Weekly independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 1887-1914, 1914-08-14
BRYAN'S VIEW OF
COLUMBIA QUESTION

Secretary Of State Bryan has
made a statement about the Colom-
bian treaty, in answer to recent
criticisms Of Culorel Roosevelt. sin
considering the treaty with Colon
bia, laid before the senate for rati-
fcstion" said Mr.. Bryan, "it is not
necessary to examine into the mer-
its OF the controversy relating TO
the action Of the United States in
1909. The present treaty deals
with the situation az it presents
itself ,oduy, and is fully justified,
no matter what theory une may
ADOPT IS t" the course pursued by
Umr nation in connection with the
ycparation Of Panama from ColCm-
bil. Il is coatcrtci by same that
the action taken by the United
States was based upon the ncccssl-
tics Of the case, and those necc gsi-
ties, as stated by those who take
this position, are. that Colombia
was not able TO build the canal her
asclf and was not willing TO sell to
the United Statrs upon reasonable
terms the right to build the ranul,
Those wno take this position
put the United States in tie atti-
tudu Of exercising the right cf rmi-
nCnt domain in the inter, sts Of the
worlds commerce: hYt the exercise
ui the right OF eminent domain
does no: relieve those whu exercise
it Of liability for actual damages
suffered. luke. for example, the
condemnation to Al block al ground
for public building. Suppose
that every lot owner excepting one
is willing to sell his Ian to the
government at its market value.
but that one Of the lot owners,
whose Int is necessary TO the cree
ton of the building asks murc than
thr land is worth. The government
proceeds 10 condemn the property,
but IT does not attempt to escape
from the payment Of what the land
Is actua - worth, and the actual
value OF the property is rot reduc-
ed one dollar by any effort that the
owner may make TO obtain for
1t more than il is worth.
IF it is cOntcndcI that the price
offered hy the United States prior
to Panlra'S separation was rea-
sunahlc one and that Colombia
ought To have accepted it. that
valuation cannot be- reduced mere
ly because Colombia was not will
ing TO accept the offer. The price
then offered was approximately
100000 $4,000, ,O00) cash
and $3.50, 900 Il year for "A hundred
years, which could be capitalized at
t$7 1900. .0O0). But when this price
was offered IT was understood that
Colombia would retain the state
OF Panama and have the advantages
to hc derived from proximity to
the canal.
what justice or fairness can
there be in the proposition that
Colombia, having refused to accept
n fair price is not entitled TO any
damages at all?
THE above argument is based
uprn tic theory adopted by those
WHO say Colombia was entirely in
the wrong in refusing to nccept the
"l'er madr by the United States
INT IT, must be remembered that
this theory is disputed by the pco-
pie IF Colombia, Who defended the
position their government then
took ard who have ever since asked
mat the controversy be arbitrnted
ny some impartial tribunal.
The rGopcning aL this time of
the original controversy is not only
unnecessary bat object nablc 80.
ht't because il divcrts attention
from the present situation with
"hlch we have to deal, and second,
because il would revive both here
ana IN Colombia the very feeling of
unirienJIiness which it is desirable
TO oIlhy. The treaty is intended to
restore friendship and good will be.
tween these nations, and this. can,
oe done by dealing with tho situa.
''oh as 1t now presents itself with.
out renewing the discussion Ms TO