File No. 893.01/35.
Chargé MacMurray to
the Secretary of State.
[Extract.]
No. 747.]
American Legation,
Peking
,
September 7, 1915
.
Sir: Referring to my telegrams of August 25,
September 2 and September 4, on the subject of the agitation in favor of
a restoration of the monarchical form of government in China, I have the
honor to report as follows:
For some months past there have been rumors, vague at first, but becoming
gradually more definite, that President Yuan Shih-k’ai was maturing a
plan for the transformation of the Republic into a monarchy, and taking
the throne as the founder of a new dynasty. From several usually
trustworthy sources I received, as early as mid-June, information to the
effect that the Committee of Ten, entrusted with the drafting of the
permanent Constitution, was being carefully “handpicked” with a view to
its embodying in the Constitution provisions for the reestablishment of
a monarchy, and then demanding that the Legislature, which would in due
course have been selected with like care, should be convened in order
that it might in the name of the people of China decide whether or not
the proposed change in the form of government should be made—the
President meanwhile deprecating, with the appropriate degree of
earnestness, any action tending to force on him responsibilities more
lofty than he had assumed as President of the Republic. Despite the
character of the sources from which this information reached me, I
attached slight importance to it at the time, believing that while
certain influences might be intriguing to that end, it was scarcely
credible that so shrewd a politician as the President should choose for
such a purpose (even if he entertained it) a time when the personnel of
the Government was engaged in bitter factional strife, when the finances
of the country were being carried on in hand-to-mouth fashion, when the
balance of power in China was destroyed by the European War, when new
revolutionary movements were believed to be forming, and when the
prestige of his administration was suffering from the yielding of the
concessions which the Japanese Government had demanded and enforced by
its ultimatum of May 7. Such plans as were being made were in fact
worked out with a degree of secrecy altogether unusual in this country;
and for some weeks there appeared to be no concrete indications tending
to confirm the reports referred to above.
The first tangible evidence of anything stirring beneath the., surface
was an interview (of which the account given in the Peking Gazette of
July 7 is enclosed herewith)17 in which the President rebuked General Feng
Kuo-chang, military governor of Kiangsu Province, for urging upon him
the suggestion that he assume the throne. This abjuration said so much
more than would have been necessary to a staged disclaimer of any
monarchical aspirations, that it had all the appearance of
genuineness.
The next development in the movement was associated with the coming of
the American Constitutional Adviser, Dr. Frank J. Goodnow, [Page 49] who had returned to Peking in
the middle of July for a short visit. Shortly after his arrival, Dr.
Goodnow was asked by the President to prepare for his own information a
memorandum on the respective merits of the republican and monarchical
forms of government, with particular reference to conditions in China.
In entire good faith, though, as the event has proved, with perhaps too
little wariness as to the use which might be made of it, Dr. Goodnow, in
response to this request, prepared a memorandum (of which a copy, as
printed in the Peking Daily News of August 20 is
enclosed herewitha) in
which he outspokenly set forth the view that theoretically and in the
abstract the monarchical form is the better suited to the genius and
traditions and present political development of the Chinese, but
expressly disclaimed any judgment on the question whether the conditions
actually existing would render feasible or expedient a change from the
republican to the monarchical system. I understand that he also
discussed the matter with the President in the same sense, making it
clear that as a question of practical politics the matter involved
considerations of fact as to which no foreigner is competent to form a
judgment, and which must be decided by those responsible for the
destinies of the country.
At the end of the second week of August, a monarchical propaganda,
professedly based upon Dr. Goodnow’s advice, was begun with an amazing
suddenness that appears to indicate careful preparation in advance. In
spite of the reservations with which Dr. Goodnow had qualified his
memorandum for the President, it began to be quoted in the Chinese press
(as cited in the enclosed clipping from the Peking
Gazette of August 14)17 as maintaining categorically the bald thesis that “a
monarchical system of government is better than a republican system”;
and he was thenceforward referred to as supporting or even as having
inspired the monarchical movement. On August 16 there appeared in the
press the manifesto of an organization calling itself the Ch’ou An Hui
or Peace Planning Society, newly formed for the purpose of “devising
means for keeping peace in this country” and for expounding “views
concerning the future of our country and the advantages and
disadvantages accruing from the republican form of government,” which
was based upon the declaration that “Dr. Goodnow has stated that a
monarchy is a better form of government than republicanism, and
according to his opinion a monarchical form of government is most
indispensable at present for China”. (For translation see enclosed
clipping from the Peking Gazette of August
16).b Dr. Goodnow
found it necessary to repudiate the views thus attributed to him, in an
interview which appeared in the Peking Gazette of
August 18 (of which a copy is enclosed herewith);c and with the permission of the
President he also caused the full text of his memorandum to be published
in the Peking Daily News of August 20. Even the
publication of his memorandum, however, did not put an end to the
misquotation of his views by the adherents of the Ch’ou An Hui, who
continued to refer to his advice in support of their propaganda; and [Page 50] as late as August 24, in the
society’s circular telegram to which reference is made hereafter, Dr.
