such facts?  Why even a humble learner like myself, though not so learned even to the extent of one ten-thousandth part of his knowledge, more than ten years ago anticipated what the good doctor has said; and I said much more and in much more comprehensive terms.  I have no desire to talk about my work, but let my readers glance through the copies of the Hsin Min Tsung Pao, Yin Ping Shih Wen Chi, the “Fight between Constitutional Advocates” and “Revolutionary Advocates,” the “Question of the Building of the New China,” etc., etc.  My regret is that my eyes are not blue and my hair not brown, and hence my words were not acceptable to the nation!

III.  RES JUDICATA

I do not say that the merits or otherwise of the republican system should not be discussed, but the time for such a discussion has passed.  The most opportune time for such a discussion was in 1911 when the Revolution had just begun; but since then further discussions should not be tolerated.  There might have been some excuse if this subject had been brought up for discussion when the second revolution broke out at Hukow on the Yangtsze river or before the President was formally inaugurated, or before the Powers formally recognized the Republic; but the excuse even then would have been a weak one.  Where were you then, advocates of monarchy?  Could you not at that time have brought out an essay by one of the great scholars of the world as a subject for discussion?  Could you not have cited the cases of American republics as a warning for us that these republic were by no means peaceful?  Yet at that time when the heroes of discretion were daily pushing the progress of the republican cause, stating that republicanism was the panacea for all the world’s administrations and that republicanism was not a new factor in Chinese history, a humble and ignorant man like myself, then a stranger in a foreign land, was burdened with the fear of the unsuitability of the republican system to China and wrote articles in support of his own views and wept till his eyes were dry.

Do you not realize that the State is a thing of great importance and should not be disturbed carelessly?  How can you then experiment 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 afterward 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?