Democratic principles were enunciated by Chinese philosophers as long
ago as 4,500 years, and from time to time various emperors and
statesmen have endeavored to apply them to the government of China, but
these principles in all their minute details have been exemplified only
by the wisdom of the statesmen in the West. In the United States they
are in full swing. As China has now become a Republic, not in name
only but in fact, it will be well for her statesmen and politicians to
examine the American constitution, and to study its workings. To do
this at close range it will be necessary for the student to visit
Washington, the Capital of the United States of America. Here he will
find the President, or the chief of the nation. With the co-operation
of his Cabinet and a large staff of assistants, the President
administers the affairs of the Federal Government. He may be a new man
and have had no previous training in diplomacy, and little
administrative experience, but in all probability he is a man of
resource and adaptability, who has mastered every detail of his high
office. All important matters are referred to him, so that his daily
work taxes his whole strength and energy. Another part of his function
is to see the Congressmen, Senators, or Representatives, and others who
call to see him on business, and this takes up a great part of his
time. In fact, he is expected to be, and generally is, 'Suaviter in
modo, fortiter in re'.
In Washington the National Congress, which is composed of the Senate
and of the House of Representatives, holds its sittings in the Capitol,
and passes bills subject to the approval of the President. If he signs
a bill it becomes law, and binds the nation. The basic principle of
democracy is the sovereignty of the people, but as the people cannot of
themselves govern the country, they must delegate their power to agents
who act for them. Thus they elect the Chief Magistrate to govern the
country, and legislators to make the laws. The powers given to these
agents are irrevocable during their respective terms of office. The
electors are absolutely bound by their actions. Whatever laws Congress
may pass, the people must strictly obey; thus the servants of the
people really become their masters. There is no fear, however, that
their masters pro tempore will betray their trust, as any neglect of
duty on their part, or disregard of the wishes of their constituents,
would most likely destroy their chances of re-election.
According to the terms of the Constitution, the senators and
representatives must be residents of the states for which they are
chosen. This is an excellent provision, insuring that the people's
delegates possess local knowledge and know how to safeguard the
interests and welfare of the states which sent them to Washington. On
the other hand, as each state, irrespective of its size, is entitled to
elect only two Senators, and to send only a limited number of
Representatives to the House, proportionally to its population,
unfortunately it frequently happens that eminent, capable, and
well-known public men, of large experience, are deprived of an
opportunity to serve their country. In England, and in some other
lands, the electors may choose as their representative a resident of
any city, borough, or county as they please, and it only occasionally
happens that the member of Parliament actually lives in the district
which he represents. Is it advisable to adopt a similar system in the
United States? It could not be done without amending the Constitution,
and this would not be easy; but every nation, as well as each
individual, should be prepared, at all times, to receive fresh light,
and be willing to change old customs to suit new conditions, and so I
make the suggestion.
The fixing of four years as the term of office for the President was an
excellent idea, intended no doubt to prevent an unpopular or bad
President from remaining too long in power. It is, however, gradually
dawning on the minds of intelligent people that this limited term,
though excellent in theory, is very inconvenient in practice. However
intelligent and capable a new President may be, several months must
elapse before he can thoroughly understand all the details incidental
to his exalted position, involving, in addition to unavoidable social
functions, the daily reception of callers, and many other multifarious
duties. By the time he has become familiar with these matters, and the
work of the office is running smoothly, half of his term has gone; and
should he aspire to a second term, which is quite natural, he must
devote a great deal of time and attention to electioneering. Four
years is plainly too short a period to give any President a chance to
do justice either to himself or to the nation which entrusted him with
his heavy responsibilities. Presidential elections are national
necessities, but the less frequently they occur the better for the
general welfare of the country. Those who have been in the United
States during campaign years, and have seen the complicated working of
the political machinery, and all its serious consequences, will, I feel
convinced, agree with what I say. During the greater part of the year
in which a President has to be elected the entire nation is absorbed in
the event, all the people, both high and low, being more or less keenly
interested in the issue, and the preparations leading up to it. They
seem to put everything else in the shade, and to give more attention to
this than to anything else. Politicians and officials who have a
personal interest in the result, will devote their whole time and
energy to the work. Others who are less active, still, directly or
indirectly, take their share in the electioneering. Campaign funds
have to be raised and large sums of money are disbursed in many
directions. All this sadly interrupts business; it not only takes many
business men from their more legitimate duties, but it prevents
merchants and large corporations from embarking in new enterprises, and
so incidentally limits the demand for labor. In short, the whole
nation is practically hurled into a state of bustle and excitement, and
the general trade of the country is seriously affected. A young man in
Washington, who was engaged to be married, once told me that he was too
busy to think of marriage until the election was over.
