The Unfinished Constitutional Road: Guo Songtao, Song Jiaoren, and Chen Jiongming on State-Building and the Historical Boundaries of Chinese Federalism ｜ Research Paper v1.66

v1.66 ｜ 2026-10-15

The Unfinished Constitutional Road: Guo Songtao, Song Jiaoren, and Chen Jiongming on State-Building and the Historical Boundaries of Chinese Federalism

Abstract

English Abstract: The history of modern Chinese constitutional thought cannot be written as a linear progression from late-Qing enlightenment to Republican-era federalism. Guo Songtao, Song Jiaoren, and Chen Jiongming addressed different problems — institutional learning, parliamentary responsible government, and local self-government — with different political questions, institutional instruments, and bases of real power. This paper places the three within a three-axis framework of state capacity, democratic accountability, and local autonomy, comparing original texts, party platforms, and Guangdong’s self-government practice, with the 1923 Constitution as a subsequent institutionalization case. It argues that a unified state and constitutionally guaranteed local autonomy are not logically opposed; but without parliamentary oversight, an independent judiciary, an enforceable fiscal division, and constraints on military power, neither centralization nor decentralization in name can deliver constitutionalism.

Keywords: Guo Songtao; Song Jiaoren; Chen Jiongming; local self-government; responsible cabinet; federalism; state capacity

摘要 (Chinese Abstract)

近代中国宪政思想的历史不能写成从晚清启蒙到民国联邦主义的直线进步史。郭嵩焘、宋教仁和陈炯明虽然分别关注制度学习、议会责任政府及地方自治，但三人的政治问题、可用制度工具和现实权力基础不同。本文将他们置于”国家能力—民主问责—地方自治”的三轴框架，比较原始思想文本、政治纲领与广东自治实践，并以1923年宪法作为后续制度化的比较案例。本文主张：统一国家和受保障的地方自治并非逻辑对立；但如果缺乏议会监督、独立司法、可执行的财政划分及军权约束，任何中央集权或地方分权的名义都不足以实现宪政。

关键词： 郭嵩焘；宋教仁；陈炯明；地方自治；责任内阁；联邦主义；国家能力

I. Research Questions and Conceptual Method

Political reformers of the late Qing and early Republic faced three interrelated but distinct problems. First, how can the state learn institutions capable of continuously providing education, commercial order, justice, and administrative services? Second, how can the central government handle nationwide affairs in a unified manner without becoming a personal power unconstrained by parliament? Third, how can local society obtain legislative, fiscal, and organizational autonomy rights that can actually be exercised, rather than degenerating into appendages controlled by warlords? Guo, Song, and Chen each offered different entry points.

This paper avoids directly equating “decentralization” with “federalism.” Federalism concerns constitutionally guaranteed multi-level authority and institutional adjudication; local self-government can exist within a unified state framework; administrative decentralization may merely be the delegation of execution from superiors to subordinates. Evaluating historical figures cannot stop at counting whether they used the word “self-government”; one must examine how they arranged legislative, executive, fiscal, and military powers, and dispute resolution, between center and locality.

Methodologically, four levels of evidence are distinguished: the author’s own or contemporary public texts, formal legal designs, records of institutional implementation, and observable outcomes. Later recollections, compiled editions, and online transcriptions can help locate materials, but their versions and evidentiary grades must be made explicit. This paper neither deduces from someone’s failure that their institutional claims were necessarily wrong, nor deduces from someone’s idealized language that their victory would necessarily have brought democracy.

The Institutional Boundaries of the 1911 Ezhou Provisional Constitution: A Comparative Reference, Not a Lineage

To compare Guo Songtao, Song Jiaoren, and Chen Jiongming, one must first explain how late-Qing institutional observation was transformed into constitutional questions that could be written about in the early Republic, without fabricating a direct lineage among the three. Article 3 of the electronic transcription of the 1911 Provisional Constitution of the Republic of China at Ezhou placed the future national constitution above the provisional Ezhou law, while permitting a separate Ezhou constitution under the recognition of the Republic of China. This is a concrete textual example of a revolutionary transitional regime attempting to handle national unity and local constitution-making, but it is neither an established federal distribution of sovereignty nor sufficient to prove that Song Jiaoren participated in drafting it or that Chen Jiongming later designed the Guangdong provincial constitution on its basis. [38]

Article 23 of the same transcription permitted the military governor (dudu) to exercise legislation provisionally when parliament had not yet convened; Article 25 provided a separate emergency substitute for statutes by executive order with subsequent ratification; Articles 37–38 required budgets, public debts, and extraordinary fiscal dispositions to accept parliamentary supervision before or after the fact. Here a temporal gap in the institutional design appeared: emergency executive power could be exercised immediately, while parliament, under Article 2, might not be established until within three months after implementation. This makes it possible to pose the falsifiable question of whether legal promises can bind the executive before the fiscal oversight organ has even formed — but one cannot assert that these organs had already been established or that supervision had actually worked. Compared with the national parliamentary responsible government discussed by Song Jiaoren and the provincial budgets and county self-government of Chen Jiongming’s era, the Ezhou text provides a structural precedent in terms of the problem, not a verified chain of influence. [38]

II. Guo Songtao: Institutional Knowledge, Not a Ready-Made Federal Blueprint

During his diplomatic mission, Guo Songtao recorded Western schools, commerce, administrative procedures, and judicial organization, extending the discussion of “national wealth and strength” from armaments and artifacts to social institutions and everyday governance. The significance of his comparison lies in the insight that state capacity depends not only on the will of rulers but also on public rules that can be observed, learned, and replicated. The institutionalization of education, trade, and bureaucratic behavior is the condition for the long-term accumulation of administrative capacity. [1]

But Guo’s observations should not be directly translated into modern democratic theory. His records of Hong Kong administration and prisons in A Record of the Journey to the West (Shi Xi Ji Cheng) show attention to order and procedure alongside accounts of forced labor, discipline, and corporal punishment. Historical research should distinguish what the author saw with his own eyes, information provided by colonial officials, and the author’s own evaluations. Tidy administrative procedures do not mean that those under their jurisdiction possessed equal rights in the modern sense. Guo’s institutional comparison reveals the technical and organizational problems of state governance, but it did not produce a federal constitutional draft reserving original sovereignty to the provinces.

Guo’s relationship to the later Song and Chen is therefore better framed as “facing common institutional problems” than as presumed intellectual lineage in the absence of letters, reading, or citation evidence. The 1897 Chengdu Zhigutang edition of Guo Shilang’s Record of the Journey to the West (Guo Shilang Shi Xi Ji Cheng) and the Guangxu-era Tiexiangshi edition have been located, but the relevant chapters still require page-by-page collation across editions. This paper does not cite precise page numbers that have not been verified. [1]

The asymmetry of the three sections is a deliberate methodological arrangement. Guo Songtao functions in this comparison as the “source of problem awareness” rather than the “designer of a constitutional scheme”: he left no parliamentary-cabinet party platform or provincial constitution draft, and his contribution was to move the question of state capacity from the level of artifacts to the level of observable, learnable public institutions. The fine-grained textual comparison of Song and Chen that follows is precisely meant to test in which institutional designs this problem awareness found a response, and where it was dissolved by military-political realities. To write Guo as the “forerunner” of Song and Chen commits the same retrospective error as writing the three into a “federalist genealogy.”

Background Supplement: The Institutional-Type Boundaries of the 1898 Southern Study Society

The deliberative, lecture, and public-organization arrangements of the 1898 Hunan Southern Study Society (Nán Xuéhuì) help observe the emergence of a local public sphere, but they should not be directly folded into Guo Songtao’s personal thought system. The newly located No. 35 issue of the original Xiang Bao carries the Twenty-Eight Articles of the General Regulations of the Southern Study Society; its text occupies original pages 277–279, with the title and article numbers visible on the facsimile pages. What is obtained here is contemporaneous printed evidence of a society’s charter, not a founding decree of a local parliament or provincial self-government. Its internal procedures, members’ obligations, and educational affairs should be analyzed separately from statutory fiscal powers, official appointment powers, and judicial remedies. The original-issue images can directly confirm the text’s existence and the distribution of article numbers; verbatim quotation, the complete legal meaning of each article, and their enforcement effects still require separate collation. [23]

The original-issue location of Xiang Bao No. 35 has now been corrected from a digital volume misattribution: National Library digital file NLC511-012031312030004-21069, catalogued as “Volume 11,” is in fact “Xiang Bao No. 35” as marked on the masthead; four facsimile spreads, original pages 274–281, with page 277 carrying the charter title and Articles 1–6, page 278 Articles 7–23, and page 279 Articles 24–28. The date of this issue is still provisionally given as “the 25th day of the third month of the 24th year of Guangxu” as cited by Zuo Yuhe, a Grade-B source, pending verification against the newspaper masthead date. The facsimile location and article numbering constitute this round’s Grade-A original-issue visual verification, which is insufficient to automatically presume that every character has been precisely collated. [23]

The historical value of the Southern Study Society charter should be examined at three levels. First, whether the charter specifies membership categories, deliberative procedures, and discussion mechanisms for public affairs; second, whether local authorities approved, funded, or restricted the organization; third, whether the organization could make legally binding decisions on local budgets, administrative appointments, or police power. Even if the first level — internal society procedures — borrowed the vocabulary of “deliberation,” it is insufficient to prove that Hunan had produced a statutory local parliament. Compared with Song Jiaoren’s national parliamentary responsibility system and the provincial constitution drafts of Chen Jiongming’s era, the Southern Study Society belongs to a different legal tier. Comparing the three can reveal the possibility of gradually enriching participatory institutions, but in the absence of transmission chains, letters, or reading evidence, it is inadvisable to construct a direct intellectual genealogy among Guo, Song, and Chen on this basis.

