The Sentinel=record., 1914-07-31
BRYAN REPLIES
 TO ROOSEVELT
DISCUSSES THE $25,ooo,0oo SET ELEMENT WITH COLOMBIAN
 GOVERNMENT.
Makes No Direct Reference to Roose- welt But His Statement is in Direct Reply to Recent Speech.

Washington, u. C., July oV' "NN ond formal statement in defense of the proposed Colombian treaty was issued tonight by Secretary Bryan. Without mentioning Colonel Roose- welt. MT. Bryan replied to arguments advanced by the former president ii his attacks on the administration proposal to pay Colombia $25,00O,0Oo in settlement of claims growing out of the separation of Panama and the acouisition of the canal zone by the United States.
 Reiterating his declaration that Tn considering the treaty 1t is not neces- sary to examine into the merits or the controversy over the action of the United States in 1903. the secretary urged that even if the United States in acquiring the canal zone was eXer- cising a right of eminent domain, II was not relieved of liability for actual damages resluting to Colombia.
 Colonel Roosevelt recently asked the senate foreign relations commit tee to hear a statement from nm pc fore reaching the pending treaty. Chairman Stone replied that if the committee decided to pass upon the convention at this session it would be glad to hear from the colonel, but the
 general understanding is that the
 matter will go over until Decemt~
 Secretary Bryan in his statement
 tonight says:
 Tn considering the treaty with Co lombia 1t is not necessary to examine into the merits of the controversy re- lating to the action of the United States in 1903. The present treaty deals with the situation as it pre- sents itself today and is fully usti' | fled, no matter what theory one may adopt as to the course pursued by our nation in connection with reparation with Panama for Colombia. SoTe contended 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 her self and was not vii ing to 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 ot exercising the right of eminent do- main in the interests of the worlds commerce: but the exercise of the right of eminent domain does not re- | lieve those who exercise 1t of liability
 for actual damages suffered.
 "If it is contended that the price
 offered by the United States prior to | Panamas separation was reason | able one and that Colombia ought to
 have accepted it, that valuation can. not be reduced merely because tx,,
 lombia was not willing to accept the offer The price then offered was , approximately $17,000.000 (s10, 100000
 cash and $250.000 a year for a hun dred years, which could be capitalized
 at $7,500.000). 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
 What justice or fairness can there
 be in this proposition that Colombia,
 having refused to accept a fair price.
 is not entit ed to any damages at all? | The payment of the $25 1000 900 pro vided for in the treaty now before
 the senate is only a reasonable com | pensation for damages actually suf- | damages that ought to be paid | for no matter what theory one adopts
 in regard to action of the United | States or the action of Colombia in
 1903. The above argument is based
 upon the theory adopted by 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 disputed by the people of Colombia,
 who defended the position of their | government then and who have ever | since asked that the controversy be
 arbitrated by some impartial tribunal. | The reopening at this time of the
 original controversy is not only un-
 necessary but objectionable; first, be-
 cause 1t diyerts attention from the present situation, and second, because 1t would revive both here and in Co- lombia the very feeling of unfriendli-
 ness which it is desirable to allay.
 'The treaty is intended to restore friendship and good will between
 these nations and this can be done by dealing with the situation as it now presents itse'f without renewing the discussion as to the merits of the po- sitions originally taken by the two governments respectively"