sion 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 lifetime 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 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
indiscr