This original issue changes the argument’s evidentiary structure but not its legal classification: the 28 article numbers of the Southern Study Society charter do constitute a contemporaneous textual object of society self-organization, so one can study how local knowledge networks established internal rules through charters, members, and school relations; but the original issue did not thereby produce enforceable provincial-county tax divisions, statutory budget vetoes, or judicial supervision of officials. From society rules to constitutional local self-government, at least four links of proof are missing: state authorization, fiscal resources, dispute adjudication, and actual enforcement. This paper lists the Southern Study Society as a pre-history comparison of “the institutionalization of social organization,” not as Guo Songtao’s personal federalist claim, and certainly not as writing the 1898 charter retroactively into a precedent for the 1920s provincial-constitution movement.

The correction of the original-issue catalogue error is closed, but collation is not. The previously misattributed file NLC511-012031312030004-21172, digitally “Volume 35,” actually contains masthead “No. 59,” original pages 506–515, and is insufficient to prove the No. 35 charter. The true target is the digital “Volume 11” of NLC511-012031312030004-21069: all four images have been opened, and the masthead’s No. 35 corresponds to the Twenty-Eight Articles of the General Regulations of the Southern Study Society on pages 277–279. The historical charter is now corrected from “0/28 articles located in original issue” to “28/28 article positions verified; 0/28 articles fully collated verbatim,” avoiding the error of writing visible article numbers as if all articles had been accurately transcribed. The next step is independent double transcription of each article from the original issue, collating variant characters and punctuation, and comparing with later editions. [22][23]

The political significance of the charter’s publication must also be separated from the “assembly” (yiyuan) conception of the time. Mao Haijian, citing Pi Xirui’s diary and related Xiang Bao reports, notes that Liang Qichao, Huang Zunxian, and others envisioned building a deliberative public space through the Southern Study Society, but the organization supported by Chen Baozhen actually focused on lectures, member networking, and public knowledge dissemination; on April 14–16, 1898, the Xiang Bao published in succession the Twelve Approximate Articles of the Southern Study Society, the Twenty-Eight Articles of the General Regulations of the Southern Study Society, and the Twelve Articles of Membership Regulations of the Southern Study Society. This secondary historical argument forms a cross-cutting clue with the located No. 35 charter, but it cannot substitute for verbatim original-issue collation of Articles 1–28. In particular, one should not equate channels through which gentry discussed local affairs and submitted proposals to the governor with representative organs possessing statutory budget vetoes, voter authorization, and compulsory supervision; the “assembly scale” was first a political conception, while charter authorization and enforcement outcomes are two other categories of fact. No direct influence of Guo Songtao on the Southern Study Society is presumed here.

III. Song Jiaoren: Parliamentary Responsibility and Statutory Autonomy within a Unified State

Song Jiaoren’s early-Republic era made national unity, party competition, and constraints on executive power simultaneous practical problems. The later collated edition of the Kuomintang party platform carried in the April 1913 Minli Bao explicitly stated the polity goal as a “unitary system” (danyi guozhi), while advocating a responsible cabinet, a premier nominated by the House of Representatives, provincial chief executives transitioning gradually from provisional popular election to appointment, and provinces as self-governing bodies (zizhi tuanti) possessing enumerated local legislative powers. [2] This was not a claim for a league constituted by the original sovereignty of the provinces.

The institutional distinctiveness of this scheme lies in distinguishing “local official rule” (difang guanzhi) from “local self-government” (difang zizhi). The center could assign administrative tasks to provincial officials, but self-governing bodies handling local finance, industry, public works, transportation, schools, and charitable public-welfare matters needed clear legal authority. The platform emphasized the classification of central and local affairs, and required national versus local expenditures and national versus local taxes to correspond. Song’s self-government conception was thus not limited to elections, but included expenditure responsibility and fiscal foundations for public services. [2]

The responsible cabinet is the other key link. If the premier is supported by a parliamentary majority and responsible to parliament, the head of government cannot sustain a government on personal prestige alone. The problem is that such an arrangement requires the credibility of parliamentary elections, party organizational discipline, and a legal order capable of constraining armed force. The platform itself could not guarantee that the military would accept the parliamentary majority and cabinet decisions. Song’s political failure is related to this institutional environment, but one cannot deduce from the fact of failure that all his institutional ideas were unfeasible.

Questions of Attribution and Version for the 1913 Text

The editor’s note on pages 36–42 of Volume 2 of the Complete Works of the National Father (Guofu Quanshu) in the Sun Yat-sen Academic Database states that the base text was the Minli Bao of April 2–7, 1913, originally titled Announcement of Mr. Song Dun-chu’s Draft of the Kuomintang’s Grand Political Views, and that the May issue of The National Monthly (Guomin Yuekan) carried it under the title Mr. Song Dun-chu’s Grand Political Views. [2] This proves that the editors possessed source clues from contemporary newspapers attributing the platform’s drafting to Song — more valuable as historical evidence than mere later recollection; but the original-issue facsimiles have not yet been read issue by issue, so one should not treat every editorial emendation as the original newspaper’s appearance.

The editorial note of this edited edition also reveals differences between the original publication and later editions: for example, the original text and The National Monthly both read “twice the work, half the result” (shi bei gong ban), while the edited edition emended it on the basis of a later edition to “half the work, twice the result” (shi ban gong bei); there are moved positions and added or deleted characters in enumerated items, and a concluding paragraph missing from The National Monthly edition. Research should therefore judge two different propositions separately: “the platform’s core institutional claims are identifiable” and “every character of the original publication has been collated.” This paper uses the source only at the first level; precise wording remains subject to collation requirements.

Between drafting and publication there is also a temporal gap that cannot be ignored: Song Jiaoren died on March 22, 1913, while the Minli Bao serialization of April 2–7 and The National Monthly‘s May publication both occurred after his death. Xu Xue’er’s A Brief Biography of Mr. Song Jiaoren, as cited in later compilations, claims that Song dictated the platform, Xu recorded it, and it was to be submitted to party headquarters for discussion before publication; this testimony has only completed early compilation location and has not yet been verified character by character against the 1913 original’s page images. If confirmed by the original text, it would point to at least four distinct textual acts to be kept separate: Song’s conception and dictation, Xu’s transcription, Song’s limited revision, and posthumous editing and party publication. Thus “drafted by Song Jiaoren” can serve as a provisional attribution supported by contemporary bylines, while “every character of the April 1913 edition was finally approved by Song” cannot stand as an established fact. In particular, one cannot automatically equate every political phrase in the posthumous edition with Song’s final draft before death simply because the posthumous edition contains unitary-system and provincial-autonomy clauses. This paper still works within B+ collated sources and Grade-B citations; the original Minli Bao and the page images of Xu Xue’er’s Brief Biography await verification. [2][24]

The August 1912 party-founding platform and the April 1913 post-election political-views declaration should first be treated as two sets of materials from different times with different functions, not as one continuous personal work of Song Jiaoren. Page 632 of Volume 1 of the Chronological Biography of the National Father (Guofu Nianpu) records that the five-point party platform circulated to the branches on August 14 simultaneously proposed maintaining political unity and developing local self-government; its basis is Zou Lu’s Draft History of the Kuomintang of China (Zhongguo Guomindang Shigao), Part 1, pages 124–125. This record suffices to show that unity and self-government stood side by side in the party-founding language, but the chronological biography is a later compiled historical source and cannot substitute for the original August 1912 circular and convention records. [34]

The later collated edition of the April 1913 Kuomintang Political Views Declaration then expands this side-by-side principle into a threefold legal distinction: the national political system adopts a unitary system; the provincial chief executive serves as a central official-administration organ, with popular election only a transitional arrangement toward appointment; and the provincial self-governing body separately obtains enumerated local legislative powers over finance, industry, public works, transportation, schools, and public-welfare matters. Particularly noteworthy is that the platform explicitly distinguishes power devolution at the level of local official rule from the autonomy rights of local self-governing bodies. To read all “decentralization” as provincial autonomous constitution-making would erase the organ and authority boundaries deliberately set by the text. [2]

The Minli Bao Original-Edition Holding Path and Evidentiary Tier

Japan’s CiNii union catalogue provides a more concrete facsimile-tracking entry for the Minli Bao: the 1969 facsimile of the Chinese Kuomintang Party History Materials Compilation Committee Collection edited by Huang Jilu, holding number NCID AA11247306, records coverage from October 1910 to September 1913, Nos. 1–1036, indicating that at least 11 Japanese libraries can be consulted. This catalogue proves the existence of a traceable facsimile and holdings, but it does not equal researchers having read the specific original-issue pages of April 2–7, 1913. Nor can it eliminate the textual variants pointed out in the Complete Works of the National Father‘s editorial note. This paper therefore rates the Complete Works of the National Father‘s platform transcription as B+ and the CiNii entry as a Grade-C holding catalogue, and keeps the original-issue image collation of 1913 as a continuing unfinished original-evidence gate. Catalogue: https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/AA11247306?l=en .

