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 today 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

Let me therefore lay down a simple definition of what a Constitution is before discussing whether the contentions of the critics are reasonable.  My opponents will agree with me that the main principle of a constitutional government is that the legislative organ should always balance the executive and that the exercising of the administrative power is always limited to a certain extent.  They will also agree that the most important point of a so-called constitutional monarchy is that the monarch should act as a figurehead, and that the establishment of a responsible cabinet is an indispensable accompaniment.  If these simple principles are recognized then we must put up the theory for discussion.  Let us then raise the question who shall be the monarch.  In plain words, is the person in our mind the President? or any other person? (In view of the repeated declarations