New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-07-19
PRINCIPLES OF ARBITRATION.

The points of variance between the Amcr
can and British Governments on the subject
Of arbitration set forth with some detail
in the official correspondence which has just
been made public. Apart from the Venezuelan
dispute they are four in number and they bear
directly upon the fundamental principles Of ar
bitraton. The British proposition is: That
what are arbitral and what are not arbtral
cases shall be defined by treaty: that the ma
tons shall be bound 10 submit all the former
TO the tribunal which is to be constituted; that
in ut least a considerable number of cases the
contestants shall not be bound to accept the
award AT ALL and that in any important case
the verdict of the arbitratOrs may be reviewed
10y court of appeal. and must then, to be con-
frmcd receive five out Of six votes OF the lat
ter tribunal. The American proposition. on the
other hand is That all questions shall he
deemed prma face arbitral; that each nation
shall have the privilege of deciding for itself
whether or not ii will submit any case 10 ar
bitraton that when a nation does thus submit
any case the award shall be binding. If con
firmed upon appeal. and that n majority vote
of the appellate tribunal shall be sufficient for
confirmation.
It certainly would seem, so far as The first
Of these points is concerned. difficult. if not
impractjcable to Law down hard and fast dis
tinctions between arbitral and non-arbiral
cases That such distinctions exist is generally
conceded But they depend not merely upon
the sum of money or other consideration III
volved. but also very largely upon the circum-
stances of the origin of each individual case
These circumstances are peculiar to each case
and therefore each case is TO he considered
on its own merits. the natural assumption be
ing that case is arbitra until ii is shown not
| TO be- or is taken out of the arbtral category
| by the action of one of the parties to it. The
| British proposition is to make arbitration com
| pulsOry for all claims amounting 10 not more
| than 100000. But it is quite conceivable that
claim for S. might be. as matter of national
honor as nOn-arbltral as one for SJ,WnWo
| From that point Of view the decision whether
| any case is or is not properly 10 he arbitrated
| should therefore. in the second place. he left
| freely to the parties TO ii. A nation Is not 10
| be dragooned before the tribunal against its
will not In even the smallest conceivable case
! Compulson in thar respect violates the vital
principle of arbitration as the voluntary exer-
else of sovereignty for the purpose of concilia-
| ton.
| When the third point Is reached. however,
| cOmpulsiOn plays its proper part. once having
| declared Il case III subject dTDllIdtlOn, hiiu
having voluntarily submitted it TO the court, Il
nation must abide by the result. or else terlnl-
| nate the arbitration treaty and fall back upon
| It's reserved rights Of armed contention. II
would be the merest trfing for a nation 10 go
| before a tribunal of arbitration saying: I'VE
| twill abide by the verdict if it Is In our favor,
"but not If 1t IS against us. Under such a
system few awards would be accepted, and
| f.ll into \Af hpr
| in respect to the last point does it seem neces-
| sary to require q fivesixths vote of the appel
| late court The result would probably be to
| invalidate most of the awards made by the
| arbitrators. A simple majority. rs in our own
| Supreme Court, should be sufficient. Reduced
to its briefest compass. the question between
| the two nations seems therefore. TO be whether
| they shall be bound to go into court, but free
| to reject the award or shall be free to go into
or to stay out of court, but bound If they do
| go in, to accept the award.