Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.