New-York tribune., 1878-03-15
THE HALIFAX A WARD BINDING.

LETTER FROM EX-PRESIDENT wOOLsEY
INTERNATIONAL ARDITRATION FOLLOWS ROMAN LAW.
UNLESS OTHERWISE PROviDED-THE AWARD IN
ORDINATE. BUT THE NATIONS FAITH PLEDGED.
TO the Edftor Of The Tribune.
SIR Mr.. Blaine. in recent speech on the arbtra-
ton at Halifax says that. in the absence Of stlpu-
latiOn TO the contrary. unanimous award is neccs-
sary. This, he says, is the general law OF arbtra-
ton and then quotes several English authorities to
prove his point. Ono of them, Mr.. Kyd, after
alludng to the Roman law and to its permission for
the majority of the arbitraoIs to decide" is made
to say that in this respect the law of England is
somewhat different" etc. 1t will he seen by this
passage that the arbitration in this was, in his
opnon not controlled by Roman but ~ English
law The same appears from another remark to the
effect that in the arbitration at Geneva, If il had
not been expressly provided that an award by a
majority was to be binding, single negative vote
might have made the proceedings of no effect. The
truth is. however that international proceedings, III
cases OF arbitration, follow Roman law, unless the
contrary Is expressly provided. The authorities are
too many aud too clear TO allow this 70 be doubted
In the first place, Roman law regarded a majority
IN board of arbitrators TO be competent to give n
valid decision. Ulpan on this point that "a COM
promise oT arbirationl. where the number OF arbi-
traitors is unequal allowed, not because II Is easy
for all to agree but because, should there be dsa-
rreeJacnt majority can be had. according tO whose
decision the matter may be settled SO the civil
LAWYER, j. VoG, says that "if several arbitrators
are chosen and disagree in their award. that which
has the majority OF them in its favor s TO be held
valid"
Again I shall show that the authorities in inter
national law have held the opinion. Aud first
Sir r. Phmorc says III. p. - that e If there he an
uneven number of aIbtrators the opinion of the ma
jority would according to TIE reason Of The thing and
the jus c5a,maac, be conclusive.
Ueffter says u 1O0 that "if differences OF
opinion arise it unqaestionablc that the majority
is 10 be regarded as deciding the matter. IT, case
of a tie or a complete dissonancc Of opinions. n
further arbitration could bc reached only by consent
Of the parties concerned"
Blun;schl's rule is that the award of the major
ity has authority, as if il were the award of the
body of aTbitrators" " 1850
Calyo Il. 1901 writes rs follows: "ln the absence
of obligations clearly laid down in The at Of CONF
promise. the arbtrators in order 70 discharge their
trust. guide themselves By the rules lal down III
the civil law. Thus they shoUld have joint pro-
cedurc. should discuss and deliberate, and should
decide by a majority.
To mention but one opinion more, Dr. Gold
schmidt. in bis proect Of international arbitration,
laid before the "Institut du Groit International ~
1874 which is, perhaps, the most important work
on this subject that has appeared, lays down the
following rule "The aTbitTa sentence is 10 De re-
duced to writing and to b. signed by each one OF
the members with his own hand. If a minority de-
cines to subscribe, the subscription of the majority
is enou I'll, together with written declaration that
the minority have refused their signature" But 1t
should he added tha. this represents rather what
ought to be than what il, although 1t III the main
conforms TO actual law.
Often where there is an even number OF arbltra-
tors two. for instance, provision is made for an um
pire. The leading motive for this usually is that Il
majority may be possible.
word i'm regard to M Dcllossc, and the statement
that there was a kind OF understanding that he
should not be proposed to our Government What
has that TO do with the matterl If lac was accepted
by the United States, what more was wan:odf Our
objections if we had any, ought never TO be men
toned afterwards. The writer of these remarks
considers the award as Unfortunately great but our
faith is pledged, and if for the reasons mentioned
by the honorable Senator should refuse TO pay
the award within the time agreed upon. England
ground Of complaint for Il want OF courtesy To her
Ambassador 4. ID. w.
Nc,c- Uarea March 49, 1873.