Newspaper Page Text
Editorial
Page
England Uses Her OWN Canal to Build Up Her Own Commerce
And Mr. Wilson Blandly Proposes to Permit Her to Use OUR Canal for the Same Purpose.
England built and owns the Suez Canal. We built the
Panama Canal and we believe we own it.
English ships use the Suez Canal, and pay the tolls. BUT
ENGLAND PAYS BACK ALL SUCH TOLLS IN REBATES TO
THE BRITISH VESSELS THAT PAY THEM.
This of course is exactly the same as admitting British ships
free to the Suez Canal,
The advantage to British shipping is enormous. It has made
the British commercial fleet the master of the Eastern trade. It
has carried the British flag to all the Asiatic and African ports,
and has vastly enriched the British people.
Naturally, England regards her own course in Suez as only
right and proper. The ships of other nations in the same trade
are penalized. British ships are enabled to charge low freight
rates, and monopolize the trade. The ports of London and Liver
pool are prosperous. With the profits from their Eastern steam.
ship lines. British shopowners have been enabled to build fleets
for the American and South American traffic, and to gain a prac
tical monopoly of the seas.
It was the immense benefits conferred on British shipping
by the Suez Canal that first led the French te undertake the
building of the Panama Canal. And it was the purpose of the
French, after they had built the canal, to use it for the advan
tage of their own commerce.:
But the French failed in Panama, and the United States,
taking up the work, carried it out successfully.
The American people willingly bore the great cost of con
struction. They looked forward to the day when the canal
should build up American shipping, restore the American flag
to the seas, and build up the coast and the interior by increased
commerce and lower freight rates.
But England, clinging firmly to her own monopoly at Suez,
objected violently to any American advantage in the American
Canal.
Now a Great Methodist University at Oxiford
The Georgian has had much to say—and has said it fer
vently—in advocacy of a great Southern university under Pres
byterian auspices located in Atlanta, and christened under the
historic and well-nigh sacred name of Oglethorpe.
The Georgian would be glad to commit itself with equal
fervor to another Southern university, under the auspices of
the great Methodist Church, and located at Oxford, Georgia,
almost in the suburbs of Atlanta.
The time is auspicious and the circumstances are full of
promise and opportunity.
Vanderbilt University, rich and famous, at Nashville has
suffered a serious division in the recent decision of the courts
which practically removes the institution from the control of
the Methodist Bishops and transfers it to the Board of Trustees.
Out of the disappointments and divisions following that decision
there have come differences which will not heal and which will
likely separate the great Theological Department and the cor.
dial support of the powerful Methodist Church from Vanderbilt.
Here, then, is Emory’s and Georgia's opportunity for a great
Methodist institution with the support of that great church
behind it.
Bishop Hoss, Bishop Kilgore and Bishop Candler are now
in‘ Baltimore ministering to the probable last illness of Bishop
Wilson.
Bishop Hoss from this post is sending out strong and fre
quent statements favoring the transfer of this vast influence
The False Charges of Those Who Truckle
It is untruthful and unfair to a degree that ought to react
upon the repute of those who charge the opponents of a repeal
of the canal tolls exemption with being agents of a shipping
lobby and subsidy.
No finer, truer men illustrate our country in the American
Congress than those who oppose President Wilson’s repeal
measure. Their record for integrity and consistency and Amer
ican patriotism is far better than that of many of those who
make the ill-tempered allegation. Perhaps the readers of some
of the newspapers making these charges will make their protest
to being defamed in their own practical way.
It is equally false and even more unfair and ungenerous, and
absolutely ungrateful, to allege that Champ Clark, in opposition,
is utilizing an opportunity to strike and embarrass the adminis
tration. There is not a more Roman integrity in the American
Congress than Champ Clark’s. He has had a score of opportuni-
& THE R
WEEKEYE4ii2-GEORCIAN
2 A
The first protest came from the Canadian Pacific Railroad,
owned in England. The directors of the road foresaw an imme
diate lowering of freight rates the minute water competition
was opened.
Their protest was echoed by the British shipowners. They
foresaw American competitiog on the seas, which they had come
to regard as their own exclusive property.
No particular attention was paid by Americans to this arro
gant British attitude at first. It seemed .na.tnral enough that
Great Britain should be displeased at the prospect of a greater
American commerce. In the past no American in any important
office has worried very much about British Qissa.tisfaction, which
began with the Revolution and has continued intermittently
ever since.
But to the amazement of patriotic Americans the President
of the United States, although pledged by the party platform
which he accepted to open our Canal to our own ships, suddenly
took the British view of the controversy.
Thus the present situation was brought about. The Presi
dent was joined by Elihu Root, who is always opposed to the peo
ple of the United States, and by Andrew Carnegie, who has a
fond dream of uniting the two nations under the British flag.
Encouraged by this support, the President carried the fight
into the House, and forced the patronage-hunting Congressmen
in that body to desert their leaders and follow his lead.
Fortunately it will be nearly two months before the next
fight—which will take place in the Senate. The American peo
ple are now thoroughly aroused. They have never tamely sub
mitted to Great Britain, and they never will.
And to a demand to turn over to them OUR Canal on their
own terms, when they refuse to all other nations equal terms in
their own canal, is a piece of arrogance of which only the British
could be capable, and which must be answered by the Senate in
sturdy American fashion.
from Vanderbilt to Trinity College, North Carolina, or to the
Methodist School at Dallas, Texas.
But why not to Emory, in Georgia? Georgia is far more in the
center of these South Atlantic, Gulf and Southern States than
sither North Carolina or Texas. If the Methodist people desire
to place their great church institution properly for the South,
why not bring it to the center of the South—in Georgia? Emory
College is already one of the noted and historic institutions of
the South. It has a great record of usefulness and a long list
of men famous in the South and in the country—orators, poets,
scholdrs; statesmen and famous preachers have illustrated its
classic shades.
Atlanta is the largest city in the South and in Methodist
membership. The North Georgia Conference is the largest and
strongest in the whole church. Asa Candler, the richest man in
the South, is a great Methodist, and Bishop Candler was once
president of Emory. Emory has now a fine endowment, and a
capacity for 500 students.
The new Methodist University would be able here in Geor
gia to build upen a great foundation of influence and repute.
The great numbers, wealth and power of the Methodists of
Georgia would give it a mighty impulse from the beginning.
Perhaps our Bishop Candler might ably amend the sugges
tion of Bishop Hoss, and substitute Emory College for Trinity
or Dallas.
The people of all denominations in Georgia would rally to
the making of it.
And another great Temple of Christian Education would
place Georgia far in the forefront of learning in the South.
ties since the Baltimore convention to strike and embarrass the
President. Instead of using them, he has utilized every possible
opportunity to uphold and aid the Wilson Administration. He
smothered his natural indignation over his outrageous betrayal'
by William J. Bryan and consented to a friendly meeting with
Bryan for the sake of harmony in the party and the smooth
movement of the Government under Wilson. He is above the
comprehension of the chattering jays who assail his integrity.
Champ Clark, owing much of his Presidential strength to Wil
liam R. Hearst, would have broken with Hearst, if necessary,
three weeks before Baltimore upon a radical difference in con
viction upon a public issue. It is a credit to him that he did not
modify or forswear his conviction for his friend. And it is an
equal credit to William R. Hearst that he loved Champ Clark all
the better for holding fast to his opposing views.
The men who make charges like these are the makers of
trouble—the Achans in the camp of Democracy. ;
Week Ending
- April 7,1914.