In other words, the companies go on requiring the payment of the same premium from the party proposing to insure, one third of which is for claims by death, when income from investments more than pays this important item. But it may be said that the surplus returns to policy-holders are proportionately larger, when claims by death are more than met by income from investments. This surely is the result that would naturally be looked for, and which should be realized; but unhappily it is not always the case. The writer holds a policy in one of the companies referred to above, and has paid premiums on the same for some twenty-five years. Judge of his surprise when, three or four years ago, he was called upon to pay 20 per cent in excess of the premium he had been paying for years; and when an explanation was asked, the reason given was that the per cent realized from investments was much less than formerly. Yet this same company more than pays its death-losses by income from investments. This is not an isolated instance. Many readers of this article have, no doubt, _enjoyed_ (?) a like experience. Is not such a system of insurance fairly open to criticism in its practical workings? But perhaps the most astonishing feature of level-premium insurance is found in the fact that there is absolutely no obligation assumed on the part of the company, and no power anywhere to enforce an accounting for the vast sums entrusted to it, so long as it can be made to appear that it holds securities in the aggregate to meet the legal requirements of a reserve.