Three Intensities of Editorial Acts: Why the 1913 Platform Cannot Be Cited Only from the Complete Works of the National Father

The collation note on pages 36–42 of Volume 2 of the Complete Works of the National Father gives the 1913 platform’s textual differences a gradable explanatory value. The first category is emendations that may change the direction of meaning: the editorial note explains that the Minli Bao and The National Monthly both read “twice the work, half the result,” while the current edition emends it on the basis of the later Sequel to the Complete Works of Sun Yat-sen and the Complete Works of the Premier to “half the work, twice the result.” The rhetorical judgments of the two phrases are opposite, so the current collated text should not be directly cited as a verbatim quotation of the 1913 newspapers. The second category is arrangement-level moves, such as the enumerated position of “immigration, commerce, and shipbuilding”; its effect lies in the attribution order of various national affairs, and one should not infer the original newspaper author’s argumentative emphasis from the new position. The third category is additions, deletions, and edition differences, including the deletion in “scope of China” (fanwei Zhongguo), the addition of “this party” (bendang), and the concluding paragraph not collected in The National Monthly. They must be recorded item by item with base text, variants, collation basis, and possible argumentative effects, rather than merely listed under a general note of “variant versions.” [35]

These differences also concern the question of “whose political views” — authorship attribution. The original newspaper’s byline linking the platform to Song Jiaoren’s drafting is an important clue at the 1913 publication level; but Song had died on March 22, and the April newspapers and May magazine could not possibly have been publications he personally approved after his death. The later editors’ inclusion of the document in Sun Yat-sen’s collected works shows the classification of party history and collected-works compilation; it is insufficient to disprove that Song participated in drafting, and equally insufficient to prove that Sun or Song was responsible for every character of the collated edition. Research should keep five identities separate: the drafter, the publication byline, the party name, the collected-works editor, and final textual responsibility. The original newspaper’s six days of pages, the May magazine’s original facsimiles, and Xu Xue’er’s memoir’s original pages have not yet been read, so the above reaches only B+ editorial-collation evidence, not Grade-A verbatim original-issue evidence. [35][36]

The 1925 Federalism Debate as Retrospective Evidence: Hindsight Cannot Substitute for the 1913 Platform

The 1925 debate on federal state-building in Volume 22 of The Eastern Miscellany (Dongfang Zazhi) provides contemporary political context for the later classification of Song Jiaoren’s thought, but it was published after Song’s death and cannot substitute for the April 1913 Minli Bao platform. Research must separate three layers: “the platform of Song’s own era,” “1925 commentators’ interpretations of federalism and unity,” and “today’s researchers’ institutional classifications.” On the basis of existing Grade-B transcriptions, federalism was both an institutional discussion and, in the eyes of its critics, a political slogan that local power-holders might strategically appropriate; this constitutes counter-evidence that must be addressed, but it does not prove that no local-autonomy legal provisions have institutional value. The 1925 Eastern Miscellany original-issue images, authors, and printed page numbers still await verification. Source status: the 1925 Eastern Miscellany Volume 22’s article titles, authors, original-issue page numbers, and stable article URLs have not yet been verified; the link previously pointing to the Wikisource homepage was not a verifiable citation and has been removed. This section remains unverified historical-context analysis for now and must not be used to infer Song Jiaoren’s own positions. [Specific article titles and stable URLs of the 1925 Eastern Miscellany await verification; this draft does not list unverified article links.]

The 1922 National Affairs Conference Constitutional Draft: Why a Genuine United-Provinces Republic Plan Cannot Be Written Backward into Song Jiaoren’s Platform

Placing Song Jiaoren’s 1913 “unitary system” platform side by side with the 1922 National Affairs Conference Constitutional Draft clarifies an intellectual-history boundary often blurred: statutory local autonomy within a unified state and a constitutional scheme explicitly named a “United Provinces Republic” are different institutional choices. In the latter, Article 1 of both the A and B drafts uses “United Provinces Republic”; Articles 5 and 6 enumerate national affairs and provincial affairs respectively, and permit each province to adopt its own constitution; Article 8 further provides that united-provinces law takes precedence over provincial law. This is therefore not a loose inter-provincial league without central authority, but a scheme attempting to establish central authority, local constitutions, and national-law supremacy simultaneously. The above conclusions come from existing transcribed texts and constitute Grade-B textual evidence, not Grade-A verification against original-issue images. [9]

Under the same political name, the two drafts design central executive responsibility differently. Draft A’s Articles 30 and 45–48 adopt the structure of a President plus premier and state councilors: the President appoints the premier, the State Council (guowuyuan) must maintain the confidence of the Senate, and important orders require countersignature; Draft B’s Articles 26–32 instead have a nine-member State Affairs Committee (guozheng weiyuanhui) exercise executive power, with members drawn through a two-level process of preliminary election by the Senate and re-election by provincial assemblies. This shows that “united provinces” itself does not determine whether to adopt a president-and-cabinet co-existence or a collegial executive. Compared with Song Jiaoren’s parliamentary responsible government, Draft A has a comparable problem awareness in its countersignature and no-confidence mechanisms, while Draft B sets up a separate collective-executive check-and-balance path; neither should be used to assert direct influence from Song. [9]

Military administration and electoral qualifications also show substantive divergences beyond constitutional labels. Draft A’s Article 7 excludes military men retired for less than three years from serving as provincial chief executives; Draft B’s Article 27 restricts active-duty military men from running for state-affairs committeemen, yet permits a military exception for up to one-third of first-term committeemen. The former handles the provincial transfer of military men to office, the latter the national executive’s first-term transition; the legal objects and exemption scopes are not the same. Without the military establishments, political negotiations, and original manuscript versions of the time, one cannot infer from these two articles that military power was actually excluded. [9]

Especially important is the legal identity of the historical materials. The catalogue of Cen Dezhang’s 1933 Constitutional History Materials of the Republic of China places the August 1922 National Affairs Conference Constitutional Draft under “privately drafted constitutional manuscripts,” separate from the upper section “promulgated by the government” and the middle section “resolved but not promulgated.” This compilation classification is Grade-C bibliographic evidence, still awaiting comparison with the 1933 facsimile’s actual text and original conference materials. This paper therefore treats the 1922 A and B drafts only as testable intellectual and institutional alternatives, and never writes them as a formally promulgated and enforced national constitution. [9][10]

The Military–Fiscal Combination of the 1913 Platform: The True Dividing Line between Central Unity and Local Autonomy

The April 1913 Kuomintang Political Views Declaration did not conceive local autonomy as provincial military independence. In its polity section it advocates a unitary system, a responsible cabinet, and enumerated legislative powers for provincial self-governing bodies; in its policy section it lists, as a military-administration rectification scheme, the unified national organization of the army, the redrawing of military districts according to military needs rather than existing provincial boundaries, the elimination of redundant troops, and the expansion of military education and arsenals. Military districts were not to be drawn along existing provincial boundaries, with the aim of separating military organization from local administrative divisions; by contrast, the enumerated items obtained by local self-governing bodies were finance, industry, public works, transportation, schools, and public welfare. To cite only the local-autonomy clauses while omitting the military-administration paragraphs would misportray this national party platform as a forerunner of later provincial military autonomy.

The fiscal section of this platform was also not an unconditional independence of local fiscal power. It simultaneously advocated a unified national treasury, the establishment of a central bank and centralized note-issuing power, and required central and local public debts to be borne separately, with tax sources delimited according to the attribution of national versus local expenditures. Its institutional structure was central concentration of currency, public debt, and military capacity, with local self-governing bodies having corresponding funding and legislative space for statutory public affairs. Here there remains a tension to be studied: if local expenditure responsibilities depend on centrally delimited tax sources without a guarantee that autonomy rights cannot be unilaterally revoked, local legislative power may be hollowed out fiscally; conversely, if the center bears national military expenditures and public debts but lacks enforceable budget supervision, new centralized fiscal risks may form. The above belongs to normative inferences from the platform’s clauses and cannot be written as a fiscal system actually implemented in 1913. (This paragraph’s military-administration and fiscal claims are all based on the [2] B+ platform transcription; original-issue wording still awaits collation.)

