The result has led to the formation of the greatest commercial enterprises of modern times and the greatest prosperity. The ambition for rapid progress and our active mentalities may lead to ill-timed moves and serious blunders, but in the main our methods seem suited to our present conditions. When we combine with our intense activity something of Germany's patient elaboration of detail and of England's conservative thoroughness, there will be more stability in our meth

ods.

The fundamental principle of all liberal government is co-operation. Without co-operation we are likely to have despotism. In the United States the right of people to express their opinion through representatives of their own selection has led to a form of co-operation which represents the best known type of democracy. If it be assumed that the government of a people represents the highest form of organization of which they are capable, and that organization in its best form is found where intelligence is developed to a high degree and the broadest recognition of individual liberty and mutual rights is found, then logically the institutions of that country and especially those which may be considered as belonging to the people, will meet with the most favor if managed and regulated on lines closely approximating those which are followed in the conduct of the government. A study of the methods of the great institutions of the United States, whether engaged in the manufac

ture of oil, steel, or machinery, or devoted to banking, life insurance, or commerce, will show that the principle here advanced is widely recognized. If our great institutions have designedly or unconsciously modeled their organization on the lines of our government, it must be said to their credit that in the administration of their affairs they have advanced far beyond their preceptors. Politics and political influences are not conducive to economical and systematic administration.

The two great provident institutions are the savings bank and the life insurance company. Each found its inception in the desire to protect home and self. The savings banks care for the moneys set aside for future exigencies, while the life insurance companies care for the moneys invested for the protection of home. Of the two institutions the life insurance company is undeniably the more broadly protective and more permanently beneficial. After making due allowance for the cases where more than one policy is carried, we find at the present time not less than 8,000,000 of adults carrying policies of $1,000 and upwards. With such a large percentage of our active adult population insured in the various companies, it is not surprising that students of insurance find changes taking place in the business, which promise to bring the conduct of the companies into close conformity with the methods of the government. Amongst these newer developments is a strong tendency toward representation in the councils of the company of those who have vested rights in the corporate body.

We find the most pronounced evidence of this tendency in the conventions of men engaged in insurance work. Local managers are holding conventions of the agents in their respective districts. State managers in turn are holding conventions of the most successful agents in their respective states, while the chief officials of the companies are bringing together in annual conventions the leading representatives from all the states. In each instance we find deliberations carried on by intelligent and successful men, who are encouraged to express their opinions and frankly discuss the problems of the business with the executive officers.

In these conventions can be found a resemblance to our national organization, the first step being local gov

ernment; the second, state government and finally, national government, while the organization at the home office in some measure resembles the government at Washington. The president of the company finds his cabinet and chief advisors in the executive and administrative staffs. The deliberations of the chief officials are supplemented by committees entrusted with the responsibility of supervising the departments and empowered to make changes and give decisions subject only to the veto of the president; and it may be that in the national convention of agents we have the beginnings of a body, which will in time possess the deliberative functions of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The placing of responsibilities in committee is one of the best of the recent co-operative innovations and will go far towards establishing methods, and forms of procedure, to insure a continuance of sound business policy and prevent manipulation and practices prejudicial to the interests of the company and its policyholders.

Let us suppose that a company should introduce into its charter or by-laws the privilege of voting for personal representation at the company's conventions. Could we not reasonably expect that the policy holders in a certain locality would elect the local agent to represent them at the district conventions; that the districts would send their best representatives to the state conventions, and these in turn would elect the agents best qualified to represent the state at the national or home office convention?

If any plan is in operation which brings together in conference the best brains in the company's employ, it makes little difference whether the charter or by-laws of the company calls for such gatherings or not. The question becomes one of a proper conduct of the conventions. If they are held merely for the purpose of laying down doctrine, giving instructions or making plans for an increased volume of business, their full usefulness will not be found and measured. If they are held on broad lines and the true spirit of co-operation prevails, not only will the foregoing be accomplished, but the agents will be invited to discuss methods of management and all matters of importance to them and to the policyholders. They will also be encouraged to ask questions concerning

the financial condition of the company, its manner of making investments and caring for the interests of policyholders. With a program mapped out on these lines, the delegates on returning home would be better equipped for their work and better able to answer intelligently any reasonable questions which their people might ask. An agency convention to be useful to the highest degree should be entered upon with the feeling and in the belief that if the field has much to learn from the home office, the home office has much to learn from the field, and all present whether from home office or from field should be controlled by the one great desire-that of increasing the usefulness of the company along lines conducive to the best interests of all associated with the company. While no company has attempted to go so far as to plan its conventions on these precise lines, there seems to be a tendency to go to the extreme here outlined. We may, therefore, look upon the holdings of conventions as a feature which if encouraged and developed along liberal lines will make for a better understanding between field and home office-for better practices-for sounder methods and more efficient and permanent organization.

In some quarters there is a disposition to deprecate the value of conventions. On analysis it will generally be found that the objections are based either upon the question of expense, or upon the fear that the agents will embarrass the company by unreasonable demands, especially in the form of larger commissions. Personally, I do not know of any item of expense that a company can look upon with more satisfaction than the cost of holding a series of conventions They certainly bring about greater results than a similar amount spent in any other form of education and promotion.

So far as demands are concerned, the possibility of their happening is only an expression of the fear that sometimes prevents men from doing useful and sensible things. In the past twenty-five years I have been present at many conventions and have yet to attend one where an embarrassing resolution has been introduced or a demand of any kind made. Moreover, my faith in the common-sense of my fellow-men leads me to believe that managers and agents are as keenly alive to the proper