Article 5 of the convention of September 26, 1893, expressly prescribes that the awards shall be signed by all the members of the tribunal. This, in our opinion, logically implies that the minority is obliged to sign the decisions, even when the minority may differ from the opinion of the majority; otherwise the result would be that the caprice of a minority might make every sentence null and void. Besides, such has been the understanding of all tribunals of arbitration of late years. Our view is not only shared by authors of special treatises on the subject, but is likewise embodied in article 23 of the "Proposed rules of procedure for international arbitration" submitted by the Institute of International Law, which says that the award shall be signed by all the members of the tribunal of arbitration. If the minority should refuse to sign, the signature of the majority shall be regarded as sufficient, with the addition of a written declaration that the minority has refused to sign. We have thought it proper to communicate the above to your excellency, because we consider that the convention of September 26, 1893, has not been respected by the Chilean arbitrator, and for the purpose of informing your excellency of the reason why the signature of the said arbitrator is not at the foot of the decisions, the notification and publication of which we are about to order. We reiterate, etc., CAMILLE JANSSEN. To the MINISTER OF FOREIGN RELATIONS. [Inclosure 3 in No. 81.-Translation.] Mr. Aldunate to the Minister of Foreign Relations. SANTIAGO, February 13, 1896. MR. MINISTER: The undersigned has taken cognizance of the official note addressed to your excellency by the arbitrators of Belgium and Great Britain to the effect that I refused to sign in disregard of the provision of article 5 of the convention of September 26, 1893, the award made in claim No. 76 and other similar claims. As it would be painful for me to characterize the facts stated in that communication, I prefer that your excellency should arrive at conclusions regarding their exactitude after an examination of the documents which I inclose. From these documents you will conclude that I never refused to sign these decisions, but that I insisted in the first place that there should be inserted in them the special reasons which induced the undersigned to admit the declaration of want of jurisdiction by the tribunal, but which based that declaration on reasons entirely different from those accepted by the majority. When my first request was rejected by the arbitrators of Belgium and Great Britain I limited myself to insisting that they should insert at the end of the said decision the reservation in the form submitted in the accompanying document, marked No. 1. This new request received a similar and unexpected rejection which will make your excellency reflect upon the propriety with which my honorable colleagues have cited the proposed rules of procedure of the Institute of International Law. Furthermore, the undersigned has nothing to add to the reasons explained in the dissenting opinion which I likewise inclose, and which I have given in the case of the bark Chepica, and is applicable to other similar claims. The reading of this last document will perhaps prove to you that reasons have not been wanting to the Chilean arbitrator for considering that the decision made by the majority of his honorable colleagues in this claim are open to be interpreted as the basis of a diplomatic negotiation rather than as an award of arbitrators. I avail myself, etc., LUIS ALDUNATE. [Inclosure 4 in No. 81.-Translation.] Messrs. Janssen and St. John to Mr. Aldunate. SANTIAGO, February 3, 1896. SIR AND ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE: We beg of you to be good enough to add your signature to the decision delivered in the claim of the Chépica and other claims for the detention of British vessels, which have been drawn up since the middle of last December. These claims were decided on the 12th of December, and it is urgent that the agents of both Governments be notified of the decision. We are, etc., CAMILLE JANSSEN. [Inclosure 5 in No. 81.-Translation.] Mr. Aldunate to Messrs. Janssen and St. John. VIÑA DEL MAR, February 5, 1896. ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES: In your official favor of the 3d instant you invite me to sign the decisions delivered in the case of the bark Chépica and other similar cases. You remind me that the above decision was delivered on the 12th of last December, and that it is urgent that the parties interested be notified. I was not aware of the date of this decision drawn up without my concurrence. Neither am I able to realize the urgency which you attribute to the notification. In any case, however, allow me to point out that I am in no way responsible for the least delay in bringing this matter to a conclusion. Though concurring with you as to the declaration of want of jurisdiction, I felt obliged to dissent radically from your esteemed opinion as to the grounds for our joint decision. It was incumbent upon me, therefore, to prepare a statement of the grounds of my opinion. I had hoped that you would not have objected to embodying in the text of our joint decision the special reasons which influenced me. You declined to allow me the honor of signing a decision which contained the expression of my own reasons, notwithstanding the fact that they only affected my own responsibility. Thus I found myself obliged to embody these reasons in a special and separate opinion, as in the case of an ordinary disagreement in which we had arrived at opposite decisions. Under these circumstances I proposed unofficially to solve the difficulty by drafting the decision in the following terms: "On the above grounds the Belgian and British arbitrators declare that they have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of these claims. "The Chilean arbitrator also concurs in the decision, but on different grounds, which follow in a special and separate opinion, which must be regarded as a component part of the decision." The secretary of the tribunal has informed me privately that you do not accept this wording; and, as far as I understand, the communication with which you have honored me has for its object the eliciting of an express statement which may serve as a preliminary to the steps which you may adopt in this case. With the view of meeting your wishes, I find myself under the unavoidable necessity of declaring that I can not sign the decisions to which your present communication refers if you insist on denying me the right of inserting at the conclusion of these decisions the reservation which I have proposed. Trusting that this explicit declaration may fulfill the purpose of your communication of the 3d instant, I am, etc., LUIS ALDUNATE. [Inclosure 6 in No. 81.