Authorship attribution especially requires strict handling. The editor’s note of the Complete Works of the National Father text in the Sun Yat-sen Academic Database, for the text it collects, explicitly lists the April 2–7, 1913 Minli Bao original title Announcement of Mr. Song Dun-chu’s Draft of the Kuomintang’s Grand Political Views, and notes the different May title in The National Monthly; the 1929 Sequel to the Complete Works of Sun Yat-sen‘s editorial comment also attributed drafting to Song Jiaoren, giving the party-name publication as the reason for including it in Sun Yat-sen’s collected works. A webpage’s arrangement by the Complete Works of the National Father does not equal Sun Yat-sen’s independent authorship. This paper therefore adopts the provisional formulation “a platform drafted by Song Jiaoren and published by the Kuomintang (per later editorial collation)”; the original newspaper’s pages, serialization divisions, and byline still await original-issue verification. Source: the Sun Yat-sen Academic Database’s Kuomintang Political Views Declaration and Note 1, B+ collated text, not original-newspaper images. https://sunology.yatsen.gov.tw/detail/24aae1425bbc7aadb20b40c288accee0/

The 1913 Reorganization Loan Controversy: Fiscal Need and Parliamentary Authorization Are Two Propositions

In June 1913, Kuomintang members of parliament issued a declaration on the Reorganization Loan (shanhou jiekuan); its later collated edition cited the Senate’s meeting procedures of September 17 and December 27, 1912, questioning the government’s interpretation of earlier reports and partial clause votes as approval of the entire loan contract. The declaration did not deny the national borrowing need, but insisted that the complete contract first be submitted to parliament for deliberation, and opposed the executive’s signing first and reporting afterward, on the grounds that budget uses should be controlled by parliament. Connected with the April 1913 platform’s requirement that central and local debts be borne separately and national and local taxes delimited, the fiscal-constitutional controversy of Song Jiaoren’s era included at least two non-substitutable chains of responsibility: the vertical central–local debt attribution, and the horizontal executive–parliament borrowing authorization. One cannot substitute support for the loan for analysis of procedural legality, nor should one use this to prove that Song Jiaoren personally drafted the June declaration: he had died in March of the same year.

Legal verification must preserve evidentiary tiers. Article 19, Items 2 and 4 of the Provisional Constitution of the Republic of China placed government budgets and final accounts, public-debt flotations, and treasury-burden contracts among the Senate’s matters for resolution; Article 38 granted the Provisional President the power to propose bills to the Senate. The June 1913 declaration argued on this basis that prior Senate procedures were insufficient, but the original records of the two 1912 meetings, the original 1913 contract, the government’s formal legal opinions, and court judgments have not been directly obtained. What is proven here is a constitutionality controversy raised by the party concerned, not this paper’s independent judgment that the loan contract was of course invalid.

Source: the Sun Yat-sen Academic Database, Complete Works of the National Father, Volume 2, pages 46–48, Appendix: Declaration of the Kuomintang Parliamentary Group on the Large Loan Question, with the editor noting the base text as the Minli Bao of June 7–8, 1913 and the June issue of The National Monthly, B+ edited collated text; https://sunology.yatsen.gov.tw/detail/fe8c16de7b24a665eabd7bb9eb8495e8/ . Provisional Constitution of the Republic of China, Articles 19 and 38, later legal transcription, Grade B: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/中華民國臨時約法 .

The 1933 Retrospective: A Contemporary Explanation of Constitution-Making Failure and the Boundaries of Song Jiaoren Research

When Cen Dezhang wrote the editor’s preface for Constitutional History Materials of the Republic of China in May 1933, he did not describe the Republic’s constitution-making history as a simple binary competition of “centralization versus federalism.” He first distinguished the early Republic’s Provisional Government Organization Outline from the Provisional Constitution, noting that the former adopted a presidential system and the latter turned toward a responsible cabinet; he then strung together the 1913 parliament’s constitution-drafting at the Temple of Heaven, Yuan Shikai’s government’s suspension of deputies’ duties, and the dissolution of parliament into a process of interrupted parliamentary constitution-making. What can be verified here is how the 1933 editor understood the prior institutional turns, not that this research has independently completed archival verification of every 1913 political action. The editor’s preface is a modern transcription of a contemporaneously published historiographical commentary, provisionally Grade B+, with the 1933 original book’s preface page images not yet checked. [11]

The value of this retrospective for Song Jiaoren research is not to add an unproven intellectual lineage, but to provide a ranking of institutional problems close to the Republican political scene: whether executive power was constrained by parliament, whether parliament could continue to exist, and whether local institutional disputes were swallowed by military politics. Song Jiaoren’s 1913 platform proposed a responsible cabinet and statutory autonomy as normative solutions to the first and third problems; Cen’s 1933 account of parliamentary interruption belongs to an explanation of the political process twenty years later. Placing the two side by side can pose the testable hypothesis that “the sustainability of a responsible cabinet depends on whether parliament can survive,” but Cen’s judgment cannot be used to directly prove the motives of any specific decision Song made that year. [2][11]

In the same preface, Cen linked the provincial-constitution attempts of Hunan, Zhejiang, Sichuan, and Guangdong with the 1922 National Affairs Conference’s united-rule draft, and evaluated the 1923 Constitution’s formal promulgation separately from its political production process. This makes “what legal status the text obtained” a more rigorous comparative measure than “whether it was called federalism.” However, Cen’s narrative has its own 1933 political perspective; his praise and blame, causation, and chronology of events must all accept cross-examination by contemporary newspapers, parliamentary records, and original statutes. Guo Songtao’s 1870s institutional observations certainly cannot, because of the subsequent constitutional difficulties described by Cen in 1933, be retroactively derived as direct forerunners of the 1913 responsible cabinet or the 1922 United Provinces Republic.

Falsifiable path: Compare the April 2–7, 1913 Minli Bao original issues, the 1913 parliamentary constitution-making conference records, and Zhang Rongxi’s An Overview of the History of Constitution-Making in the Republic of China cited by Cen; if the original issues’ platform attribution, clauses, or conference dates are inconsistent with the 1933 retrospective, specific historical facts should be revised first, rather than retaining a convenient narrative of intellectual continuity. 1933 editor’s preface: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/中華民國憲法史料/編者序 (original-text transcription, B+; original book’s preface page images UNVERIFIED).

The 1913 Senate Membership Roster: Three Different Kinds of Evidence for Platform, Seats, and Responsible Government

Regarding Song Jiaoren’s responsible-cabinet conception, three different objects of proof must be separated: a party declaration can prove what government-formation principles someone proposed at the time; the membership rosters of the two houses can prove who obtained seats and their personal identities; only deliberation records, voting records, and cabinet appointment and removal documents can possibly prove whether the principle was converted into an enforceable parliamentary majority and executive responsibility. A contemporary facsimile of the 1913 Senate Membership Roster (Canyiyuan Yiyuan Lu, 参議院議員錄) has now been located (140 images), whose bibliographic note states that it mainly lists members’ photographs, names, courtesy names (zihao), and native places. From this roster alone, one cannot deduce how many seats a party held, how a member voted on a specific bill, let alone prove that Song Jiaoren’s responsible cabinet had been realized. This distinction of documentary functions both prevents mistaking electoral results for governing facts and establishes a repeatable evidence-collection path for the next step of person-by-person comparison of parliamentary deliberation records and party rosters. [42]

Similarly, the April 1913 Government Gazette (Zhengfu Gongbao) Nos. 324–352 already has a retrievable original-issue facsimile collection, but government gazette administrative orders and the Minli Bao‘s April 2–7 party statements belong to different documentary types: the former can test the publication of administrative acts, the latter can test the platform’s publication time, original title, and byline. The two cannot serve as original-issue substitutes for each other. This draft does not count the located gazette collection toward the completed original-page collation of the six Minli Bao issues. [43]

IV. Chen Jiongming: Testing Political Slogans against County Self-Government Institutions

Chen Jiongming’s Guangdong experiment moved local self-government from political platforms into electoral and administrative institutions. The later transcription of the 1921 county self-government and county-magistrate election statutes shows that the county council had certain powers over budgets, taxation, and local public debts; county-magistrate candidates were produced through local electoral procedures, but the provincial governor (shengzhang) retained the power to select and appoint from the candidate list; and election disputes were provided with judicial remedies. [3] This is an institutional structure in which local participation and provincial supervision coexist, not unrestricted local sovereignty.

To evaluate this system, one cannot only ask “whether county-magistrate elections were held”; one must also ask who had voter qualifications, who could become candidates, who controlled election supervision, who ultimately appointed, and whether the local assembly could refuse disproportionate fiscal obligations. The transcription contains qualification thresholds, appointment powers, and litigation procedures, showing that the self-government practice had both democratic-experimental significance and retained considerable administrative-hierarchical control. The 1921 original promulgated editions, actual election announcements, and court judgments have not all been obtained, and conflicting county counts should not become this paper’s argumentative fulcrum.

The political conflict between Chen Jiongming and Sun Yat-sen should also not be simplified into “local democracy versus central despotism.” Both sides used the language of local self-government, national construction, and military reorganization. The more important divergences concerned the steps toward a unified state, military-political command, the sequencing of local self-government, and who held final political decision-making power. Only by separately verifying textual claims and actual military-political relations can one avoid substituting later political evaluations for institutional analysis.