Goodnow’s views were cited in a passage of which the following is a
translation made by the Chinese Secretary of the Legation:
The United States is the foremost Republic in the world. Dr.
Goodnow, the great American scholar in the science of
government, says that a monarchy is really better than a
republic, and that China especially cannot do without the
monarchical form of government. This opinion is held not only by
Dr. Goodnow, but by many other well-known scholars. As Dr.
Goodnow is a citizen of a republic, he is very familiar with
both the advantages and failures of the republican form of
government. Moreover, he says that conditions in America and
China are different, and that the institutions of the one
country cannot be forcibly transplanted to the other.
Dr. Goodnow consequently found himself placed in a false light, and in
order to clear up his position he brought pressure to bear upon certain
of his official associates who were in a position to influence the
leaders of the Ch’ou An Hui, with the result that a notice to the
following effect was published in the Chinese press on August 28:
With reference to the discussion of the question “Monarchy or
Republic”, Dr. Goodnow has made no statement other than that
contained in the memorandum which he presented to the President.
Lest there should be any apprehension on the subject, we hereby
specially issue this notice.
Ch’ou An Hui.
In the earliest days of its formation, the Ch’ou An Hui was scarcely
taken seriously by outside observers. Even when there was published an
interview (of which the translation appearing in the Peking Gazette of August 17 is enclosed herewith)17 in which the President,
referring to the activities of that society, said
As to the people of the country * * * it is quite reasonable for
them to discuss the best method which will ensure them permanent
peace and happiness. * * * How can I interfere with such a
movement, merely for the reason that such a movement would tend
to misrepresent me to the public as a person who entertains some
doubtful and suspicious ambition? * * * If it does not tend to
disturb the order of the country, there is no necessity for the
Government to take measures to interfere with it—
even then, the apparent inopportuneness of the times,
the comparative obscurity of those who were known as its adherents, and
the shallowness and obvious insincerity of its propaganda, all tended to
induce the belief that the movement was no more than a ballon d’essai—an activity which the President countenanced,
perhaps with a view to its revealing whether or not the temper of the
country would admit of such a possibility now or at some later occasion,
but which he in all probability regarded as a means of quieting the
enthusiasts and the sycophants by letting them batter their heads
against an impossibility.
But meanwhile the Ch’ou An Hui throve immensely. In addition to the
original manifesto (quoted in the enclosure from the Peking Gazette of the 16th ultimo), it issued a prospectus and
notifications (which are enclosed herewith in translation from the Peking Gazette of August 21)17 and a circular telegram to the
civil and military governors of the provinces, to the lieutenant
generals, and to the chambers of commerce and popular bodies of the
provinces, expressing the belief that the republican form of government
is not [Page 51] suitable to China (of
which a translation, as printed in the Peking Daily
News of the 25th ultimo is enclosed herewith);17 and its chief promoter, Mr.
Young Tu, published an elaborate “Defense of the Monarchical Movement”
(of which I enclose a translation as printed in the Peking Daily News, of August 26, 27 and 28);17 it attained the distinction of
having its leaders interviewed by Mr. B. L. Simpson (Putnam Weale); it
acquired the rather more substantial dignity of having its views and
purposes contested with eloquent and apparently sincerely patriotic
earnestness by Mr. Liang Ch’i-ch’iao, recently Minister of Justice, in
an interview printed in the Peking Gazette of the
31st ultimo (of which a copy is enclosed),17 and in an article (of which a translation, as
printed in the Gazette of September 4 and 6, is
enclosed);17 and,
most important of all, it contrived to receive from the civil and
military governors and others, to whom its circular was addressed, most
encouragingly acquiescent replies—which, for the most part, embody the
ideas and the terms which the society professed to quote from the
memorandum which Dr. Goodnow had submitted for the information of
President Yuan. There were obstacles to the progress of the society;
according to a report quoted in the Peking
Gazette of August 23 (of which a copy is enclosed),17 the President in conversation
with the Secretary of State, on August 19, discreetly discountenanced
the movement by declaring,
If a few shortsighted people attempt to compel me to adopt an
unrighteous course I shall have no alternative but to take
refuge in a foreign land, as I cannot break my solemn oath;
and about the same time there was talk of an impeachment
to be lodged against its members by the censorate, on the ground of
their indulging in a movement subversive of the existing Government; but
the chief censor had found it expedient to get to one of the foreign
concessions in Tientsin before it was even known to the general public
that this suggestion had originated with him.