-Translation.] Messrs. Janssen and St. John to Mr. Aldunate. SANTIAGO, February 6, 1896. ESTEEMED SIR AND COLLEAGUE: Your favor of the 5th instant informs us that you consider yourself unable to sign the decisions to which our former communication refers unless the reservation is inserted at the conclusion of the said decisions in the form stated in your letter. We regard it as absolutely indisputable that a dissenting opinion can not be a component part of a decision, although from the point of view of its author it may be a rectification of the principles on which the decision of the tribunal is based. As the dissenting opinion is the expression of the views of the minority, there is no room for such expression, because it has been rejected by the majority and entirely eliminated from the terms of the award. With this consideration in view we feel strongly the impossibility of agreeing to the introduction into the awards which are the result of the accord of the majority of anything calculated to weaken the aim and purpose which prompted them. In order, however, to meet the wishes of our esteemed colleague as far as possible, we do not make the slightest objection to the embodiment in the decision of the reservation before us, providing that its last part, instead of reading "that it shall be regarded as a component part of the decision," shall read "that it shall be regarded as an annexed part" (or words to that effect) "of the dicision." In this way the principles set forth by us are saved, while the decision can neither appear nor be published without the expression of the views which you have supported at the meetings of the tribunal and which were overruled by the majority. Trusting that you will recognize the sincerity of our motives in being unable to defer altogether to your wishes, We remain, etc., CAMILLE JANSSEN. [Inclosure 7 in No. 81.-Translation.] Mr. Aldunate to Messrs, Janssen and St. John. VIÑA DEL MAR, February 7, 1896. ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES: I regret that in your opinion it should be absolutely indisputable that the dissenting opinions given by the minority of a tribunal do not form a part of the decision. I hold the contrary proposition to be indisputable and elementary, notwithstanding the consideration which an opinion so weighty as yours deserves at my hands. To make up the entirety of a decision, it is indispensable that all parts of the tribuaal should be represented, that is to say, the opinions both of the majority and of the minority into which a tribunal may be divided. The one is a complement of the other; for without the appearance of both there is no decision. If the opinions of the minority of a joint tribunal should not, as you maintain, be a part of the decisions, it is clear that they might be omitted altogether. It would follow therefore that you, forming a majority, would have the power to give valid decisions as regards all claims submitted to the tribunal, without any participation in them by me. Another and a very different rule is that prescribed by clause 3 of article 5 of the convention of September 26, 1893. Permit me to invite your very special attention to the clause cited above which provides that decisions can not take effect legally unless they have been signed by all the members of the tribunal. It is superfluous to add that the significance of a decision is determined incontestably by the opinions of the majority. The first principle of every resolution of bodies acting conjointly should to a great extent serve to dispel the apprehensions you appear to entertain that the weight of their decisions might be impaired or destroyed by a dissenting opinion. Inasmuch as the dissenting opinion renders the decision complete or entire it can not surely weaken or impair its purpose. Considering this discussion as at an end, I remain, etc., LUIS ALDUNATE. No. 82.] SETTLEMENT OF FRENCH CLAIMS. Mr. Strobel to Mr. Olney. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Santiago, April 25, 1896. (Received June 2.) SIR: Referring to my No. 47 of October 24 last, with which I forwarded to the Department copy and translation of the convention between France and Chile, I have now the honor to inclose copy and translation of a further agreement between the two Governments terminating the tribunal established by the above convention and providing for the settlement by Chile of all the French claims by the payment of £5,000 (125,000 francs). The total sum of these claims was 344,041 pesos (18d.) and 324,326 francs, or somewhat over 1,000,000 francs in all. In securing the settlement on a basis of about 12 per cent of the gross amount the French Government has escaped the expenses of arbitration, and has probably secured a much larger amount than it would have received from the awards of the tribunal. I have, etc., EDWARD H. STROBEL. [Inclosure in No. 82.-From Diario Oficial, March 20, 1896.-Translation.] Agreement for settlement of claims of French citizens against Chile, February 2, 1896. In the ministry of foreign relations of Chile, Señor Adolfo Guerro, minister of foreign relations, and Monsieur Leopold Fernand Balny d'Avricourt, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of France, officer of the National Legion of Honor, etc., being duly authorized for the purpose, have agreed to settle all the claims of French citizens based on the civil war of 1891, which have been presented to the tribunal of arbitration, in accordance with the following conditions: I. The functions of the Franco-Chilean tribunal established by the convention of October 13, 1895, for the purpose of examining and deciding claims presented against the Government of Chile by French citizens, are hereby declared terminated. II. All French claims which have been presented to the tribunal, which amount on the one hand to 344,041 pesos and on the other to 324,326 francs, shall be paid and completely extinguished, however important may be their nature, or their present status in the tribunal, for the sum of £5,000, which the Government of Chile will deliver to the diplomatic representative of France in Santiago, within fifteen days following the approval of this convention by the Congress of the Republic. The said sum of £5,000 shall be distributed among the claimants by the French Government in the proportion and in the form which it may think proper; and such distribution shall not in any way affect the responsibility of Chile. III. It is expressly admitted that the Government of Chile has made this friendly arrangement for the purpose of bringing pending claims to a prompt settlement; and that this arrangement neither directly nor indirectly affects the principle and jurisprudence which the Government of Chile has supported and maintained before the tribunals of arbitration. In witness whereof the minister of foreign relations and the envoy extraordinary of France sign this protocol in duplicate and seal it with their respective seals, in Santiago, February 2, 1896. ADOLFO GUERRO. BILL REGULATING FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES. No. 87.] Mr. Strobel to Mr. Olney. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Santiago, May 7, 1896. (Received June 12.) SIR: Referring to my No. 83 of the 30th ultimo, containing a summary of the legislation to be brought before the Chilean Congress, in view of the importance of the subject to the American insurance companies established in this country, I have the honor to inclose copy and translation of the Government bill which imposes certain burdens on foreign companies of this class. According to this bill agents of a foreign insurance company will be required to obtain a special permit to carry on business, under penalty of imprisonment; and this permit will not be granted until the company has deposited 100,000 pesos in the mint. The companies are also required to deduct from their semiannual profits 10 per cent for a reserve fund of 400,000 pesos; and this reserve fund must also be deposited in the mint. These deposits may be wholly or partially withdrawn, for the purpose of paying losses, when all other resources are exhausted. Should, however, the capital of 100,000 pesos be withdrawn, the whole of the halfyearly profits are to be deposited until this amount is again completed. Life insurance companies, and companies receiving deposits in the form of savings, are required by the bill to deposit in the mint sums received for premiums, after deduction of an amount necessary for expenses, losses, and dividends. Dividends are not to exceed 6 per cent semiannually. The above deposits may, wholly or partially, be replaced by real estate. Foreign insurance companies must pay the same taxes as native companies. All legal questions arising out of the business transacted in this country must be decided by the Chilean courts. The question of accepting or rejecting a proposition for an insurance policy must be passed upon by the agent of the company in Chile, and can not be referred to the head office; and if within fifteen days after the receipt of the proposition by the principal agency the proposition has not been rejected and the premium returned, the policy will be regarded as in force, and on no grounds can it be rejected by the company. I have, etc., EDWARD H. STROBEL. [Inclosure in No. 87.-From Diario Oficial, April 30, 1896.--Translation.] Government bill regarding foreign insurance companies. BILL. ARTICLE 1. Sixty days after the publication of this act in the official journal no agency of a foreign insurance company can do business in Chile unless specially authorized by the President of the Republic, in accordance with the provisions of the present act. ARTICLE 2. Policies of insurance issued without this authorization shall be null and void, and those persons who, representing themselves as agents of any foreign company, issue them, shall be subject to the penalties established in article 468 of the penal code. ARTICLE 3. The authorization to establish in Chile agencies of foreign insurance companies can only be obtained by companies which deposit beforehand, in the office of the superintendent of the mint, the sum of 100,000 pesos in Government bonds, or in bonds of the land banks, the price of which shall be fixed by the President of the Republic in accordance with their commercial value. ARTICLE 4. Agencies of foreign insurance companies are subject to the same taxes as native companies, and are obliged to present their statements to the authorities, and to publish them in the same form and in the same cases as native companies. ARTICLE 5. Agencies of foreign insurance companies are obliged to establish a reserve fund of ten per cent of the half-yearly profits up to the amount of 400,000 pesos. This reserve fund shall be deposited every six months in the mint, in Government bonds or any bonds of the land banks, in the same form as established in article 3. ARTICLE 6. The 100,000 pesos required in this article and the reserve fund form the capital of the agencies of foreign insurance companies which are liable for claims; consequently they may withdraw a part of this deposit whenever they have to pay extraordinary losses which may have exhausted their other resources. ARTICLE 7. Whenever, in order to pay such losses, they shall have withdrawn a part of the capital of 100,000 pesos deposited in the mint, the agency shall devote the total of its profits during the following half years until the said capital is again completed. ARTICLE 8. Agencies of foreign life insurance companies or agencies receiving deposits in the form of savings shall not be obliged to establish the reserve fund referred to in article 5, but every six months they must deposit in the mint the amount received for insurance premiums, after having deducted from the total amount of premiums the amount corresponding to general expenses, losses, dividends, and expenses necessary for the support of the agency, and their dividends can not exceed six per cent half-yearly. This deposit shall be made in the same securities and in the form established by article 3. ARTICLE 9. Every foreign insurance company, with various agencies in Chile, is obliged to have a principal agency to represent it before the authorities and the public, which shall concentrate its operations, present a statement of all the operations made in Chile, make the deposits established by this act, and, in a word, have the legal representation of the company. ARTICLE 10. Foreign insurance companies are obliged to leave to the decision of their principal agency in Chile all proposals for insurance which are presented here, whether to refuse or accept them, and to issue the corresponding policy. |