Norwich bulletin., 1913-01-09

consider, araeng other things, the ex- pediency of adopting a w0rkmen' s compensation act, has agreed on bill for such an act, the passage of which 1t unanimously recommends. It seems, in general. well calculated to effect it's pbjeot, namely, the trea of lesses by aceidentai injuries to those em- ployed by another in q large and haz- Rrdouy businesn. as Q part of the cost of conducting the business, to be as- certatned and enforced in accordance with fixed rules. by summary proceed inEs: tratleA of the remedy nainly in the hands of four commissioners, with an l annual salary of $5,000 apiece. and a very moderate allowance for expenses. I think three commissioners could do all the business. and that a salary to each of $3.5o0. with an allowance of not exceeding s1.2eo for expenses, would be more advisable than a salary of $5,ooo and the allowance for ex- penses recommended by the commis- sion of not over half that sum-
 With such changes in these resnects
 as you may think desirable. should recommend the enactment of the bill. Keeping the Public Faith.
 A difference has now arisen between
 the United States and Great Britain
 relating to the interpretation of a treaty concluded between them in 1901 commonly known as the Hay-Paunce-
 fote treaty. That provides certain rules
 to regulate the use of the Panama
 canal, and that it shall be free and
 open to the vessels of commerce of all
 nations observing such rules lon terms
 of entire equality, so that there shall
 be no discrimination against any such
 nation or its citizens or subjects, in
 respect of the conditions or charges of
 traffic, or otherwise" The president of
 the United States is of the opinion
 that this clause of the treaty does not
 1- %f>~> ~4 ~rf11
 coasting vessels from tolls charged
 against all shipping of other nations
 Congress, taking the same view, has
 adopted that policy. Great Britain
 claims that this will be a discrimina-
 ton against it's vessels which violates
 the terms of the treaty, and has asked the United States to join in submit
 ting this claim to the decision of The Hague arbitration tribunal.
 Some members of the senate of the United States have publicly expressed the opinion that this request should be denied, because the clause of the treaty construction put upon 1t by Great Britain, and further because The Hague arbitration convention of 1907 and the special arbitration convention of 1908 between our country and Great Britain do not contemplate or require the submission to arbitration of claims of this character. But whether they do or not obviously depends on their proper legal cOnSCucOOn. we nave solemn1y agreed as a nation that dis putes as to the true construction of any treaty between us and Great Brit ain which diplomacv cannot settle they afrect the vital interests, the inde- pendence or the honor of the two countries. or the interests of third parties. Diplomacy has thus far failed to settle the present dispute To break our agreement, made to meet just such a condition of things. would, it seems to me, be a plain breach of public faith. The question is not as to whether we have made a bad bargain, but as to what the bargain is that we have made. It is set forth in writing, over our signature. No dispute could be more clearly within the operation