It has now appeared that, back of all this rather puerile agitation on
the part of the Ch’ou An Hui, there has been the substantial fact that
the President himself, his eldest son, Yuan K’o-ting, and the most
powerful civil official in China, Liang Shih-yi, and the most
influential military leader, Feng Kuo-chang, have planned and worked for
the reinstitution of a monarchical régime with President Yuan as
emperor. That is a fact which, for my own part, I must acknowledge
having doubted perhaps longer than the evidence warranted; it has now
been made indubitable, not only by the indirect testimony of colleagues
and of press correspondents and other unofficial sources of information,
but also by the direct statements of certain Cabinet Ministers, who have
discussed the matter with the President and learned his views
authoritatively and at first-hand. As I reported in my telegram of
September 4, the majority of the Cabinet and of the other officials of
greatest influence are (or have been) in favor of the movement.
On the evening of Saturday, the 4th instant, one of the Cabinet Ministers
who called to see Dr. Tenney and myself on another matter took occasion
to say that he had that morning conferred with [Page 52] the President in reference to the plans for the
reestablishment of a monarchy; and that, whereas President Yuan had up
to a few days previously been whole-heartedly in favor of forcing the
movement through without delay, he was now “much less enthusiastic”, and
determined to proceed, if at all, with the utmost circumspection. My
informant went on to say that the reason for this change was doubtless
the apprehension that the foreign Powers might withhold their
recognition of the new Government, and that Japan, particularly, might
exact terms in consideration of its recognition of the new order. He
then offered the naive surmise that perhaps this difficulty might be
avoided by simply announcing that the appropriate lawmaking body of
China had determined to confer upon the President the title of Emperor,
and that at some convenient time thereafter the Constitution might, as a
matter of purely domestic concern, be so amended as to make the
presidency hereditary.
Fantastic as these suggestions sound, they seem to accord with the
present attitude of those in authority. It appears that the Chinese
official mind accepts, without any sense of anomaly, the idea of a
hereditary presidency as forming the happiest possible solution of the
problem of the succession, which has been brought so persistently to
public notice by the propaganda of the Ch’ou An Hui.
It would seem that by the mere fact of having created a general
impression that something in the present system of government requires
modification, that society has now exhausted its usefulness to the
purpose in view, and its activities will probably be allowed to dwindle.
So nearly as can be judged from the reports as to the present mood of
the President, and from the message which was communicated by him
yesterday to the Council of State (Tsan Cheng Yuan), sitting as a
legislative body pending the establishment of the Li Fa Yuan,18 the present intention is
not to establish the new régime by a coup d’état,
as a few days ago seemed likely, but to leave the matter for decision
and adjustment by processes at least superficially constitutional.
Concerning the attitude of the Chinese people towards the contemplated
change, it is still too early to generalize with assurance. It would be
naïve to take without discount the expressions of approval which have
been telegraphed, in really considerable volume, by the provincial
authorities and by popular bodies of all sorts in the provinces, in
reply to the circular of the Ch’ou An Hui; their spontaneity is more
than questionable; and in the great majority of cases they must be
assumed to represent not a conviction that the monarchical system is the
best for the country, but a calculation that that system is the more
likely to prevail. It should be noted, however, that among the younger
officials—the foreign-educated class, which has hitherto been more or
less directly associated with the republican movement,—there has been
observable an unmistakable tendency to regard with sympathy, if not with
active approval, the idea of reversion to a monarchy. On the other hand,
such opposition as has thus far appeared has seemed to be wholly
academic and forensic, giving no evidence of any likelihood of serious
resistance. There is of course a considerable revolutionary [Page 53] element which may be expected to
take what advantage it can of the discontent which such action would
cause; but among both foreign and Chinese observers it seems generally
to be believed that the Government has the situation well enough in hand
to assure that no revolutionary movement is likely to gain headway or to
pass beyond the stage of mere local disturbances—unless abetted and
assisted by Japan. The great bulk of the people may, I believe, be
assumed to be indifferent to the question of the form of government so
long as it does not undertake to govern them too rigorously or tax them
too much.
With a view to learning the character and effects of the monarchical
movement in the provinces, the Legation on August 25 despatched to the
consuls a circular directing them to report on the subject. Replies have
thus far been received, as follows: Antung, Hankow, Mukden, Nanking and
Shanghai. In order to put the Department in possession of all available
information at as early a date as possible, I forward copies of these
reports17 without
waiting to coordinate them with those which are still to be
received.
