Rensselaer Republican, Volume 17, Number 6, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 16 October 1884 — ANOTHER DEMOCRAT BOLTS. [ARTICLE]

ANOTHER DEMOCRAT BOLTS.

Col. John Hancock of Oshkosh, Wis., Out for Blaine. , [Milwaukee SenUnel.J In this morning’s Sentinel will be found an article by Col, John Han ock on the Monroe doctrine. Col. Hancock is hn old and w IdKnown resident of the Sta e. an 1, up to the present y ar. has been a steadfast Democrat. He enlisted early in the War of the Retell on, going out as First Lieutenant in the t court Wisconsin Infantry, his company having Col. Gabe Bouck as its Captain. Subsei u -ntly he was promoted to the Majority ot the Fourteenth Imantry, and became its Colonel. A lawyer by profession, he return’d to the practice of law. in Oshkosh when he left the army, and was to .1 some years Police Justice of that city. Col. Hancock savs that he has been a life-long Democrat, and has been waiting for Ills party’to accept the issues of the war. Instead of do ng ibis, he finds it drifting rapidly back into the support ot those State-rights opinions which were employed is a justiticati n by the Southern States for the Rebel ion. In view of its attitude upon this question, and its truckling to foreign interests and capital, he Considers it the duty of every good citizen to Rive a warin support to Mr. Blame. Col. Hancock’s example and influence will encourage many of his old Democratic associates to adopt the same course. The article is as follows: James Monroe in his first message laid down the doctrine that thereafter no foreign power should be allowed to obtain a loothold on this continent; which is familiarly known as the "Monroe doctrine.” The Democratic party failed to enforce the doctrine in the settlement of the Oregon boundary question. Briti-h gold and influence, allied by Southern votes, secured all the great Northwest territory lying west of the Rocky Mountains to which the Government of Great Britain had no shadow of title, it being neutral ground. Again was the doctrine abandoned by the Democratic party in the ratification of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, which treaty was entered into by Great Britain and the United States on a settlement of the Central American question; in that treaty it was stipulated that neither Great Britain nor the United States should ever occupy, colonize, or exercise dominion over any portion of Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America. Senator Douglas opposed the ratification of the treaty as an abandonment of the "Monroe doctrine” and subjecting the United States Government to British dictation. The British Minister then at Washington remonstated with Douglas; claimed it was reciprocal, asitpledged both nations alike that they should never occupy or hold dominion over Central America. Douglas said, "It would be fair it they would add one word to the treaty, so that neither Great Britain nor the United States should ever occupy or liold dominlon over Central America or Asia." "But,” said the British Minister, ’“jfou have no interest in Asia.” “No,” answered Douglas, “and you have none in Central America." The treaty was ratified by a vote of 11 to 42. The Southern Senators were nearly unanimous in its support. As appears from a statement in a late number of the London Times, the South American republics are indebted to Great Britain from £5 to £26 per capita, Venezuela being the lowest; that republic borders on the Republic of Colombia through which a canal is now being constructed by British capital, backed by the Government of Great Britain. The keen foresight of Mr. Blaine, while Secretary of State, at once detected the great difficulties this Government jvould labor under in allowing the construction of that canal by foreign power, gave the British Government notice of the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and also gave notice to Lord Granville that if the canal was constructed it would be deemed a part of the coast line of the United States. The only reason given by Great Britain for the seizure and occupation of Egypt was to protect Brinish bondholders. With the present heavy indebtedness of the South American republics to Great Britain, and the Obtaining of a foothold in the Republic of Colombia by the construction of the canal across the isthmus, how long will it be before those weak South American republics will fall into the capacious maw of Great Britain and each in turn become another Egypt ? The avidity with' which the foreign powers take advantage of a protest to undermine this Western republic may be witnessed in the attempt during the war of the rebellion of France, while an empire under the Third Napoleon, to establish an empire in Mexico and place Maximilian on the throne, taking advantage of the then crippled condition of the United States. William H. Seward, Secretary of State under Abraham Lincoln, gave France notice that this Government did not lookwith favor upon the establishments of an empire in Mexico bv a foreign power; the project failed by the defeat of the frog-eaters by the Mexicans, and Maximilian, instead of securing a throne,lost his head. The prompt and energetic policy ot Mr. Blaine should be a keynote in this campaign. He gave Great Britain notice, in plain, unvarnished United States language, what the policy of this Government would be; It has the Jacksonian ring about it, and Great Britain clearly under lands It. Is It not, indeed, litgh time that this Government asserted its manhood and independence from foreign influence, and ceased acting the lickspittle to European monarchs? The South has always truckled to British influence; the votes of the United States Senate upon the boundary question and the ratification of the treaty show that; and at this time the South looks with favor on the canal project as governed by Great Britain, and upon England obtaining a foothold in Central America, whereby that Government will be put in a position to render more practical assistance in the next struggle for a Southern Confederacy; and Great Britain further well understands that under a Democratic administration no protest will ever be made against the canal scheme and the occupation and control of the same by the British Government. Washington, in his “Farewell Address,” said: “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to Believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy ot a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of r epublican government.” T/vttxt ’LI *