The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-06-17
4 THIRD TERM FOR CLEVELAND

Gov. Flower. OF New York. says:
Thers is no reason why Mr. Cleveland should
not DO ihe nominee OF his party In 1s06. One
presidential term has interviewed between his
admin !strations. II would take another term
before sic had served two consecutive terms II
in ls36:MI Cleveland desires the nomination OF
HE party no man can successfully stand In his
way.
The: Springfield Republican says. ''the
third Term was ruled out once for all in
lsS0.y The Republican forgets that while
this il, formidable Republican precedent
It 10 riot necessarily of any force in gov.
ernint; the action of the Democratic party.
Tho Democratic party has never authori-
tativetty pronounced against a third term.
and ieis not characteristic Of the Demo-
cratic party to respect precedents or
promises when political success is its pur-
pose. In 1896. II Cleveland can make his
party'believe that he can be elected with
greater ease and certainty than another
Democrat, the objection Of "a third term"
will hot prevent his nomination.
Tho third term cry was used against
Grams by Blaine and Sherman; it was a
good ,makeweight for those who wanted
to best Grant. but it counted for nothing
with chose who wanted to nominate Grant.
ltwoYild count for nothing today against
the nomination of a candidate who other
wise aecmed sure of success with the peo-
pie. Suppose Grant had LETT the White
Houss with the undiminished popularity
of Andrew Jackson; suppose he had re-
taineF in 1850 the popularity that Andrew
Jack;:on had in $50; does anybody sup
pose ais nomination could have been pre-
vented by the third term" cry? II the
party had really wanted Grant IN 1880 his
nom:nation could not have been prevented
by ,i;e third term" cry. and if the party
really wants Cleveland in 1896 no cry of
'thiti term" will prevent his nomination.
Presidents count for nothing against
the popular will. Politicians use prcce-
dent, as pretexts when they seek to kill a
candidate, and they are just Is quick to
igno!e prccedents when they wish to
nominate man whose name is assurance
OF victory. There are very few men Of
ability and influence in either of the great
parties who would seriously quote the
"third term objection against any can
ditale who seemed sure OF election. Nor
do t.e peonie care button about this OBJ
jectipn; except IN the case where the third
tern: is consecutive. There really was no
logic al force 10 the objection in the case Of
Grant; there would be none in the case of
Cievi bland.
II! Blaine had not been behind the OBJ
iee,lon OF "ihe third term" in iss0 Grant
would not have been beaten in Isso. for
there was no weigh. To it; it was a mere
pgeiext behind which tho blaine and
shesnan men could shrcwd.y work against
GRAFT. Suppose the Republican conven-
tion: II isso had been IS firmly persuaded
thai Gran. was the best winning card rs
the, Democrats convention in lSse Was
tina! Cleveland ssood for victory. does any
booty suppose that the third term objection
wol;ld have bcen treated with any respec; ?
TroFe - nothing - the objection save
wh:n ,hs terms are consecutive, and the
.o-,:Alled precedent 81 lssa vail not stop
Cie:elsud's nomination IA 1885 il his party
rcat;y desire II: and, in oar Judgment. un-
less; some stronger groand of opposition
can: be toand Nj. Cleveland viii no; he
bcssen for election in i>si upoa the
objtc;ioa Of she third term" the So
called prcceien; of lsSn.
l.ae Democracy will no: take Renuh-
hcsa ''rrecedeass" Tor political guides
an4 Il Nj Cleveland IS candidate for re-.
noNIaailon IN iSsi 40 ''thsrs term cry
NJ cgash him II ats PARTY consider ham
oif.rssse sure card, As prsssxt il
5nish. Re taken up. has as a preceaea, it :
utiirsy without forte