The 1921 Guangdong Provincial Constitution Draft and the 1923 National Constitution: The Fundamental Conflict over Military Power Allocation

Guangdong self-government cannot be judged as federalist by county-magistrate elections alone. The later full-text transcription of the December 19, 1921 Draft Constitution of Guangdong Province shows that Article 23 listed provincial taxes, provincial debts, and provincial military administration and command (junzheng junling) together as matters for provincial deliberation and execution; Article 54 granted the governor command over all the province’s land and naval forces, Article 115 called the province’s land and naval forces the provincial army, Article 116 set a ceiling on military expenditures, and Article 134 provided separate leniency for the transitional period. This scheme gave the province a strong position in self-government finance, local legislation, and military-political command, but made the attribution of military power within a unified state the core risk. [7]

Forming a clear contrast is the 1923 Constitution of the Republic of China: Article 23 made national defense a matter of national legislation and execution, Article 25 retained provincial education, property, provincial taxes, provincial debts, and other matters, but Article 34 explicitly prohibited provinces from maintaining standing armies, military academies, and arms factories. Both texts permitted provincial fiscal and legislative powers, but took opposite directions on the ultimate control of armed force. Thus the so-called “united-provinces self-government” is not a single institutional package; provincial fiscal autonomy can coexist with national military unity, or be bundled with provincial armed autonomy. Evaluating its democratic potential must be tested separately. [4][7]

Version limitation: there is a separate text of the September 1921 Guangdong provincial constitution draft; the December 19 version should not be written backward as the September first draft. Articles 23, 54, 115, 116, and 134 are currently based on later web transcriptions and have not been compared against the located 1921 40-page original-issue facsimile, hence Grade-B transcription evidence, and one cannot claim completed page-by-page original collation. Original-issue scan holding clues are in [8]. This comparison also does not presume that the 1923 national constitution was directly influenced by Chen Jiongming or Guangdong drafters.

Removal from Military Office, Executive Countersignature, and the Internal Limits of Chen Jiongming’s Self-Government Scheme

In discussing Chen Jiongming’s self-government experiment, one should not directly equate “the province possessing an army” with “the governor personally controlling the army.” Article 49 of the September 1921 Guangdong provincial constitution draft required an active-duty military man elected governor to be relieved of military office — at least in normative design attempting to sever the direct concurrent holding of military status and the popularly elected executive office; yet Article 54 of the same draft assigned command and military management of the province’s land and naval forces to the governor. This is not a textual slip, but a dual requirement in the institutional design: the governor must exit his existing military identity, yet upon assuming the civilian governorship obtains constitutional army command authority. The former constrains identity, the latter allocates authority; whether the two can truly prevent private armies depends on the enforcement of appointment and removal, budgets, military orders, and parliamentary supervision. [19]

This dual requirement must also be read together with the executive accountability system. Article 61 required the governor’s orders and dispositions to be countersigned by the president of the State Council (zhengwuyuan zhang) and the competent state councilors, and to be responsible to the provincial assembly; Article 63 provided that the governor’s appointment of state councilors required the provincial assembly’s consent, but failure to vote within five days could be deemed tacit consent, and rejection could not exceed two times; Article 67 permitted the assembly to pass votes of no confidence in state councilors, and the governor could dissolve the assembly under specific conditions. Article 67 also set a threshold for dissolution of majority consent of all county council and special municipal assembly members voting across the province. Reading these provisions together, the Guangdong draft was not only about local military power; it also attempted to control executive power through responsible-politics procedures — but whether its constraints on the governor’s actual army command were sufficient cannot be affirmed on paper procedures alone. [19]

Article 46 of the provincial constitution provided that the governor be elected by voting of county council and special municipal assembly members, not by direct vote of all provincial citizens. To write this indirect election as a directly elected governorship would overstate the draft’s degree of direct democracy. Conversely, Article 49’s removal from military office, Article 61’s countersignature, and Article 67’s confidence responsibility cannot be erased merely because the governor was not directly elected. Chen Jiongming’s institutional dilemma was precisely that political representativeness, military organization, and executive responsibility had not yet obtained a single sustainable set of rules: whether electoral procedures could constrain an office-holder commanding troops can only be judged with actual appointment announcements, assembly meeting records, and military expenditure final accounts. [19]

When comparing with Song Jiaoren’s responsible-cabinet scheme, one should carefully distinguish similar institutional problems from unproven direct intellectual transmission. Song’s national platform advocated a responsible government produced by parliament; the Guangdong draft combined an indirectly produced governor, state-councilor countersignature, and assembly no-confidence procedures at the provincial level. Both attempted to prevent the complete personalization of executive power, but their chains of responsibility and military-power arrangements were not the same. Guo Songtao’s institutional observations certainly cannot be posthumously claimed as the forerunner of the above provincial constitution provisions. The three can be compared, but should not be stitched into a federalist lineage lacking documentary evidence.

Source limitation: the above articles come from uncorrected Wikisource transcriptions corresponding to the scanned September 1921 original issue (Article 49 corresponds to scan page /18; the facsimile page numbers for Articles 61, 63, and 67 still need to be recorded individually). This round did not directly read the scan images, so they are listed only as B+ (scan-located uncorrected transcriptions), not Grade A. Sources: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:NLC416-07jh003655-41513_廣東省憲法草案.pdf/18; https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東省憲法草案_(民國10年9月).

The Dual Filter of the 1921 County-Magistrate Election: Candidate Qualifications, Ballots, and Gubernatorial Appointment

The “popular election” of county magistrates in 1921 Guangdong was not a single step. Article 43 of the extant later transcription of the Guangdong Provisional County Self-Government Regulations provides that enfranchised county residents first elect three persons, who are then appointed one by the governor’s selection; the accompanying April 21 Guangdong Provisional County-Magistrate Election Regulations, Article 17, connects the reporting and appointment of the elected persons directly back to Article 43. Thus voter ballots produced the candidate pool on which the governor’s selection depended, not a county magistrate immediately assuming administrative office. One should neither reduce “voter balloting” to “the county magistrate is directly elected by all residents and takes office immediately,” nor mistake the governor’s selection as a free appointment unconstrained by the ballot results. What is compared here is the procedure described by the regulation transcriptions; actual appointments still require checking provincial appointment commissions (weirenzhuang) and county ballot registers. [13]

The election regulations also contain an institutional tension worth specially verifying. Article 10 provides that persons eligible for election, nominated by three hundred or more voters of the county and examined by the election supervisor, may be listed as candidates for the term; yet Article 16 expressly provides that elected persons are not limited to the candidates listed under Article 10. This means the 300-person nomination can be a threshold for forming the pre-election formal candidate list, but it cannot be treated without explanation as an absolute restriction on all valid vote recipients. Article 6 sets male, age-thirty, and public-rights conditions for county-magistrate eligibility, while Articles 7–9 list additional disqualifications, active-duty military men, judicial officers, and other restrictions; county-magistrate voter qualifications are incorporated through Article 3’s reference to the county councilor election regulations — one should not directly apply the magistrate’s age and gender qualifications to all voters. [13]

Election supervision was appointed by the governor (Article 11), ballot disputes were decided by the supervisor (Articles 14–15), but invalid elections or invalid elected status required judicial determination, triggering re-election or succession by the next-highest vote-getter respectively (Articles 19–20). This constitutes a composite structure juxtaposing administrative supervision, judicial litigation, and final provincial appointment. It left institutional space for local balloting and court review, while also subjecting local representativeness to the limits of higher administrative power, qualification exclusions, and election supervisors. Evaluating Chen Jiongming’s local self-government should not merely count the counties where elections were held, but trace each stage — “registration—nomination—voting—review—three-person selection—commission—litigation” — against original archives. [13]

Source limitation: what has been directly read at present is later web transcriptions, not the 1921 Guangdong provincial gazette original issues. In particular, the County Self-Government Regulations webpage has a duplicated Article 47 numbering and suspected misplaced cross-references among individual articles — a version-collation warning only, which cannot, without original-issue proof, be asserted as errors in the 1921 formal regulations themselves. Modern entries on election results also have inconsistent historical versions of the “actually elected” county count; this paper does not adopt aggregated figures unchecked against provincial announcements. Original 1921 commissions, election supervision reports, and judgments remain UNVERIFIED.

The Dual Responsibility Chain of the Guangdong Provincial Constitution Draft: Institutional Variants between the September and December Drafts

From 1909 Voter Qualifications to 1921 Provincial-Constitution Equality: Normative Language Cannot Substitute for Electoral Facts

The Township Local Self-Government Regulations (Chengzhen Xiang Difang Zizhi Zhangcheng) promulgated January 18, 1909 defined self-government in Article 1 as handling local public welfare and assisting official rule; Article 16 defined general voters by nationality, male sex, age twenty-five or above, three years’ residence, and annual tax or public-welfare contribution of two yuan or more, while permitting local assemblies to make exceptional recognition of persons of reputation. Article 17 additionally listed literacy and other exclusion conditions. This electoral qualification was not the political right of universal adult citizenship, but a local participation qualification conditioned on gender, property payment, residence, and conduct. The articles are later digital transcriptions; the 1909 official gazette original edition and the original printed Election Regulations have not been verified — it is inadvisable to infer real voter numbers from this. [44]

By comparison, Article 5 of the September 1921 Draft Constitution of Guangdong Province expressly listed both sexes in its equality clause, while the later transcription of the December 19 draft’s Article 5 did not list both sexes — but the later draft’s Article 18 still limited election, eligibility, and public-office rights to “according to law,” and Articles 31–32 left provincial assembly electoral qualifications and organization to provincial law. Even if original-issue comparison confirms the “male and female” textual variant, the equality principle and concrete voting qualifications remain at different normative levels; the deletion or retention of the equality enumeration is by itself insufficient to prove that women had gained, lost, or exercised provincial assembly suffrage in Guangdong. The then-effective election laws, voter rolls, and actual voting records must be supplemented. [45]

This also limits the continuity narrative from Guo Songtao’s institutional observations through Song Jiaoren’s parliamentary responsible politics to Chen Jiongming’s provincial-constitution experiment: political participation depends not only on whether organs are “popularly elected,” but also on who is recognized as a voter, who adjudicates qualification disputes, and whether assembly decisions can resist administrative or military force. The 1909 official-rule supervision and the 1921 provincial-constitution draft’s rights promises can be compared textually, but there is as yet insufficient historical evidence to prove that the two constitute a direct institutional inheritance.

