Is the man you have in mind the present President? Heaven and earth as well as all living creatures in China and other lands know what the President swore to when he took the oath of office as President. Rumours have indeed been circulated, but whenever they reached the ears of the President he has never hesitated to express his righteous mind, saying that no amount of pressure could compel him to change his determination. All officials who have come into close contact with the President have heard such sentiments from the lips of the President on not a few occasions. To me his words are still ringing in my ears. General Feng Kuo-chang has conveyed to me what he was told by the President. He says that the President has prepared a "few rooms" in England, and that if the people would not spare him he would flee to the refuge he has prepared. Thus we may clearly see how determined the President is. Can it be possible that you have never heard of this and thus raise this extraordinary subject without any cause? If the situation should become such that the President should be compelled to carry out his threat and desert the Palace, what would you say and do then?
Or, perhaps, you are measuring the lordly conduct of a gentleman with the heart of a mean man, saying to yourself that what the President has been saying cannot be the truth, but, as Confucius has said, "say you are not but make a point to do it," and that, knowing that he would not condemn you, you have taken the risk. If so, then what do you take the President for? To go back on one's words is an act despised by a vagabond. To suggest such an act as being capable of the President is an insult, the hideousness of which cannot be equalled by the number of hairs on one's head. Any one guilty of such an insult should not be spared by the four hundred million of people.
XI. THE CHOU AN HUI AND THE LAW
Next let me ask if you have read the Provisional Constitution, the Provisional Code, the Meeting and Association Law, the Press Regulations, the various mandates bearing on the punishment of persons who dare conspire against the existing form of state? Do you not know that you, as citizens of the Republic, must in duty bound observe the Constitution and obey the laws and mandates? Yet you have dared openly to call together your partisans and incite a revolution (the recognized definition in political science for revolution is "to change the existing form of state"). As the Judiciary have not been courageous enough to deal with you since you are all so closely in touch with the President, you have become bolder still and carry out your sinister scheme in broad daylight. I do not wish to say what sort of peace you are planning for China; but this much I know, that the law has been violated by you to the last letter. I will be silent if you believe that a nation can be governed without law. Otherwise tell me what you have got to say?
It is quite apparent that you will not be satisfied with mere shouting and what you aim at is the actual fulfilment of your expectations. That is, you wish that once the expected monarchy is established it may continue for ever. Now by what principle can such a monarchy continue for ever, except that the laws and orders of that dynasty be obeyed, and obeyed implicitly by all, from the Court down to the common people? For one to adopt methods that violate the law while engaged in creating a new dynasty is like a man, who, to secure a wife, induces the virtuous virgin to commit fornication with him, on the plea that as a marriage will be arranged preservation of her virtue need not be insisted upon. Can such a man blame his wife for immorality after marriage? If, while still citizens of a republican country, one may openly and boldly call meetings and organize societies for the overthrow of the Republic, who shall say that we may not in due time openly and boldly call meetings and organize societies for the overthrow of the monarchy? What shall you say if in future there should be another foreign doctor to suggest another theory and another society to engage in another form of activity? The Odes have it, "To prevent the monkey from climbing a tree is like putting mud on a man in the mire." For a person to adopt such methods while engaged in the making of a dynasty is the height of folly. Mencius says, "a Chuntse when creating a dynasty aims at things that can be handed down as good examples." Is it not the greatest misfortune to set up an example that cannot be handed down as a precedent? The present state of affairs is causing me no small amount of anxiety.
XII. A POSTSCRIPT
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.
Some will say to me that a revolution is an unavoidable thing. Of all things only the facts cannot be undone. Why then should I bother myself especially as my last effort fell on deaf ears. This I realize; but it is not my nature to abandon what is my conviction. Therefore, although aware of the futility of my words, I cannot refrain from uttering them all the same. Chu Yuan drowned himself in the Pilo and Chia Sheng died from his horse. Ask them why they did these things, they will say they did not know. Once I wrote a piece of poetry containing the following lines:
"Ten years after you will think of me,
The country is excited. To whom shall I speak?"