patriotic, he either corrupted their character by buying them with silver or removed them by assassination.  He was a vainglorious man and spent money like water.  From the foreign capitalists he borrowed in a most indiscriminate manner, while on the Mexican people he levied all sorts of cruel taxes.  Thus the strength of the people was drained and the resources of the country were exhausted, creating a position over which he eventually had no control whatever.  Ten years ago I wrote an article in the Hsin Mim Tsung Pao remarking that Diaz was a matchless fraud.  I said then that a nation-wide calamity would befall Mexico after his death and that the Mexican nation would be reduced to a mere shadow. (My friend Mr. Tang Chio-tun also wrote an article, before the internal strife in Mexico broke out, on the same subject and in an even more comprehensive way).  Luckily for Diaz he ruled under the mask of republicanism, for only by so doing did he manage to usurp and keep the presidential chair for thirty years.  He would long ago have disappeared had he attempted to assume the role of an emperor.  This is also true of the other republics of Central and South America.  Their presidents almost without a single exception used military force as a stepping-stone to the presidential chair.  We have yet to see the last military aspirant.  The unsuitability of the country to the republican system is of course one of the reasons but I cannot agree with those who say that this is the only reason.

As to Portugal it is true that the change from the monarchy to republic has not stopped internal disturbance; but is it not a fact that Portugal became a republic as a result of internal disturbance and was it not during the existence of the monarch that the disturbance started?  It is ridiculous to suppose that a republic will surely court disturbance while a monarchy will surely ensure peace and order.  Is not Persia a monarchy?  Is not Turkey a monarchy?  Is not Russia a monarchy?

Read their history in recent decades and see how many years of peace they have had.  There have been no election of presidents in these countries.  Why then such unrest?

Again, why was the state of affairs during the Sixteen States of the Five Dynasty-Period and the Ten States of the Five Successions as deplorably miserable and disastrous as the state of affairs now prevailing in Mexico, although there was no election of Presidents then?  In quoting objective facts as illustrations the critic should not allow his choice to be dictated by his personal like or dislike.  Otherwise he will not be deceiving others than himself.  Soberly speaking, any form of state is capable of either ensuring a successful government or causing rebellion.  And nine cases out of ten the cause of rebellion lies in the conditions of the administration and not in the form of state.  It cannot be denied, however, that the chances of rebellion and dissension are more frequent and easier when the form of state does not suit the conditions of the people.  That is why I did not advocate republicanism; and even now I am not a blind believer in republicanism.  In this I agree with you, the Chou An Hui people.