Democratic Sentinel, Volume 4, Number 40, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 12 November 1880 — BRITISH OPINION. [ARTICLE]

BRITISH OPINION.

Comment of the London Pre*. on Our PreMidential Election. The London papers comment freely upon our great national political contest. The Times says: “ There are good reasons for believing that Gen. Garfield’s administration will be like the present—moderate in policy. Though we must regret that civil-service reform and free trade have been equally thrust into the background during the campaign, and are evidently not for the moment eagerly desired by any considerable proportion of the American people, the abatement of the animosities on both sides which were kindled even so recently as the contest of 1876 by the Southern question permits us to hope that very soon the sectional divisions of the republic will be obliterated, and be supplanted by a division of parties unconnected with the slave system and the civil war. The foreign policy of the Republican party, in spite of the friction caused by the war and the Alabama claims, has been on the whole friendly to this country and to peace all over the world.” The Post remarks : “ With the result, so far as European powers are interested in American politics, we on this side of the Atlantic have reason to be satisfied. Whether a Republican or a Democrat rules at Washington is a matter which now exclusively interests the citizens of the republic; nor is it probable even if the twenty years of uninterrupted reign of the Republican party had been now broken that the relations subsisting between the United States and ourselves would have undergone any perceptible change. We nave had our differences of late years with the American Government, but these differ ences have been happily terminated. We therefore have every reason to conclude that during the next four years of Republican supremacytbe relations between the United States and Great Britain will not only be undisturbed but be thoroughly cordial.” The Advertiser says: “We cannot but regret the result. In the first place there is no comparison between the merits of two men. Garfield is third-rate Republican party politician, belonging not perhaps to the school of the Blaines, Conklings and Camerons, but quite m little to that of the reformers like Adams or administrators like Sherman. He is the nominee of the wire-pulling interest. Hancock is, with few exceptions, the most distinguished, and, without a single exception, we believe, the most loyal, honest, and high-minded soldier still in the active service of the Union.” The Standard says: “ The'administration of Gen. Garfield is not likely to differ materially in policy from that of Nir. Hayes. It is, indeed, probable enough that the old Senatorial ring which was master of the situation during Gen. Grant's second Presidency, and which strove hard to carry the third-term movement to a successful issue, will become more powerful than it has been of late, and will once more monopolize and employ for its own purposes the patronage of the Government and its Executive influences.” The Poll Mali Gazette says : “it would be a mistake to regard Gen. Garfield’s election as a triumph of the politicians who brought discredit on Gen. Grant. The strong feelitg in the United States in favor of the honest and patriotic policy of the present Cabinet would teach far less shrewd men than Gen. Garfield to follow the lines laid down by Mr. Hayes. For England the situation is satisfactory, as it resulted in a victory for the party which is most iuclined to encourage satisfactory relations between England and America.” The Daily News says : “The chances seem to be that during the next four years, contrary to the expectations of some politicians, the South will become more reconciled to the Union, and the North will not be divided against itself. The result is one of more importance than foreign observers fully recognize.”