It has proved difficult to learn with accuracy the views of the several
other Legations here. In general, I think it may be said that they
regard the contemplated change in the form of government without
particular concern, feeling their policies wholly unaffected by it
unless in the event that it should lead to disorders detrimental to
trade and jeopardizing foreign interests; for the rest, the general
feeling is that if the Chinese find it possible to reinstitute their
traditional form of government, without bringing on revolution or
bankruptcy or foreign intervention, so much the better. But opinions
differ as to the feasibility of bringing about the change without those
consequences. * * *
I have [etc.]
[Inclosure 1.]
Dr. Goodnow’s
Memorandum to the President
.
[From the
Peking Daily News of August 20,
1915.]
monarchies originate with one man.
The determination in a given country of the form of government
established therein has seldom if ever been the result of the
conscious choice of the people of that country or even of the choice
of its most intelligent classes. The establishment on the one hand
of a monarchy or on the other hand of a republic has in almost all
instances been due to influences almost beyond human control. The
former history of the country, its traditions, its social and
economic conditions all have either favored the form of government
which has been adopted or, in case the form of government at first
adopted has not been in harmony therewith, have soon brought it
about that that form is replaced by one which is better suited to
the country’s needs.
In other words, the form of government which a country usually
possesses is for the most part determined by the necessities of
practical life. Among the contributing causes which fix forms of
government, one of the most important is force. Almost all
monarchies thus owe their origin in last analysis to the exertions
of some one man who has been able to organize the material power of
the country in such a way as to overcome all competitors. If he has
able sons or male relatives, if he has ruled wisely and if the
conditions of the [Page 54] country
have been such as to favor monarchical rule, he may be able to
establish a dynasty which will during a long period successfully
govern the country.
Under such conditions one of the most perplexing problems of
government is probably more satisfactorily solved than has usually
been the case in republics. For on the death of the monarch there is
no question as to the succession to the executive power. No election
or other method of choosing a successor is necessary. As the English
law expresses it: “The King is dead, Long live the King.” In order,
however, that the desired result may be attained, it is absolutely
necessary that the law of succession be clearly determined and
practically universally accepted. Else the death of the monarch will
bring into being numerous aspirants for the throne whose conflicting
claims can be adjudicated only by resort to civil war.
History would seem to prove, furthermore, that the only permanently
satisfactory solution of the question of succession in monarchical
states is that which has been reached by the States of Europe. This
consists in fixing the succession to the throne upon the eldest son
of the monarch or in default of sons, upon the nearest eldest male
relative. Under this method he who is by the law of succession
entitled to the throne is permitted to waive his rights, in which
case, if it is the eldest son who has so waived his rights, the next
eldest son takes his place.
If some such method of fixing the succession is not adopted, if for
example the succession to the throne is left to the determination of
the monarch, who may choose as his successor a son not the eldest,
or some other relative not the nearest eldest male relative the
uncertainty as to the succession is almost certain to produce
trouble. Palace intrigues in favor of the various claimants to the
throne are sure to develop which both embitter the closing days of
the monarch’s life and often lead to confusion if not civil war
after his death.
The advantages which history would seem to show are attendant upon a
monarchy as compared with a republic, so far as concerns this
important question of succession to the executive power, are thus,
it would seem, conditioned very largely upon the adoption of that
law of succession which experience has shown to be the best, that
is, succession in the eldest nearest male line.
european republics.
Until recently the accepted form of government both in Asia and
Europe was monarchical. It is true that in Europe, contrary to the
usual rule there were a few republics such as Venice and
Switzerland. But the States possessing a republican government were
few in number and small in size. In almost all the important States
of the world the government was monarchical in character.
Within the last hundred and fifty years, however, there is noticeable
among European peoples a distinct movement away from monarchical and
in favor of republican government. The first attempt to establish
republican government in any of the large European States was made
in England in the 17th century. After a successful revolution
Charles I, the English King, was tried by Parliament, convicted of
treason and executed. A republic, the so-called “Commonwealth” was
established with Oliver Cromwell as “Protector” or President.
Cromwell obtained his power as a result of his control of the
revolutionary army which had defeated the forces of the crown.
This early English Republic lasted only a few years and fell as a
result of the difficulties attendant upon the question of the
succession to the Protectorate which arose on Cromwell’s death.
Cromwell had attempted to place his son Richard in the position left
vacant by his death. But either because the English people were not
suited to a republic or because Richard Cromwell did not have the
characteristics required of the possessor of executive power, this
attempt to continue the English Republic was a failure, and England
abandoned the republican and re-established the monarchical form of
government. Charles II, the son of the executed Charles I, was put
upon the throne, largely as the result of the support of the army
but with the almost universal approval of the English people.