If the French system were followed, and the President were elected by a
majority of the combined votes of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, the inconveniences, the excitements and expense above
enumerated might be avoided, but I think the people of America would
rather endure these evils than be deprived of the pleasure of electing
their President themselves. The alternate remedy, so far as I can see,
is to extend the presidential term to, say, six or seven years, without
any chance of a re-election. If this proposal were adopted, the
President would be more free and independent, he would not be haunted
by the bugbear of losing his position by temporarily displeasing his
political friends, he could give his undivided attention, as he cannot
do now, to federal affairs, and work without bias or fear, and without
interruption, for the welfare of his nation. He would have more chance
of really doing something for his country which was worth while. A
further advantage is that the country would not be so frequently
troubled with the turmoil and excitement arising from the presidential
election. If I were allowed to prophecy, I should say that the young
Republic of China, profiting by the experiences of France and America,
will most likely adopt the French system of electing its President, or
develop a system somewhat similar to it.
One of the defects in the American way of government is the spoils
system, in accordance with the maxim, "To the victor belongs the
spoils." The new President has the right of dismissing a large number
of the holders of Federal Offices, and to appoint in their places his
friends, or men of his party who have rendered it services, or who have
otherwise been instrumental in getting him elected. I am told that
thousands of officials are turned out in this way every four years.
President Jackson introduced the practice, and almost every succeeding
President has continued it. This spoils system has been adopted by
almost every state and municipality; it forms indeed the corner-stone
of practical politics in the United States. In every country, all over
the world, there are cases where positions and places of emolument have
been obtained through influential friends, but to dismiss public
servants who are doing useful work, for no better reason than simply to
make room for others, is very bad for the civil service, and for the
country it serves. Attempts to remedy these evils have been made
within recent years by the introduction of what is called "Civil
Service Reform", by which a candidate is appointed to a post after an
examination, and the term of his service is fixed. If this is to be
strictly adhered to in all cases, the President will be, to a great
extent, deprived of the means of rewarding his political friends. In
that case I doubt if the professional politicians and wire pullers will
be so active and arduous as they have hitherto been, as the chief aim
in securing the election of the nominee will have been taken away.
Great credit is due to President Taft for his courage and impartiality,
in that after assuming the duties of the high office to which he was
elected, he gave appointments to men according to their ability,
irrespective of party claims, and even went so far as to invite one or
two gentlemen of known ability, who belonged to the opposite party, to
become members of his Cabinet.
In America men are not anxious for official offices. Men possessing
talent and ability, with business acumen, are in great demand, and can
distinguish themselves in their several professions in various ways;
they can easily attain a position of wealth and influence, and so such
men keep out of politics. It must not, however, be inferred from this
that the government officials in America are incompetent. On the
contrary I gladly testify from my personal experience that the work
done by them is not only efficient, but that, taken as a whole, they
compare most favorably with any other body of government officials in
Europe. Still, on account of the small salaries paid, it is not to be
wondered at that exceptionally good men cannot be induced to accept
official positions. I have known several Cabinet Ministers who, after
holding their offices for two or three years, were obliged to resign
and resume their former business, and a President has been known to
experience great difficulty in getting good and competent men to
succeed them.
