The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1914-07-31
BRYAN REPLIES
TO ROOSEVELT
Who Attacked Governments Proposal to
Pay Colombia S2s,oooooo in Settle
ment Of Claims Growing Out
of Panama Acquisition.

night by Secretary Bryan. Withou
mentioning Colonel Roosevelt, Mr.. Bryan
replied to arguments advanced by th'
former president in his attacks upor
the administrations proposal to pay Co
lombia $25,o00000 in settlement oI
claims growing out OF the separation
of Panama in acquisition OF the cana
zone by the United States.
Reiterating his declaration that in con
sidering the treaty it is not necessary
TO examine into the merits Of the con-
troversy over the action OF the United
States in 1903, the secretary urged that
even if the United States in acquiring
the canal zone was exercising right
of eminent domain, il was not relieved
of liability for actual damages resulting
to Colombia.
Colonel Roosevelt recently asked the
Senate foreign relations committee to
hear statement fresn him before re-
porting the pending treaty. Chairman
Stone replied that If the committee de.
cided TO pass upon the convention at this
session it would be glad to k>ar from
the colonel, but tie general understand
ing is that the matter will go over un-
It'll December.
Secretary Bryan's statement last night
| follows:
I'm considering the treaty with Colom-
ba, laid before the Senate for ratifiea
tion, II is not necessary TO examine into
the merits of the controversy relating
to the action of the United States in
1903 The present treaty deals with the
situation as il presents itself to-day.
and is fully justified. no matter what
theory one may adopt as 20 the course
pursued by our nation in connection with
the separation of Panama from Colon
hia. II is eontended 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 Colon.
bia was not able to build the canal her
self and was not willing 10 sell to the
United States upon reasonable terms the
right to build the canal
"Those who take this position put the
United States in the attitude of exer-
cising the right OF eminent domain in |
the interests OF the worlds commerce;
but the exercise OF the right of eminent |
domain does not relieve those who ex- |
ercise il OF liability for actual damages /
Take, for illustration. the con
demning Of block Of ground for pub
lie. Suppose that every 10. owner ex- |
ceptng 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 prs5ceeds 20 condemn
the property, but IL does not attempt
10 escape from the pa vment Of what the
and il actually worth. ard the actual A
value Of the property is not reduced one
iollar by any effort that the owner may
make to obtain for it more than il is
worth
"If it is contended that the price Of
cred by the United States prior TO Pan.
mas separation was a reasonable one,
md that Colombia ought to have ac-
epted it, that valuation cannot be re-
uced merely because Colombia was not
Wiling to accept the offer The price
hen offered was approximately 1900
90 (Sl0.000,000 cash and $250.000 wear 1
or 100 wears. which could he capitalized /
I S7.500.000l. But when this price was v
ffered il was understood that Colombia @
yould retain the state of Panama and Il
ave the advantages to be derived from h
roximity to the canal. What justice fl
r fairness can there be in the PROPOSE b
ion that Colombia. having refused to o
ccept a fair price, is not entitled to any t
- H.. - H. l..
25 100000 provided for in the treaty t.
ow before the Senate is only reason n
BILE compensation for damages actually "
iffered- damages that ought to be paid,
0 matter what theory one adopts in re. u
ard to the action of the United States HI
the action Of Colombia in 1908 The Il
Dove argument is based upon the theory OF
lopted by those who say Colombia was re
ltirelv IN the wrong in refusing TO ac- v,
,pt the offer made bv the United v.
tates. but il must De remembered that W
us theory is disputed hv the people of ol
1lomhia. who defended the position
eir government then took and who or
I've ever since asked that the contro. OF
,rsv be arbitrated by some impartial IA
ibunal, OF
'erhe reopening az this time of the ro
iginal controversy is not only unnec. re
sarv. but Objectionable. first because in
diverts attention from the present w
fuation with which we have to deal II
"a. second because IL would revive both dr
re and in Colombia the very feeling ST
unfriendliness which it is desirable to AL
Law. The treaty is intended to re-
ore friendship and good viii between
ese nations. and this can be done by
aling with the situation as Il now
esents itself without renewing the dis Ie
ssion as to the merits Of the positions
iginally taken by the two governments