The next attempt to form a republic among European peoples was made
after the American revolution at the end of the 18th century when
the United States of America was formed. The American revolution was
due not so much to an attempt to overthrow monarchical government as
to a desire upon the part of the English colonies in America to
obtain their independence of England. The success of this revolution
brought, however, in its train, [Page 55] almost necessarily, the establishment of
republican government. There was no royal family left in the country
to which its government might be entrusted. There was, furthermore,
in the country a distinct sentiment in favor of a republic due in
large measure to the fact that quite a large number of those who had
participated in the establishment of the ill-fated English Republic
in the preceding century had come to America and had exerted even
after their death an influence in favor of republican
institutions.
It is, however, possible that George Washington, who had led the
American armies during the revolution, might have if he had been so
inclined, established himself as king. He was, however, in principle
a republican rather than a monarchist. He furthermore had no son
who, had he been crowned king, could have succeeded him.
The result was that, when the United States obtained its
independence, it definitely adopted the republican form of
government which has lasted during a century and a quarter. The
unquestioned success which has attended the United States during
most of its existence has done much to give to the republican form
of government the prestige which it now possesses. It is well,
however, to remember that the United States inherited from England
the principles of constitutional and parliamentary government and
that these principles had been applied in America for a century or
more before the republic was established. The change from the form
of government which was in force during the colonial period to the
republic adopted in 1789 was not therefore anything in the nature of
a change from autocracy to a republic. Such a change as was made had
been preceded by a long period of preparation and discipline in
self-government. Furthermore, the American people even of that day
possessed a high grade of general intelligence, owing to the
attention which had from the very beginning of American history been
given to the common schools where almost every child could learn at
any time to read and write.
The establishment of the American Republic was followed almost
immediately by the formation of the French Republic. The Government
of France prior to the declaration of the republic had been
autocratic. Almost all public powers were centered in the crown and
the people participated hardly at all in the administration. The
French people had thus had little experience in self-government and
were therefore unable to carry on successfully the republic which
they endeavored to establish. Periods of disorder followed by
military dictatorships followed in rapid succession. The monarchy
was restored after the fall of Napoleon largely as the result of
foreign intervention. A revolution in 1830 brought into being a more
liberal monarchy. This was overthrown by a revolution in 1848, when
a republic was again established. The President of this Republic,
the nephew of the great Napoleon, overthrew it and declared himself
Emperor. After the Franco-Prussian war in 1870 he was deposed and
the present French Republic came into being. This republic has now
lasted nearly half a century and gives every evidence of
permanence.
It is well to remember, however, that the present permanence of
republican institutions in France was secured only after nearly a
century of political change, if not disorder, and that during that
century serious attempts had been made both to give the people
generally that education upon which intelligent political action
must be based and to accustom them by participation public affairs
to the exercise of powers of self government.
The French, like the Americans, would appear to have solved
successfully the most difficult problems in republican government,
that is the succession to the executive power. In France the
President is elected by the Legislature. In the United States he is
elected by the people. In both France and the United States the
people have long had experience in self government through
participation in public affairs, while in both countries, during the
past half century particularly, great attention has been paid to
their general education through schools in many cases supported by
the Government. The result is that the grade of intelligence of the
people in both America and France, is comparatively speaking,
high.
the latin republics.
The examples given in the latter part of the 19th century by the
United States and France were very largely followed in South and
Central America at the time the former Spanish colonies in this part
of the world achieved their independence. As was the case in the
United States when it became independent a republic seemed the only
practicable form of government which [Page 56] could be adopted. There was no royal family to
which the people might look for guidance.
The success which had been attendant upon the establishment of a
republic in North America had caused the belief to be entertained by
many thinkers, both that a republic was the best form of government
and that its establishment and maintenance were possible under all
conditions and among all peoples. Republics were therefore
established almost everywhere throughout South and Central America.
But, either because of the disorders which were incident to the long
struggle for independence or because of the difficulties inherent in
a republican form of government among a low grade of intelligence,
due to the lack of general education, and accustomed only to
autocratic rule, the South and Central American Republics have not
been generally successful. For years after the independence of the
Spanish colonies was achieved South and Central America was the
scene of continual disorder, incident for the most part to the
struggles of military leaders for political power. At times there
were periods of comparative peace due to the success of some
extraordinarily strong man who was able to seize and keep in his
hands political power. Little if any attempt was for a long time
made by any of those who obtained political power to educate the
people generally through the establishment of schools or to aid them
in the acquisition of political experience by according them
participation in the government. The result was that when the strong
hand which controlled the country was relaxed, owing either to the
increasing age or death of him who possessed political power,
disorder again appeared due to the struggles of the claimants for
the political succession—since no satisfactory solution of the
question of succession was reached. Whatever progress the country
had been able to make during its period of peace was arrested and
not infrequently the anarchy and chaos which followed caused a
serious deterioration in the economic and social conditions of the
country.
