Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-07-31
Secretary Bryan
Continued from Page One)

In considering the treaty with Co
lombia, laid before the Senate for
ratication. it is not necessary to ex-
anime into the merits of the contro-
versy relating to the action of the
United States in 1905. The present
treaty deals with the situation as 1t
presents itself today, and is fully JUS
titled no matter what theory one may
adopt as to the course pursued by
our nation in connection with the
separation of Panama from Colom-
bia. 1t is contended by some that the
action taken by the United States was
based upon the necessities of the case
and those necessities as stated by
those who take this position are, that
Colombia was not able to build the
canal herself and was not willing to
sell to the United States upon rea-
sonable terms the right to build the
canal
Those who take this position put the
United States in the attitude of exercis-
ing the right of eminent domain in the
interests of the worlds commerce; but
the exercise of the right of eminent do
main does not relieve those who exercise
1t OF liability for actual damages suffer-
ed. Take, for illustration. the condemn
ing of block of ground for a public
building. Suppose that every lot owner
excepting one is willing to sell his land
to the government at. its market value,
but that one of the lot owners. whose lot
Is necessary to the erection of the build
Ing, asks more than the land is worth.
The government proceeds to condemn the
property. but II does not attempt to es-
cape from the payment OF what the land
Is actually worth, and the actual value
of the property is not reduced one dollar
by any effort that the owner may make
to obtain for ii more than IL Is worth.
If 1t is contended that the price Of
fered by the United States prior to Pan
ama's separation was a reasonable one,
and that Colombia ought to have accept
cd it, that valuation cannot be reduced
merely because Colombia was not willing
to accept the offer. The price then Of
fered was approximately $17,5o0,oo0 (S10,-
100000 cash and s25o,ooo year for q hun
dred years. which could be capitalized
at S.5oo,ooo), But when this price was
offered 1t was understood that Colombia
would retain the state of Panama and
have the advantages to be derived from
proximity to the canal. What justice or
fairness can there be in the proposition
that Colombia, having refused to accept
fair price, is not entitled to any dam
ages at all? The payment of the SIS 000,-
90 provided for In the treaty now before
the Senate is only a reasonable cempen-
sation for damages actually suffered
damages that ought to be paid, no matter
what theory one adopts in regard to the
action of the United States or the action
OF Colombia in 1903. The above argu-
ment Is based upon the theory adopted
BY those who say Colombia was entirely
in the wrong in refusing to accept the Of
fer made by the United States, but it
must be remembered that this theory is
disputed BY the people OF Colombia, who
defended the position their government
then took and who have ever since asked
tat the controversy be arbitrated by
some impartial tribunal.
The reopening at this time of the orig
inal controversy is not only unnecessary
out Objectionable, first because IL diverts
attention from the present situation with
which we have to deal, and, second. be-
cause IL would revive both here and in
Colombia the very feeling of unfriendu-
ness which 1t is desirable to allay. The
treaty is intended to restore friendsb,n
ana good VIII between these nations and
TINS can be done by dealing with the sit
uation as it now presents itself without
renewing the discussion as to the merits
OF the positions originally taken by the
two governments respectively"