Los Angeles herald., 1892-07-01
MR.. GAGE CORRECTED.
SOME OF HIS HISTORICAL ERRORS
PUT RIGHT.
In His Haste to Stand Up for Harrison
He Makes Some Historical
Assertions which Are
Questioned.
The following letters explain them

The following letters explain them
selves:
EDITORS HERALD: Under the head
of ga Base Misrepresentation" there
appeared in the Express yesterday the
report of an interview with Henry 7.
Gage Esq.A and in it Mr.. Gage says !:
"But all objections that could be as
signed by any Republican against Har-
rison would apply with greater force to
Cleveland, and this is especially true in
reference to the second term proposition.
as Cleveland furnishes the sole example
in the history of politics in this country
of a president running for that Office for
third time" In the HERALD of today
there appears a communication from
Mr.. Gage, in which the same statement
is made.
Now, Mr.. Gage is lawyer, and as he
has been mentioned as possible candi-
date for congress from this district, he
ought to know more Of the history of
politics of his country than is manifested
in that statement.
History fails to sustain him, and lacks
great deal of it.
Prior to the twelfth amendment to the
constitution of the United States, which
took effect in 1904, the electors chosen
by the several states did not vote for the
candidates for the presidency and vice.
presidency separately; but it was pro-
vided by the constitution that the can
didate receiving the greatest number of
votes, If a majority, ETC., should be the
president, and the one receiving the
next highest number of votes, ii a ma
iority, etc., should be the vice-presi-
dent.
By that amendment the law was
changed and separate votes were re-
quired, as the law is today.
But under the original provision every
candidate who was voted for in the elec.
toral college was in effect voted for as
president as much as for president.
II he received the highest number of
votes, and majority, he became presi-
dent; if the second highest, and a ma
iority, he had to content himself with
the lower office.
History tells us that Washington re-
ceived in 1889 and again in 1882 all the
votes in the electoral college for presi-
dent and declined third term, yet his
name appears In some OF the authori-
ties among the list of candidates in 1875,
he having received two electoral votes.
| Since, as before stated, there was,
| prior to 1904, no vote for president sepa-
| rately, but each candidate voted tor by
| the electors stood chance of becoming
| the president, each of them should be
! coneidered a candidate in the sense of
| that term az used by Mr.. Gage.
This being conceded, several instances
| might be cited where the same person
has been candidate for the Office OF
president more than twice.
Notably we have the case of Thomas
Jefferson. He was acandidate in a796,
but was defeated by John Adamss again
in 1900 he was a candidate against
| Aaron Burr and others. He and Burr
received an equal number of votes of the
electors, and Jefferson, after many bal
| lots, was finally elected president by the
| house of representatives. In 1904, this
being the first telectionunder the amend
ment, he was candidate for the third
time and was elected.
But lest it should be said that no ac-
count should be taken of the elections
prior to 1904, let US see how the matter
| stands since the amendment.
Andrew jackson, sitter being defeated
| for the the presidency in 1924, was
I elected for two terms in succession at
the elections held in 1928 and 1882.
The immortal Henry Clay ran three
different times and was never success
ful. He was defeated in 1924, again in
1882 and the third time in 1874.
Martin Van Buren was elected in 1886,
and yet he was nominated in 1910 and
again 184S, and defeated both times.
Thus does history refute Mr.. Gage.
The majority of people remember the
discussion and feeling aroused by the
desire of General Grant for third term
but the objections to a third term have
no application to the case of Cleveland,
he having served one term and been de-
feated once.
IF Mr.. Gage is sincerely opposed to a
eeeand term, he might with much reason
oppase Harrison and still support Clevs-
land, for the most weighty objections to
the second term apply only when the
two terms follow in succession.
He has the capacity to reason this out,
but will he take the trouble to do it?
Yours,
IIN AAfr