What has happened in Mexico recently has too often been the lot of
the Central and South American States under a republican form of
government not suited to their stage of economic and political
development. Under the Government of Diaz, who acquired political
power through his control of the army, it seemed as if Mexico had
successfully solved the problem of government. Diaz, however, did
little for the education of the people and discouraged rather than
encouraged their participation in the government. When increasing
age caused him to relax his control revolution broke out again and
he fell from power. Since his loss of power the country has been
devastated by the contending armies of rival leaders, and at present
it would seem that its salvation is possible only as the result of
foreign intervention.
It is of course true that in some of the South American countries
progress is apparently being made in solving the problems of
republican government. Such countries are particularly Argentine,
Chile and Brazil. In both Argentina and Chile a long period of
disorder and disturbance has been followed by a comparatively long
period of peace. In Brazil the establishment of the republic about
twenty-five years ago, was accompanied by little trouble and the
subsequent life of the republic has been a peaceful one. In all
three countries considerable progress has been made in the
establishment of constitutional government, in Argentine and Chile
as one of the results of the struggles of the early part of the
nineteenth century, in Brazil, partly at any rate, during the empire
which preceded the present republic, and which encouraged the
participation of the people in the government of the country.
lessons from republican experience.
The experience in the South and Central American countries would seem
to inculcate the same lessons which may be derived from the
experience of the United States and France. These are
- 1st.
- That the difficult problem of the succession to executive
power in a republic may be solved by a people which has a
high general intelligence due to the existence of schools
where general education may be obtained and which has
learned to exercise political power through participation in
the affairs of government; and
- 2d.
- That little hope may be entertained of the successful
solution of the question of presidential succession in a
country where the intelligence of the people is not high and
where the people do not acquire political wisdom by sharing
in the exercise of political power under some form of
constitutional [Page 57]
government. Where such conditions do not exist a republican
form of government—that is a government in which the
executive is not hereditary—generally leads to the worst
possible form of government, namely, that of the military
dictator. The best that can be hoped for under such a system
is periods of peace alternating with periods of disorder
during which the rival claimants for political power are
striving among themselves for the control of the
government.
great powers will not permit disorder.
At the present time, it may further be remarked, it is very doubtful
whether the great Powers of the European world will permit the
government of the military dictator permanently to exist, if it
continues to be accompanied by the disorder which has been its
incident in the past. The economic interests of the European world
would have grown to be so comprehensive, European capital and
European commercial and industrial enterprises have become so wide
in their ramifications that the governments of the foreign countries
interested, although caring little what may be the form of
government adopted by the nations with which they deal, are more and
more inclined to insist, where they have the power, that conditions
of peace shall be maintained in order that they may receive what
they consider to be the proper returns on their investments. This
insistence they are more and more liable to carry to the point of
actual destruction of the political independence of offending
nations and of direct administration of their government if this is
necessary to the attainment of the ends desired.
It is therefore becoming less and less likely that countries will be
permitted in the future to work out their own salvation through
disorder and revolution, as may have been the case during the past
century with some of the South American countries. Under modern
conditions countries must devise some method of government under
which peace will be maintained or they will have to submit to
foreign control.
china’s needs considered.
The question naturally presents itself: How do these considerations
affect the present political situation of China?
China is a country which has for centuries been accustomed to
autocratic rule. The intelligence of the great mass of its people is
not high owing to the lack of schools. The Chinese have never been
accorded much participation in the work of government. The result is
that the political capacity of the Chinese people is not large. The
change from autocratic to republican government made four years ago
was too violent to permit the entertainment of any very strong hopes
for its immediate success. Had the Tsing dynasty not been an alien
rule which it had long been the wish of the Chinese people to
overthrow, there can be little doubt that it would have been better
to retain the dynasty in power and gradually to introduce
constitutional government in accordance with the plans outlined by
the commission appointed for this purpose. But the hatred of alien
rule made this impossible and the establishment of a republic seemed
at the time of the overthrow of the Manchus to be the only
alternative available.
It cannot, therefore, be doubted that China has during the last few
years been attempting to introduce constitutional government under
less favorable auspices than would have been the case had there been
a royal family present which the people regarded with respect and to
which they were loyal. The great problem of the presidential
succession would seem still to be unsolved. The present arrangement
cannot be regarded as satisfactory. When the present President lays
down the cares of office there is great danger that the difficulties
which are usually incident to the succession in countries
conditioned as is China will present themselves. The attempt to
solve these difficulties may lead to disorders which if long
continued may seriously imperil the independence of the country.
What under these conditions should be the attitude of those who have
the welfare of China at heart? Should they advocate the continuance
of the republic or should they propose the establishment of a
monarchy?
