A copy of Yang Tu’s pamphlet, “Constitutional Monarchy or the Salvation of China” reached me after I had finished writing the above discussion.  On a casual glance through it I alighted upon the following passage:  “What is known as a constitutional country is a country which has definite laws and in which no one, from the ruler down to the common people, can take any action that is not permitted by law.  Good men cannot do good outside of the bounds of law; neither can bad men do evil in violation of it.”  This is indeed a passage that breathes the very spirit of constitutionalism.  Let us ask Mr. Yang if the activities of the Chou An Hui, of which he is the President, are acts within the bounds of law?  Mr. Yang is a good man.  It is therefore possible for him to believe that he is not doing evil in violation of the law; but has he not at least been doing good outside of the bounds of law?  If an advocate of constitutional monarchy is capable of doing such unlawful acts, we may easily imagine what sort of a constitutional monarchy he advocates; and we may also easily imagine what the fate of his constitutional monarchy will be.

Mencius says, “Am I argumentative?  I cannot help it.”  Who would have thought that a man, who cares not for the question of the form of state like myself and who opposed you—­Mr. Yang Tu—­ during your first campaign for the change in the form of State—­ you were a Republican then—­would be opposing you again now that you are engaged in advocating another change in the form of state?  A change in the form of government is a manifestation of progress while a change in the status of the State is a sign of revolution.  The path of progress leads to further progress, but the path of revolution leads to more revolution.  This is a fact proved by theory as well as actual experience.  Therefore a man who has any love for his country, is afraid to mention revolution; and as for myself I am always opposed to revolution.  I am now opposing your theory of monarchical revolution, just as I once opposed your theory of republican revolution, in the same spirit, and I am doing the same duty.  My belief is that since the country is now in a most weakened state, we may yet fail even if we do all we can at all times to nurse its wound and gather up its scattered strength.  How can any one devote his time and energy to the discussion of a question of no importance such as the form of state, and so obstruct the progress of the administration?  But this is not all.  The whole country is now stirred up to an excited state and is wondering how long this ever-changing situation is going to stop.  The loss caused by this state of affairs, though unnoticed, is incalculable.  In the Odes, it is written “Alas! my brethren.  Befriended of the countrymen.  No one wants rebellion.  What has no parents?’” Let the critics remember this—­let them remember.