El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1914-07-31
BRYAN REPLIES
TO ROOSEVELT'S
RECENT ATTACK
Says United States Not Re-
ieved Of Liability For
Colombian Damages.

Washington. D. c.. July 31.-Even II
the United States, in acquiring the
canal zone was exercising the right
Of eminent domain, II was not relieved
OF liability for damages TO Colombia.
This was the feature Of a reply by
secretary Of state Bryan Thursday
night TO the recent attacks Of Col
Roosevelt on the Colombian treaty BY
which it is proposed to pay Colombia
S25,O0O.0O0 In settlement OF claims.
In secretary Bryan's reply, however,
he did not mention the former presi-
dent
Secretary Bryan's statement in part
follows;
in considering the treaty with Co
lombia, laid before the senate for rati-
fication, IL 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 presents
itself today and is fully justified. II
is cOntended by some that the action
taken by the United States was based
upon the necessities OF the case: viz. I.
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
stlH Liable for Damages,
Those who take this position put
the United states in the attitude OF
exercising the right OF eminent domain
in the interests Of the worlds CON-
merce: but the exercise Of the right
OF eminent domain does not relieve
those who exercise il Of liability for
actual damages suffered. Take. Tor il
lustration. the condemnIng OF a block
Of ground for a public building Sup
pose that every lot owner except one
is willing to sell his land TO the gov
eminent 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 IL does not attempt
to escape from the payment OF what
the land is actually worth. and the &C
tual value OF the property is not re-
duced one dollar by any effort that the
owner may make to obtain for II more
than Il IS worth.
IF it IS contended that the price
offered By the United States prior TO
one. and that Colombia ought to have
accepted IL, that valuation cannot be
reduced merely because Colombia was
not willing 10 accept the offer The
S14.5OO.000 lS1O,00O,O0O cash and $780,
600 a year for 100 years. which could
be capitalized at $500. 00O). But when
this price was offered 1t was under
stood that Colombia would retain the
state OF Panama and have the advan-
the canal. What justice or fairness
can there be in the proposition that
Colombia, having refused to accept a
fair price. is not entitled TO any dam
ages at all2
Only Reasonable Price. Claims.
THE payment Of the S25. 00O, 900 pro-
vided for in the treaty now before the
senate is only a reasonable compensa-
tion for damages actually suffered
damages that ought to be paid. no
matter what theory one adopts in re-
gard to the action OF the United States
or the action Of Colombia in 1908
Would Restore Friendship.
THE reopening at this time Of the
original controversy is not only un-
necessary, but Objectionable; first be-
cause IL diverts attention from the
present situation with which we have
to deal. and. second, because il would
revive both here and in Colombia the
very feeling OF unfriendliness which II
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 situa-
ton as II now presents itself without
renewing the former discussion"