Can a party to a cause influence the mind of a judge in a Mercantile Arbitration?

A similar situation pertained in Harvey v. Shelton (1844), 7 Beav. 453, where the court said at p. 1144: "It is so ordinary a principle in the administration of justice, that no party to a cause can be allowed to use any means whatsoever to influence the mind of the judge, which means are not known to and capable of being met and resisted by the other party, that it is impossible, for a moment, not to see that this was an extremely indiscreet mode of proceeding, to say the very least of it. It is contrary to every principle to allow of such a thing, and I wholly deny the difference which is alleged to exist between mercantile arbitrations and legal arbitrations. The first principles of justice must be equally applied in every case. Except in the few cases where exceptions are unavoidable, both sides must be heard, and each in the presence of the other. In every case in which matters are litigated, you must attend to the representations made on both sides, and you must not, in the administration of justice, in whatever form, whether in the regularly constituted courts or in arbitrations, whether before lawyers or merchants, permit one side to use the means of influencing the conflict and the decisions of the judge, which means are not known to the other side." And at p. 1145 the court said: "This is not a matter of mere private consideration between two adverse parties, but a matter concerning the due administration of justice, in which all persons who may ever chance to be litigant, in courts of justice or before arbitrators, have the strongest interest in maintaining the principles of justice shall be carefully adhered to in every case."