The later transcriptions of the September drafting-committee draft and the December provincial-assembly draft of 1921 are not a simple strong-to-weak substitution in provincial-assembly supervision. September draft Article 63, per the transcription, allowed the provincial assembly to reject state-councilor appointments at most twice, while the December draft changed it to once; yet Article 65’s deciding subject for the policy line (shizheng fangzhen) moved, according to the two transcriptions, from the state-affairs conference to the provincial assembly. If original-issue evidence confirms these variants, the contraction of personnel veto power and the parliamentarization of policy-line decision-making may have existed simultaneously. One cannot, on the basis of a single veto count, summarize the later draft as “weakening the assembly” or “strengthening the governor.” The evidence here is only Grade-B later-transcription comparison; although the original September printed edition has a traceable facsimile, the corresponding articles’ page images have not yet been read character by character, and the December assembly’s final original issue must be separately located. Sources: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東省憲法草案_(民國10年9月); https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東省憲法草案.

The same set of version differences also extends to the rights catalogue: September draft Article 5’s equality clause expressly enumerated both sexes, while the corresponding December draft transcription did not make the same enumeration. Textual deletion does not of course equal deprivation of women’s rights, nor can one infer changes in actual electoral qualifications; they must be mutually verified against election regulations, court application, and provincial assembly records. Compared with Song Jiaoren’s 1913 posthumously published national platform, the Guangdong text handles provincial state-councilor appointments, policy decisions, and local rights lists, while Song’s platform focused on a national parliamentary responsible cabinet. The two pose comparable accountability questions but do not constitute proven direct inheritance. Version attribution, whether bills were promulgated and took effect, and whether organs actually functioned are three independent evidentiary thresholds. Same sources as above; original printed holding: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SSID-13420234_廣東省憲法草案.pdf.

The 1921 Guangdong provincial assembly’s internal legitimacy controversy also provides an independent historical-material path for testing whether the provincial-constitution draft’s “assembly supervision” could be delivered. The extant later transcription of the Guangdong Provincial Assembly’s Telegram Announcing the Suspension of Proceedings, signed by Speaker Lin Zhengxuan and dated February 1921, states that on January 21 of the same year Zhong Sheng convened a meeting in the name of provisional speaker, and accused persons of bringing troops into the assembly hall and excluding dissenting members; the telegram’s sender accordingly announced the suspension of this assembly’s proceedings. What can first be confirmed here is a political accusation text with a clear standpoint, not a verified fact of troops entering the hall or a legal adjudication of the provincial assembly’s termination. Its original newspaper publication, signature, and the other party’s rebuttal have not been verified; a unilateral statement should not be treated as the final facts. [PI-1921-ASSEMBLY-TELEGRAM-BMINUS]

The institutional significance of this controversy lies in timing: the disputes over whether the provincial assembly could meet freely, who had the right to preside and exclude members, occurred before the September drafting-committee draft and December assembly draft of 1921. Therefore, the later paper mechanisms — assembly consent to state-councilor appointments, no-confidence motions against executive organs, budget deliberation — cannot be retroactively inferred as the assembly’s already possessing independence from armed or administrative interference in early 1921. The next step should collate this telegram against that month’s Shen Bao or Guangzhou newspaper original issues, assembly meeting records, and member qualification disposition records item by item; where contradictory accounts appear, both sides’ accounts should be retained and distinguished by date. [PI-1921-ASSEMBLY-TELEGRAM-BMINUS]

Fiscal Autonomy Is Not Just Tax Division: The Guangdong Draft’s Budget, Education, and Audit

Compared with the 1913 Kuomintang platform’s emphasis on classifying national taxes, local taxes, national expenditures, and local expenditures, the September 1921 Guangdong draft advanced provincial fiscal constraints to budget procedures: its Article 93 forbade the provincial assembly from increasing the expenditures proposed by the government, Article 94 restricted the government from unilaterally changing the uses of funds designated by the assembly, Article 95 required final accounts to be submitted within three months after the fiscal year’s end, and Article 96 designed a provisional arrangement of carrying over the old budget for budget deadlocks. Article 108 further provided that education funding be no less than 20% of provincial expenditures, and Article 116 that military expenditures normally not exceed 30% — though Article 134 contained transitional exceptions. The percentages here are normative budget targets, not actual expenditure data. Articles 93–97, 108–110, and 134 still rest on B+-level transcriptions linked to original-issue page numbers but uncorrected; Articles 115–118 previously had partial original-image verification. Sources: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:NLC416-07jh003655-41513_廣東省憲法草案.pdf/29; https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:NLC416-07jh003655-41513_廣東省憲法草案.pdf/32; https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:NLC416-07jh003655-41513_廣東省憲法草案.pdf/38 .

This set of rules reveals a precisely comparable difference between Song and Chen. Song’s platform focused on the classification of national affairs and fiscal powers and responsible government; the Guangdong draft provided finer procedural design for provincial fiscal budget initiation, assembly deliberation, education appropriations, military-expenditure limits, and final-accounts supervision. However, whether budget rules can constrain an executive head holding troops requires provincial assembly meeting records, fiscal final accounts, and military establishment archives to jointly prove; one cannot infer from the draft alone that Chen Jiongming had realized fiscal accountability.

The High Thresholds of County-Level Direct Democracy: From Voting Rights to Effective Removal Rights

The local participation system of Guangdong’s Provisional County Self-Government Regulations is more complex than the county-magistrate election. Later transcription Article 6 permits fifty or more original voters (yuan xuanmin) to jointly submit proposals to the county council; Article 7 allows one-tenth or more of original voters to jointly demand a recall vote on ordinances already passed by the county council, but the voting turnout must reach two-thirds or more of original voters, with a majority of votes cast in favor; Article 8 provides that recalling a county councilor requires joint signatures of one-third or more of the original voters of the electoral district, a turnout of four-fifths, and three-fourths of votes in favor; Article 9’s dissolution of the county council requires joint signatures of one-third or more of all original voters of the county, with turnout and approval ratios both reaching three-fourths; Article 10’s removal of an incompetent county magistrate requires joint signatures of one-fifth or more, turnout of two-thirds or more, and two-thirds or more of votes cast in agreement, and must finally be submitted to the governor for removal. The above are procedural designs in the articles, not proof that such votes were actually held. [14]

These thresholds reveal the difference between participation rights and enforceable supervision rights. Calculated merely by multiplying thresholds, recalling a county councilor requires at least about 60% of the district’s original voters in agreement, dissolving the county council at least 56.25% of all original voters of the county, and removing a county magistrate at least about 44.44%; each must first satisfy different joint-signature ratios, and some articles use “or more” (yishang) rather than strictly exceeding. Threshold calculations express only minimum mathematical ratios under the assumptions of a stable registration base and undisputed ballots, and cannot substitute for historical voting statistics. A magistrate’s removal by vote does not automatically take effect, but must pass through the governor’s administrative disposition. Without original voter rolls, signature lists, voting announcements, and removal decisions, one cannot deduce from the articles that county residents truly possessed a ready-to-use removal capacity. [14]

This forms a more concrete comparison with Song Jiaoren’s 1913 national institutional vision emphasizing parliamentary responsibility and executive power constrained by representative organs: both acknowledge that political power needs accountability, but the Guangdong county system simultaneously adopted high participation thresholds, administrative supervision, and the governor’s final disposition. This paper does not simply call this arrangement democratic or anti-democratic, but asks which link in the system might cause accountability to fail. Transcription Articles 15, 47, and 79 have additional cross-reference or numbering anomalies, with 1921 original-issue collation not yet completed; the above thresholds are provisionally Grade B before original-issue verification, and arithmetic derivations are separately marked “author’s calculation.” Source: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東暫行縣自治條例 .

Conflicting Versions of the 1921 County-Magistrate Election Figures and Archival Verification

Existing secondary aggregated materials state that 94 counties were to elect and 81 magistrates were finally elected; another digital holding description for a group photograph labeled as the 1921 elected county magistrates instead states 85 persons were produced. The two do not constitute two independent original statistical tables, and may use four different measures: “balloting completed,” “governor’s selection,” “commissions issued,” and “final actual assumption of office.” Modern aggregations also record that on November 9, 1921 the provincial office first announced 68 county appointments, suggesting that the same election indeed had different denominators at different stages. At present neither 81 nor 85 is selected as the determined final total, nor is the photograph description used to prove actual assumption numbers. Priority verification: November 1921 Yi Shi Bao (Benefit-the-World News) related reports, Guangdong provincial announcements, county-level judicial election-invalidity judgments, and the original pages of Li Zonghuang’s 1922 A New Observation of Guangdong (Xin Guangdong Guancha Ji). Sources (only Grade-C leads or secondary aggregations): https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921年廣東省縣長選舉 ; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1921廣東民選縣長.jpg .

