The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1914-07-31
Of
SECY. BRYAN
RAPS TEDDY
AND DECLARES THAT THE S2o,'
100000 MERELY REPAYs CO.
LoMBlA FOR 1908 DAMAGE -
GIVES LATE FACTS.


NAL statement in defense of the pro
posed Colombian treaty was issued
night by Secretary Bryan.
Without mentioning Colonel Roose-
velt, Mr. Bryan replied to arguments
advanced by the former president in
his attacks on the administration
to pay Colombia $25,OOO,OOO
in settlement of claims growing out
of the separation of Panama and
the acquisition of the canal zone by
the United States.
Reiterating his declaration that in
considering the treaty it is not neces-
sary to examine into the merits of
the controversy o. er the action Of the
United States in 1903, the secretary
urged that even if the United States,
in acquiring the canal zone, was eX-
ercising a right of eminent domain, it
was not relieved Of liability for actual
damages resulting to Colombia.
Colonel Roosevelt recently asked
the senate foreign relations commit
tee to hear statement from him be-
fore reporting the pending treaty.
Chairman Stone replied that if the
committee decided to pass upon the
convention at this session it would
to glad to hear from the colonel, but
the general understanding is that the
matter will go over until December.
Secretary Bryan in his statement
says:
Present Conditions Control.
"In considering the treaty with Co
lombia ii is not necessary to exam
inc into the merits of the contro
versy relating to the action of the
United States in 1903. The present
treaty deals with the situation as il
presents itself today, and is fully
justified no matter what theory one
may adopt as to the course pursued
| by our nation in connection with the
separation of Panama from Colon
bia Some contended that the actor
| taken by the United States was baset
upon the necessities of the case ant
those necessities as stated by those
who take this position, are that Co
lombia was not able to build the cana
herself ana was not willing to sci
to the United States upon reasonable
terms the right to build the canal.
"Those who take this position pu
the Unita.l States in the attitude o
| exercising the right of eminent do
main in the interests of the world
commerce. hut the exercise Of th'
right of eminent domain does no
relieve th,se who exercise it of liza
bility for actual damages suffered.
"lf it IS contended that the pric
offered by the United States prio
to Panama's separation was a reason
able one, and that Colombia ough
to have accepted ii, that valuation
cannot be reduced merely becaus
Colombia was not willing to accep
the. offer. The Drce then Offered
was approximately s17,5OO,O O,O60-ts10,
100000 cash and s25O,OOO a year fol
hundred years, which could be cap
talized at $7,5OO,OOO). But when this
price was offered it was understood
that Colombia would retain the state
of Panama and have the advantages
to be derived from proximity to the
canal.
Compensation for Damages.
What justice or fairness can there
lie IN this proposition that Colombia
having refused to accept a fair price
is not entitled to any damages at all?
The payment of the s25,0OO,O00 pro
vided for in the treaty now before
the senate is only a reasonable com
pensaiion for damages actually suffer
ed-damages that ought to be paid, nc
matter what theory one adopts in re
gard TO the action of the United
States or the action of Colombia In
1893. The above argument is based
upon the theory of those who say
Colombia was entirely in the wrong
in refusing to accept the offer made
by the United States, but it must be
remembered that this theory is dis
puted by the people of Colombia, who
defended the position Of their gov