These are difficult questions to answer. It is of course not
susceptible of doubt that a monarchy is better suited than a
republic to China. China’s history and traditions, her social and
economic conditions, her relations with [Page 58] foreign powers all make it probable that the
country would develop that constitutional government which it must
develop if it is to preserve its independence as a State, more
easily as a monarchy than as a republic.
But it is to be remembered that the change from a republic to a
monarchy can be successfully made only on the conditions
- 1st.
- That the change does not meet with such opposition either
on the part of the Chinese people or of foreign Powers as
will lead to the recurrence of the disorders which the
present republican government has successfully put down. The
present peaceful conditions of the country should on no
account be imperiled.
- 2d.
- The change from republic to monarchy would be of little
avail if the law of succession is not so fixed that there
will be no doubt as to the successor. The succession should
not be left to the crown to determine for the reasons which
have already been set forth at length. It is probably of
course true that the authority of an emperor would be more
respected than the authority of a president. The people have
been accustomed to an emperor. They hardly know what a
president is. At the same time it would seem doubtful if the
increase of authority resulting from the change from
president to emperor would be sufficient to justify the
change, if the question of the succession were not so
securely fixed as to permit of no doubt. For this is the one
greatest advantage of the monarchy over the republic.
- 3rd.
- In the third place it is very doubtful whether the change
from republic to monarchy would be of any lasting benefit to
China, if provision is not made for the development under
the monarchy of the form of constitutional government. If
China is to take her proper place among nations greater
patriotism must be developed among the people and the
government must increase in strength in order to resist
foreign aggression. Her people will never develop the
necessary patriotism unless they are given greater
participation in the government than they have had in the
past. The government never will acquire the necessary
strength unless it has the cordial support of the people.
This it will not have unless again the people feel that they
have a part in the government. They must in some way be
brought to think of the government as an organization which
is trying to benefit them and over whose actions they
exercise some control.
Whether the conditions which have been set forth as necessary for
such a change from republic to monarchy as has been suggested are
present, must of course be determined by those who both know the
country and are responsible for its future development. These
conditions are present if there can be little doubt that the change
would be of benefit to the country.
[Inclosure 2.]
The Society for Peace. Chou An Hui.
[From the Peking Gazette, August
16, 1915.]
A number of prominent officials, including Messrs. Yang Tu, Sun
Yu-yun, Yen Fu, General Li Shi-ho and others have promoted a society
under the name Chou An Hui, or the Society for Peace. The following
is a translation of the manifesto:—
During the revolution of 1911 the racial prejudices of our people
were so aroused that their attention was entirely concentrated on
the removal of a certain section of the population and they did not
give the least consideration to the future political affairs of the
country. They hastily adopted the republican form of government
without weighing carefully its suitability for this country. When a
proposal to this effect was made by a few people, others followed
blindly without further questioning its advisability. The farsighted
people at that time foresaw the danger and trouble to the future of
the country, but to prevent dissension and other troubles, which
would have further endangered the existence of the country, were
compelled to accept this proposal though reluctantly. Since the
abdication of the Tsing Imperial House, followed by a period of
anarchy, the régime of the Provisional Government and finally the
establishment of the present Government, there have been numerous
crises in the Government and many unspeakable sufferings of the
people which are still fresh in the memory of every class of our
people. If a proper measure is not devised to remedy the situation,
there will be endless trouble in this country.
[Page 59]
In such countries as Argentine, Peru, Chile and other Republics in
South and Central America, party feuds have been the order of the
day, and such quarrels frequently culminated in civil war. In
Portugal the recent change of Government from a monarchy to a
republic has been immediately followed by deadly internecine strife
and the worst case of all is in Mexico. Since the abdication of
Diaz, that country has been seething with civil strife till the
present day. Their party leaders have struggled for supremacy with
one another with military force. When they win they occupy the land
and when they are defeated they never scruple to commit looting,
incendiarism and massacre. Finally the whole nation is divided into
five camps with as many presidents, and the country is practically
in a state of anarchy. As we are a newly established republic, we
should take Mexico as our object lesson.
The United States of America is the senior republic of the world and
her great student of politics, Dr. Goodnow, has stated that a
monarchy is a better form of government than republicanism and
according to his opinion, a monarchical form of government is most
indispensable for China at present. This view has been shared by not
a few notable scholars of other countries. As Dr. Goodnow is a
citizen of a republic, he is more competent to make such a statement
than others. His words are,
the conditions are different in China and
America and it is impossible to transplant one system from
one country to another.
If foreigners who are in sympathy with China have so openly and
loudly laid before us their unprejudiced views, can we people of
China leave everything to fate, raising not a hand to find a
fundamental solution for this important problem? Where is your
patriotism? Where is your duty as a citizen to the country, if you,
for fear of adverse criticism or other dangers, remain silent and
indecisive?