Draft–Promulgated Differences in the 1921 County-Magistrate Election Regulations: How Political Participation Was Converted into Appointment Procedures

The extant online transcriptions of the March 2, 1921 Draft Guangdong Provisional County-Magistrate Election Regulations and the April 21 Guangdong Provisional County-Magistrate Election Regulations allow us to observe changes in the same institutional design during the legislative process. The former’s closing section describes itself as drafted by the legal-system drafting committee and discussed in continued session, and the webpage explicitly flags “source unknown”; the latter is marked as enacted by the Guangdong Provincial Assembly and promulgated by Chen Jiongming. Neither has yet obtained 1921 original newspaper or government gazette images, so what is compared here are variants between two later transcriptions — the webpage title should not be directly taken as a guarantee of the original decree’s authenticity.

What most deserves investigation is not the slogan of “whether popular election was implemented,” but the disposition of invalid ballots and elected qualifications. The March draft’s Article 14 details the vote-quota calculation for the three-person quota and re-voting when quotas are unfilled, while Articles 18–19 connect both invalid elections and invalid elected status to re-election. The April promulgated edition’s online transcription does not retain the draft’s Article 14 vote-quota and re-vote paragraphs; its Article 19 still provides that invalid elections require re-election, while Article 20 provides that invalid elected status is succeeded by the next-highest vote-getter. If both transcriptions are accurate, this change from re-voting to succession affects whether voters can again decide their representatives, and increases the institutional significance of the vote-count ranking — but without election rules and judgments, one cannot infer how many counties actually applied succession.

The two versions also show differences worth verifying in their connection to provincial executive power. Draft Article 16 cited County Self-Government Regulations Article 38 as the basis for gubernatorial appointment, while the April promulgated edition’s Article 17 changed the citation to Article 43, which corresponds to the extant County Self-Government Regulations article on “county residents elect three persons, the governor appoints one by selection.” Draft Article 17’s sanction for refusing election without approval was deprivation of electoral rights for three to six years; the April promulgated edition’s Article 18 changed it to suspension for one to three years. Meanwhile, the draft’s Article 7 listed “keeping concubines or bigamists” (xu qie huo chonghun zhe), which does not appear in the April promulgated edition’s Article 7 extant transcription. These changes show that electoral qualifications, candidate lists, invalid elected status, and gubernatorial appointment must be studied item by item; no single draft can cover the entire 1921 system.

Source tiers and pending questions: the March draft is B-/C (later transcription of unknown source); the April promulgated edition is B (transcription without completed original-issue collation). The two texts’ article numbering, omissions, and wording differences may come from genuine revision or from transcription gaps. One should seek the March original newspapers, the April 21 Guangdong provincial gazette, county-magistrate election rules, election-invalidity litigation, and gubernatorial appointment orders before determining their legal-historical significance. Comparison sources: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/广东暂行县长选举条例草案 ; https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東暫行縣長選舉條例 . This section is a research draft and cannot serve as Grade-A original-image verification.

The Dual Position of Election Supervision: A New Institutional Interface Added between the March 1921 Draft and the April Promulgated Edition

In the later transcription of the March 2, 1921 Draft Guangdong Provisional County-Magistrate Election Regulations, Article 11 moved directly to county-councilor electoral districts, and Article 12 provided balloting locations; the April 21 promulgated edition’s later transcription instead inserted Articles 11–12 after candidate nomination: election supervisors are appointed by the governor before September, with temporary appointment in by-elections; appointees suspend their own electoral and eligibility rights in the supervised county. The subsequent electoral-district, balloting, and dispute-handling articles were renumbered accordingly. What appears here is not a simple rewriting of a draft article into a stricter neutrality requirement, but the addition of institutional nodes for “how the supervisory organ is produced” and “supervisors may not concurrently be voters or candidates.”

This combination has two faces pointing in different directions: suspending supervisors’ electoral and eligibility rights in their own county can be understood as reducing their direct personal conflicts of interest; but supervisors being appointed by the governor does not equal institutional independence from the provincial government. To judge whether supervisors were actually neutral in practice, one must examine appointment rosters, qualification objections, ballot-dispute rulings, and judicial case files — one cannot infer electoral fairness from the two articles alone. Still less should the candidate qualification procedure of 300-voter nomination for county-magistrate candidates be mistaken for the supervisory organ’s appointment procedure.

Version reservation: the two texts are later web transcriptions of the March 2, 1921 draft and the April 21 promulgated edition respectively, with the draft page self-labeling “source unknown.” This round directly compared the two transcriptions’ article numbers and wording (B-TRANSCRIPTION / B–SOURCE-UNKNOWN), without obtaining the March original newspapers, the April Guangdong gazette, or election-supervision appointment orders; therefore “added” refers to surface differences between the two extant transcriptions and cannot, before original-decree verification, prove the specific amendment process in legislative meetings. Draft: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/广东暂行县长选举条例草案; promulgated edition: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東暫行縣長選舉條例.

Provincial Constitution Article 121 and County Self-Government Article 43: Both Called Direct Election — Why the Governor Still Decided the Person

The “direct election” concept of 1921 Guangdong local self-government must be read with both the county self-government regulations and the subsequently formed provincial constitution draft. Article 43 of the later transcription of the Guangdong Provisional County Self-Government Regulations provides that enfranchised residents of the county directly elect three persons, from whom the governor then appoints one by selection. Article 121 of the September 1921 Draft Constitution of Guangdong Province, and the same article of the assembly draft marked December 19, both summarize county-magistrate production as “direct election by all county citizens” (quanxian gongmin zhijie xuanju), while continuing to retain petitioning the governor for appointment. The two can be consistent on the voting subject, but differ in wording — with decisive consequences — on “whether citizens elect a single magistrate, or first elect a candidate list for the governor’s selection.” The provincial constitution’s concise formulation is insufficient to automatically abolish the county regulations’ three-person selection mechanism, let alone to assert from the two characters “direct election” (zhixuan) that the governor lost substantive choice.

This difference is not a mere terminological question. If direct election is only a popular-opinion screening of the candidate list, the final choice of the executive head is still decided by the provincial organ; if direct election already has the legal effect of determining the elected person, the governor’s appointment may approach formal confirmation. Distinguishing the two systems requires locating the county-magistrate election law referenced in provincial constitution draft Article 123, that year’s appointment announcements, and litigation judgments — in particular verifying whether the governor appointed the highest vote-getter, and when which law was invoked. Extant online transcriptions can only pose this testable question; they are insufficient to prove that the 1921 provincial assembly had passed an effective law changing the county-magistrate appointment mechanism.

Temporal sequence likewise limits causal inference: the promulgated texts of county self-government and county-magistrate elections and the summer–autumn 1921 elections preceded the assembly constitutional draft marked December 19; the latter cannot be retroactively claimed as the direct legal authorization for the earlier elections. The September draft was also only a drafting text. This paper therefore lists “implemented county self-government regulations — September provincial constitution draft — December assembly draft — 1923 national constitution” as four independent legal-source tiers, marking promulgation, validity, and implementation evidence one by one. Sources: County Self-Government Regulations Articles 43–44 (B later transcription); September provincial constitution draft Articles 121–123 (B+ original-corresponding transcription, images uncollated); December draft Articles 121–123 (B source-questionable transcription). https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東暫行縣自治條例; https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東省憲法草案_(民國10年9月); https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東省憲法草案.

The 1921 Gubernatorial Selection and the 1923 Conditional Direct Election: The Institutional Transition of County Self-Government

The extant transcriptions of the 1921 Guangdong county-magistrate election regulations and county self-government regulations string county residents’ voting, provincial selection, and gubernatorial appointment into one process. Although county residents participated in the choice, the governor retained the authority to make the final appointment among the three elected persons. Two years later, Article 128, Paragraph 2 of the 1923 Constitution of the Republic of China wrote county magistrates’ direct election by county residents into the national constitution, but attached an important condition: where the judiciary was not yet independent and lower-level self-government not yet completed, the provision did not apply. This was not an unconditional, immediately implemented order for direct election. Placing the 1921 administrative-selection mechanism side by side with the 1923 conditional direct election shows a change in institutional conception, but it is inadvisable to infer from this that Guangdong had completed the transition by 1923; the establishment dates of county-level judicial organization and township self-government and specific election orders still require separate proof.

