Los Angeles herald., 1891-01-23
FRIDAY, JANUARy IS. 1891.
GOVERNOR HILL, THR SENAT0RSHIE
AND THE PRESIDENCY.

Our esteemed contemporary, the Ex-
aminer, amongst other comments upon
Governor Hill's unanimous choice by
the Democrats Of the New York legisla-
ture for United States senator, which
was ratified by his election day before
yesterday, has the following comments: !:
The Democrats in the New York legis-
lature have reached the wisest possible
solution of their senatorial problem by
the nomination of Governor Hill. The
selection of Smith M. Weed, late of the
Protective Tariff league, would have been
an affront to the tariff reform sentiment
of the whole party, and the choice of
Charles A. Dana would have been not
only this, but a mortal insult to Mr..
Cleveland. By nominating Hill, every
element of the party is satisfied. The
friends of the governor are pleased, of
course, for they have made the nomina-
ton, and the friends of Cleveland are
more than glad to let the senatorship go
to a man who would be dangerous
rival for the presidency.
We would like to ask our esteemed
contemporary why this distinguished
mark of the preference of New York
Democrats for Governor Hill makes him
less dangerous rival to Mr.. Cleveland
for the presidency than he was before?
is there anything in holding the Office of
senator of the United States which
incapacitates man to occupy the white
house? Have United States senators
been at a disadvantage as compared with
other aspirants to the presidency?
We think that, upon examination, the
Examiner will reconsider its position
General Andrew Jackson was United
States senator from Tennessee before he
was elected to the presidency. Martin
Van Buren, had been senator of the
United States from New York before he
was elected to succeed Old Hickory in
the white house. General Lewis Cass
had been senator of the United States
before he was nominated for president
by the Democratic party. Franklin
Pierce had been a senator of the United
States, and James Buchanan had been
more than once senator of the United
States, before either were elected to the
presidency. Even little Benny, the
present occupant OF the white house,
had been United States senator from
Indiana before he reached the grand
climax which retired him forever
under the shadow Of his grandfather's
hat.
Why, therefore, should the election of
Governor Hill to the United States SEN
ate remove dangerous rival from the
path of Grover Cleveland or of any other
aspirant for presidential honors?
While there is absolutely nothing in
such a suggestion, we beg to remind our
contemporary that no man who has ever
been defeated for the presidency before
the American people has ever been
elected thereafter. This is very sig
nificant fact, and Democrats would do
well to take special note of it. General
jackson, it is true. was cheated out OF
the presidency in 1924, but he was the
overwhelming choice OF the people, and
failed to attain the station to which his
fellow citizens desired to promote him
by the celebrated dicker between John
Quincy Adams and Henry Clay-an
arrangement which John Randolph Bit
terly characterized as union OF .'the
Puritan and the backlog"
We would really like to hear from our
metropolitan contemporary on both of
the questions which we present for it's
consideration.
Governor Hill is the choice OF multi
tudes for the presidency, both in his
own state and out of it.