If every President will do likewise this system can be used without fear of a break for hundreds of years.  Otherwise we will have only the Imperial system on paper to rely on for assistance, which is not even to be thought of.  A glance through the pages of Chinese history will show the numerous cases in the reign of Emperors when princes fought in the very confines of the Emperor’s palace while the corpse of their royal father lay unburied in the hall.  Thus it is seen that the hidden cause of the safety or otherwise of the country does not lie with the mere formality of a constitution either in a republic or a monarchy.

VII.  THE CASE OF DIAZ, THE DICTATOR

The critics bring up the example of Mexico where live rivals have been struggling with each other for the presidency, and the internal confusion of the Central and South American republics as well as Portugal, as an unquestionable proof of their contention that a republic is not so good as a monarchy.  I imagine that the idea of these critics is that all these disturbances can be avoided if all these republics were changed into monarchies.  Let me tell them that Diaz ruled over Mexico for thirty years, and only died as an exile in May last (I am not quite sure of the exact month).  If indeed the struggle in Mexico was a fight for succession then the fight should not have begun until this year.  And indeed if it were necessary to have a monarch to avoid the disturbance, and supposing that Diaz, thirty years ago, had a man like Dr. Goodnow to make the suggestion, and men like the Chou An Hui to spread it, and suppose that Diaz boldly took the advice and set up an Imperial system for himself, would Mexico then have a peace that would last as long as the ages?

If Diaz had assumed the throne I am positive he would long ago have been an exile in a foreign country before his imperial system could have come into effect or he himself become the proud founder of a new dynasty.  What he would have held as an imperial charter would have become a mere scrap of paper.  If he could not prevent rebellion even during his life-time how can we expect an empty Imperial system to prevent it after his death.  Even a child can see this.  The disturbances in Mexico were unavoidable no matter under a republic or a monarchy.  The reason?  It is because Diaz, under the mask of a republic, actually played the role of a despot.  During all the thirty years he held office he never devoted himself to the strengthening of the fundamental things of State, but diligently strengthened his own position.  He massed an enormous number of troops for his own protection so that he might overawe the people.  For fear that the troops might become arrogant and insubordinate, he provoked disagreement among them in order that he might play them round his fingers.  He banished all those who opposed him, relying on force alone.  In dealing with those who were really