If every President will do likewise this system can be used without fear of a break for hundreds of years. Otherwise we will have only the Imperial system on paper to rely on for assistance, which is not even to be thought of. A glance through the pages of Chinese history will show the numerous cases in the reign of Emperors when princes fought in the very confines of the Emperor's palace while the corpse of their royal father lay unburied in the hall. Thus it is seen that the hidden cause of the safety or otherwise of the country does not lie with the mere formality of a constitution either in a republic or a monarchy. VII. THE CASE OF DIAZ, THE DICTATOR The critics bring up the example of Mexico where live rivals have been struggling with each other for the presidency, and the internal confusion 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?