with it and treat it as if you were putting a chest into a dead hole, saying “Let me place it here for the moment and I will see to it later.”  The status of the State can be likened to marriage between man and woman.  The greatest care should be taken during courtship.  The lady should then exercise care to see that the man whom she is taking to be a life companion is worthy of her.  During this period it is the duty of her relatives and friends to point out to her any danger or misunderstanding even to the extent of offending her feelings.  But if you leave her alone at this stage when there is plenty of time to change her course, and—­what is more—­urge her to tie the knot despite incompatibility, what right have you afterwards to make the impudent suggestion to the wife that her husband is not a man to whom she should cling for life?  Is such a course a charitable way of doing things?

If indeed the republican cause is enough to cause the destruction of the nation then you, the advocates of monarchy, have placed the country in a position from which she has no hope of ever coming out independent.  You are the men who—­to the best of your ability—­inculcated and pressed the adoption of the republican cause.  The proverb says, “If now, why not then?” How many days can a person live that you, not satisfied with one great sin, are again to commit another.  It is not long since the Republic was first established; yet you, the veterans of republicanism, are the leaders to-day in advocating the overthrow of the Republic.  Yes.  It is indeed strange that I, a man who once opposed the republican cause, should now be opposing you.  Nothing is stranger and nothing is so fateful.

But our modern critics say we prefer a constitutional monarchy to an autocratic republic.  Now whether we are constitutional or not is a question concerning the administration, while the question whether we are republican or not is a question concerning the form or status of the country.  We have always held that the question of Kuo-ti is above discussion and that what we should consider is the actual condition of administration.  If the administration (government) is constitutional, then it matters not whether the country is a Republic or a Monarchy.  If the government is not constitutional then neither a republic nor a monarchy will avail.  There is no connexion, therefore, between the question of Kuo-ti and the question of Cheng-ti.  It is an absurd idea to say that in order to improve the administration we must change the Kuo-ti—­the status or form of the country—­as a necessity.  If this idea is to be entertained for a single moment the changes even in constitutional countries will be endless.  But the curious paradox is that in former days the critics said that only a republic, not a monarchy, could be constitutional; whereas, the critics now say that a monarchy, not a republic, can alone be constitutional!

    IV.  THE PRESIDENT AND THE CONSTITUTION