These remarks do not apply to the President, not because the
President's salary is large, for compared with what European Kings and
Emperors receive it is very small, but because the position is, far and
above any other, the largest gift the people can bestow. No one has
ever been known to refuse a presidential nomination. I believe anyone
to whom it was offered would always gladly accept it. I have conversed
with some in America who told me that they were heirs apparent to the
White House, and so they are, for they are just as eligible candidates
for the position, as is the Crown Prince to succeed to a throne in any
European country. Even a lady was once nominated as a presidential
candidate, although she did not obtain many votes.
One of the things which arouses my admiration is the due observance by
the people of the existing laws and the Constitution. Every one obeys
them, from the President to the pedler, without any exception.
Sometimes, however, by a too strict and technical interpretation of the
law, it works a hardship. Let me quote a case. According to Article
1, Section 6, of the Constitution, "no Senator or Representative shall,
during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil
office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been
created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased, during
such time." A certain Senator was appointed by the President to a
Cabinet office, but it happened that the salary attached to that office
had been raised during the time he was in the Senate, and so it was
held that he could draw only the salary which was allowed before he
became a Senator, and that he was not entitled to the increase which
was sanctioned by Congress while he was in the Senate, although at the
time he had not the slightest notion that the increase would ever
affect his own pocket.
The relation of the states to the Federal Government is peculiar and
unique. I will illustrate my point by correcting a mistake often made
by foreigners in regard to the different provinces of China. It is
generally assumed by Western writers that each province in China is
self-governed, and that the provincial authorities act independently
and in defiance of the injunctions of the Peking Government. The
facts, however, are that until the establishment of the Republic, all
the officials in the Provinces were appointed or sanctioned by the
Peking Government, and that by an Imperial decree even a Viceroy or
Governor could, at any moment, be changed or dismissed, and that no
important matter could be transacted without the Imperial sanction.
How does this compare with the states in America? Every American
boasts that his state is independent of the Federal Government. All
officials, from the Governor downward, are, in every state, elected by
the people. Each state is provided with a Legislature consisting of a
Senate and a House of Representatives, also elected by the popular
vote. The state has very large, and almost absolute, legislative and
executive powers, and is competent to deal with all matters not
reserved by the Constitution for the Federal Government. Each state is
also independent of every other state. The criminal and civil laws,
including all matters pertaining to the transfer of and the succession
to property, as well as marriage, divorce and fiscal laws, are within
the scope of the state administrations. The authorities of each state
naturally do their best to make their own state as populous and
prosperous as possible. Thus in some states the laws concerning
divorce, corporations, and landed property, are more favorable than in
other states. A person, for example, unable to obtain a divorce in his
own state, can, without difficulty, attain his object in another state.
What is expressly prohibited by statute in one state may be perfectly
legitimate in the neighboring state. It is the same with the local
taxes; fees and taxes are not uniform; in one state they are heavy,
while in another they are comparatively light. A stranger would
naturally be surprised to find such a condition of things in a great
nation like America, and would wonder how the machinery of such a
government can work so well. Nevertheless he will find that everything
goes on smoothly. This can be explained only by the fact that the
inhabitants of one state often remove to other states, and by
commercial and other dealings and social associations they mix
together, so that, notwithstanding the dissimilarity of conditions in
different states, the people easily adapt themselves to the local
surroundings, and, so far as I can find, no friction or quarrel has
ever arisen between two states. However, would it not be better for
all the states to appoint an interstate committee to revise and codify
their laws with a view to making them uniform?
Foreigners living in America sometimes find themselves at a
disadvantage, owing to the state being independent of the control of
the Federal Government. This point can be better illustrated by a case
which happened some years ago in one of the states. A foreigner, who
was the subject of a European country, was attacked by a mob, and his
property destroyed. He laid his complaint before the local
authorities, but it appeared that he could not obtain the redress he
sought. His consul did all he could for him by appealing to the local
authorities, but without success; finally the matter was reported to
his ambassador in Washington, who immediately interested himself in the
affair and brought it before the Secretary of State. The Secretary,
after going into the facts of the case, said that all he could do was
to write to the Governor of that state and request him to take the
matter up, but the Governor, for some reason or other, did not take any
such action as would have given satisfactory redress to the foreigner.