As we are the people of this country, the prosperity or decline of
this country is nothing less than the prosperity or decline of
ourselves. Therefore we cannot bear to sit silent and see the
country being obliterated out of existence without making any
attempt to save it. We have therefore gathered a number of our
sympathizers and started this society with a view to devising means
for keeping peace in this country. We shall each give our views
concerning the future of our country and the advantages and
disadvantages accruing from the republican form of government for
general discussion. There are not a few wise and farsighted people
in this country, and if they are kind enough to condescend to join
us in the discussion of these points, we shall extend them our
heartiest welcome.
-
Yang Tu,
-
Sun Yu-yun,
-
Yen Fuh,
-
Liu Shih-pei,
-
Li Hsi-Ho,
-
Hu Ying.
Promoters.
[Inclosure 3.]
A statement by Dr. Goodnow.
[From the
Peking Gazette of August 18,
1915.]
The following statement of views expressed by Dr. Goodnow in an
interview which we had with him yesterday, defines his attitude on
the subject of a monarchical restoration in China in terms which
forbid the further citation of his name in support of the thesis
that “a monarchical system of government is better than a republican
system.” It is also clear that Dr. Goodnow cannot be cited as an
authority for the proposition that a monarchical form of government
is most indispensable at present in China in the sense suggested by
the Chou An Hui in the manifesto published in our issue last Monday.
In the interests of clear thinking and of the national welfare, it
is to be hoped that this exceedingly grave and anxious question will
be discussed with care and with exact knowledge of the principles
and all the facts involved, bearing in mind the possibility—if not
the probability—of the proposed change reacting with disastrous
effect on the foundations of the State.
Referring to the leading article which appeared in these columns on
Monday, Dr. Goodnow stated that the statement attributed to him to
the effect that “a monarchical system of government is better than a
republican system,” [Page 60] which we
had quoted from the manifesto of the newly formed Chou An Hui or
Society for Peace was not a correct statement either of anything
that he has said or of his views. Dr. Goodnow declared that he not
only had never made such a statement, but, on the contrary, he was
of the opinion that no form of government could be said to be
superior under all conditions to other forms of government. He
believed that for some countries—where the conditions were
favorable—a republican form of government was the best form of
government. This was true of the United States and France. In these
countries the grade of intelligence of the people was high, owing to
the long continued existence of schools, and the people themselves
had for many years participated in the work of government and,
through this participation, they had learned the lesson of
self-government. On the other hand it was just as true, he thought,
that a monarchy was often better suited for countries where the
conditions were different from those obtaining in the United States
and France.
Dr. Goodnow also expressed it as his opinion that conditions in China
made difficult the orderly development of republican government;
because, among other things, of the general lack of knowledge of the
people and their long subjection to autocratic rule, tie said that
from some points of view it had been unfortunate that China could
not have carried further the experiment—begun by the Manchus—of
developing gradually constitutional government under a monarchy, but
that probably under the conditions existing after the revolution,
the establishment of a republic was unavoidable.
When asked his opinion as to the expediency of re-establishing a
monarchy in China in the near future, he said that the change could
be justified only because under a monarchy the question of the
succession to the executive power, the most dangerous question in
republics, might possibly be more satisfactorily solved than was
probable under any sort of republican government which was likely to
be established in this country. The settlement of this question had
often, particularly in some of the South and Central America States,
led to civil war which had as its result the worst form of
government known, viz, that of the military dictator. Chinese could
not afford to permit civil war or great disorder, as this would
almost certainly lead to foreign intervention with the probable loss
of political independence.
And, speaking slowly and with care, he added that because of these
considerations, a monarchical restoration in China would be
justified, in his opinion, only on condition
- (a)
- That the change be acceptable both to the thinking people
of China and to the foreign Powers in order that it might
not meet with such opposition as would lead to
disorder;
- (b)
- That the succession to the throne be so fixed that no
doubt could arise on the death of the monarch as to who
would succeed. If we might judge from European experience,
the only proper method of fixing the succession was to give
it to the eldest son of the monarch or in default of sons to
the eldest nearest male relative;
- (c)
- That the monarchy established be a limited constitutional
monarchy, which, while for the moment vesting large powers
in the Crown, would permit of the gradual development of
greater popular government. The re-establishment of the
former autocratic monarchy in China could not be regarded as
promising any improvement over present conditions.
When asked whether these conditions could be met at present in China,
Dr. Goodnow said that he did not know enough about the country or of
Chinese opinion to be able to express an opinion of any value and
must therefore leave that question to be answered by those who did
know China’s conditions and were responsible for her destinies.