His ambassador made frequent appeals to the Secretary of State, but the
Secretary was powerless, as the Constitution does not empower the
Federal Government to interfere in state matters. This seems a blemish
in the administration of foreign affairs in the United States of
America. Suppose a foreigner should be ill-treated or murdered in a
state, and no proper redress be given, the Federal Government cannot
send its officers to arrest the culprit. All it can do is to ask the
Governor of that state to take action, and if he fail to do so there is
no remedy. Fortunately such a case rarely happens, but for the more
efficient carrying on of their state affairs, is it not better in
special cases to invest the Federal Government with larger powers than
those at present possessed by it? I am aware that this opens up a
serious question; that Congress will be very reluctant to confer on the
Federal Government any power to interfere in the state affairs, knowing
that the states would not tolerate such an interference; but as there
is a large and ever increasing number of aliens residing in the United
States, it naturally follows that riots, and charges of ill treatment
of foreigners now and then do occur. Now state officials can, as a
rule, be trusted to deal with these matters fairly, but where local
prejudice against a class of aliens runs high, is it not advisable to
leave to the Federal officials, who are disinterested, the settlement
of such cases? For the sake of cordial foreign relations, and to avoid
international complications, this point, I venture to suggest, should
be seriously considered by the Federal and the State Governments.
The question as to what form of government should be adopted by any
country is not easy to decide. The people of America would no doubt
claim that their system is the best, while the people of the monarchial
governments in Europe would maintain that theirs is preferable. This
is mostly a matter of education, and people who have been accustomed to
their own form of government naturally like it best. There are
communities who have been long accustomed to the old system of
monarchial government, with their ancient traditions and usages. There
are other communities, with a different political atmosphere, where all
the people share in the public affairs of State. It would be
manifestly improper to introduce a democratic government among the
former. It would not suit their tastes nor fit in with their ideas.
What is good for one nation is not necessarily good for another. Each
system of government has its good points, provided that they are
faithfully and justly carried out. The aim to secure the happiness and
comfort of the people and to promote the peace and prosperity of the
nation should always be kept in view. As long as these objects can be
secured it does not matter much whether the government is monarchial,
republican, or something else.
It may pertinently be asked why China has become a Republic, since from
time immemorial she has had a monarchial form of government. The
answer is that the conditions and circumstances in China are peculiar,
and are different from those prevailing in Japan and other countries.
In Japan it is claimed that the Empire was founded by the first
Emperor, Jummu Tenno, 660 B.C. and that the dynasty founded by him has
continued ever since. It is well known that the Chinese Imperial
family is of Manchu origin. The Ching dynasty was founded in 1644 by
conquest, not by succession. Upon the recent overthrow of the Manchu
dynasty it was found very difficult to find a Chinese, however popular
and able, who possessed the legal right of succeeding to the throne.
Jealousy and provincial feelings placed this suggestion absolutely
beyond discussion. Disagreements, frictions, and constant civil war
would have ensued if any attempt had been made to establish a Chinese
dynasty. Another fact is that a large majority of the intelligent
people of China were disgusted with the system of monarchial
government. Thus it will be seen that for the sake of the peace and
welfare of the nation there was no other course for the people but to
take a long jump and to establish the present Republic. The law of
evolution has been very actively at work in China, and no doubt it will
be for her ultimate good, and therefore for the benefit of all mankind.
China is now an infant republic, but she will grow into a healthy and
strong youth. Her people have the kindest feeling for the people of
the elder republic across the Pacific. There are excellent reasons why
the two republics should be in closer friendship. It is well known
that there are great potentialities for the expansion of trade in
China, and as the Philippine Islands are close to our shores, and the
completion of the Panama Canal will open a new avenue for the
enlargement of trade from America, it will be to the interest of both
nations to stretch out their hands across the Pacific in the clasp of
good fellowship and brotherhood. When this is done, not only will
international commerce greatly increase, but peace, at least in the
Eastern Hemisphere, will be better secured than by a fleet of
Dreadnaughts.