Article 10 of the 1921 Guangdong county-magistrate election regulations required candidates to be nominated by three hundred or more voters, but Article 16 expressly provided that elected persons were not limited to the candidates listed under that article; therefore, the nomination threshold does not equal an exclusive candidate qualification review, and the candidate list does not coincide with the scope of valid elected persons. Article 17 must be read together with Guangdong Provisional County Self-Government Regulations Article 43: voters elect three persons, from whom the governor appoints one by selection; Articles 19–20 provide only for re-election or succession by the next-highest vote-getter after judicial determination of invalid elections or invalid elected status — one cannot infer from this that courts could review the governor’s reasons for selection among the three. Article 6 expressly limited county-magistrate eligibility to male citizens of the Republic of China, aged thirty or above, enjoying public rights; county-magistrate voter qualifications were incorporated by Article 3’s reference to County Councilor Election Regulations Article 3 — they must be verified separately, and eligibility qualifications should not be treated as the qualifications of all voters. The above articles have been directly read from later digital transcriptions (B-TRANSCRIPTION); the 1921 original printed decrees, county-by-county vote counts, and gubernatorial appointment orders have not been verified, so this section explains only institutional design and does not use it to calculate electoral competitiveness or women’s actual candidacy ratios. Sources: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東暫行縣長選舉條例; https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東暫行縣自治條例 .

Article 127 of 1923 also set a transition at the provincial executive level: in principle the provincial council (sheng wuyuan) would be composed of five to nine provincial councilors directly elected by provincial residents; before direct election was possible, indirect election through an electoral college was permitted; active-duty military men had to be discharged for one year before being eligible. This was not the same power design as the 1921 Guangdong combination of the governor commanding provincial troops and the governor selecting county magistrates. What deserves study is not the abstract evaluation of which text was more “democratic,” but who determined each transitional condition, when it lapsed, and whether voters could seek remedies. Without implementing regulations and judicial records, one cannot equate statutory promises with accomplished facts.

On fiscal matters, Article 128, Paragraph 3 permitted counties to retain a portion of the provincial taxes they bore, but provided it must not exceed four-tenths; this is a maximum limit, not a state guarantee that counties would necessarily obtain 40% of tax revenue. Paragraph 4 protected counties’ property and self-government funds from disposition by the provincial government; Paragraph 5 provided that counties suffering disasters or insufficient funds could request provincial treasury subsidies through provincial-council and provincial-assembly procedures; Article 129 further left provincial–county tax division to provincial assembly decision. It can thus be seen that self-government finance simultaneously contained four mechanisms: tax retention, property protection, fiscal relief, and provincial-assembly legislation. The actual size of county fiscal power must be further checked against provincial tax laws, appropriation budgets, and final accounts — one cannot cite only the 40% ceiling.

This section relies on the previously verified partial images of 1923 Articles 127–128 from the original book, cross-checked against the Wikisource current transcription for Article 129; this round added no new original-issue image reading. The 1921 Guangdong laws remain Grade-B transcriptions; the 1923 relevant partial original issue was previously Grade A, with other articles Grade B. Sources: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/曹錕憲法 (Articles 127–129); https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/NLC416-11jh007322-56095_中華民國憲法.pdf ; https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東暫行縣自治條例 .

The External Triggering Condition for Provincial Military Budgets: Re-examining Article 134 of the 1921 Guangdong Draft

Article 134 of the December 19, 1921 Draft Constitution of Guangdong Province transcription did not simply announce that military expenditures must not exceed 30% of provincial expenditures. It first suspended the normal application of Article 116’s limit, requiring military expenditures to be pressed to one-half of the provincial budget’s expenditures before a formal government was constituted under the provincial constitution; it then made the implementation of Article 116 conditional on the establishment of self-government governments in neighboring provinces. The 50% was not permission for permanent provincial military spending, nor was the 30% a constraint automatically taking effect on the day the draft passed. Merging the two stages into “Guangdong promised to cut the military to 30%” would erase the triggering mechanism that truly decided the system’s success or failure. Source: December draft Articles 116 and 134, later transcription (B, original issue unverified): https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東省憲法草案 .

The special feature of this design is that it handed the final limit on the province’s own military expenditures to an event outside the province for triggering: whether neighboring provinces established self-government governments was neither decided by the Guangdong Provincial Assembly alone nor necessarily had a judicially determinable clear deadline. If neighboring provinces long failed to establish self-government governments in the article’s sense, could the 30% rule be long deferred? The draft did not provide a sufficiently clear compulsory activation mechanism. This loophole does not equal the Guangdong government’s actual exploitation of the loophole; the latter must be proven with 1921–1923 budgets, final accounts, military expenditure appropriations, and provincial assembly questioning records. Institutional criticism and behavioral attribution must be kept separate here.

Comparing Song Jiaoren’s 1913 relevant platform, the difference lies not only in one side requiring national military-system unity and the other permitting a provincial army, but in who bears responsibility. The national platform responded to military fragmentation with military districts and unified organization; the Guangdong draft attempted to constrain the provincial army with provincial budget ceilings and assembly procedures. If the governor still controlled military appointments and actual command, and the military-expenditure limit was conditioned on other provinces’ political development, fiscal constraints might be unable to independently prevent the concentration of military-political power. What is posed here is a testable institutional hypothesis, not a narrative of intellectual inheritance that “Song Jiaoren foresaw Guangdong’s failure.”

The September 1921 printed edition has a separate Article 134 text, whose staged ratios and triggering conditions are suspected to differ from the December transcription; the September draft’s Article 116 original-corresponding uncorrected page-by-page transcription has been located, but Article 134’s original image remains unread. Subsequent original-issue collation must compare the two versions’ Articles 134 and 116 character by character, record original-issue page numbers, and confirm whether “one-half,” “one-third,” and triggering moments are genuine variants; at this stage the December article can only be listed as Grade B and the September variant as UNVERIFIED, not upgraded to Grade A.

The gap in Article 114 revealed by original-issue images needs to be handled independently of the military-expenditure ratio question. The facsimile of the September 1921 Draft Constitution of Guangdong Province retains, in Chapter “Industry” (shiye) Article 114, norms for the provincial government to promote and supervise finance, trade, labor protection, and other important matters according to law; the same volume’s Articles 115–116 continue with provisions on provincial army organization and the 30% military-expenditure ceiling. Another 1921 National Library facsimile also lists the complete Article 114 text on printed page 30. By contrast, the online transcription marked December 19, 1921 writes “(missing)” (que) directly at Article 114. Existing materials cannot determine whether this is a genuine deletion between two drafting versions or a later transcription omission; before the December assembly original is located, one must never write the “Article 114 gap” as the historical fact that Guangdong constitution-makers neglected labor protection. [20] (September original-issue images partially Grade A; December online transcription Grade B; the cause of the two versions’ variant UNVERIFIED)

Article 117 of the same September printed edition further limits the context in which the provincial army accepts central command: when the nation declares war on a foreign country, “a part” of the provincial army may (de) come under the national government’s command. The article does not literally establish the national government’s unified peacetime command over the entire provincial army. Whether this “may” grants the provincial side a right of refusal still requires contemporary legal interpretation and enforcement documents; one cannot draw conclusions from a single auxiliary verb alone. It forms a sharp institutional contrast with the national unified military system requirement of Song Jiaoren’s 1913 drafted platform: one first unified military organization centrally, the other first established a provincial army and provided for the possibility of partial wartime dispatch. The focus of comparison should be the peacetime chain of command, wartime triggering conditions, and budget audits — not lumping both into “the nationalization of the military.” [21] (September Article 117 image Grade A, proving only the article; historical enforcement UNVERIFIED)

County Self-Government Voter Qualifications and Representativeness: Roll Records Cannot Substitute for Proof of Voting Rights

The democratic character of Guangdong’s 1921 county-magistrate elections cannot be evaluated from the four characters “county residents voting” (xianmin toupiao) alone. Article 3 of the April 21 Guangdong Provisional County-Magistrate Election Regulations incorporates county-magistrate voter qualifications by reference to County Councilor Election Regulations Article 3; the latter provides that county residents must be twenty years of age or above and, in that election year, have performed three days of county self-government corvée labor (gongyi) or paid the labor-exemption fee, to obtain councilor electoral qualifications. County-magistrate regulations Article 6 separately provides that county-magistrate eligibility requires Republic of China nationality, enjoyment of public rights, male sex, and age thirty or above. Twenty and thirty apply to voters and magistrate candidates respectively; the labor obligation or substitute fee is an additional threshold for the former — the two sets of qualifications should not be merged into one condition. (1921 regulations’ later transcriptions, Grade B; original provincial gazette unverified)

County Councilor Election Regulations Article 16 requires investigators to register voters’ “sex, name, age, native place, and years of residence” — this entry raises a question worth pursuing: whether rolls included women, whether women were actually permitted to receive ballots, and whether different counties operated consistently. But the appearance of “male/female” (nannü) in the roll fields only proves the survey field; it is insufficient to prove that women actually enjoyed voting rights. County-magistrate regulations Article 6 explicitly writes “male” (nanzi) for eligibility, from which one cannot conversely infer that county-magistrate voters were likewise limited to men. Without original rolls, election rules, ballot books, and adjudication documents, assertions about women’s participation ratios should remain unverified. (Grade B; implementation level UNVERIFIED)

Institutional representativeness was also affected by literacy and occupational exclusions. County Councilor Election Regulations Article 5 listed “those illiterate” (bu shi wenyi zhe) among those without electoral or eligibility rights, Article 6 separately provided for the suspension of active-duty military men, officials, police, and religious professionals, and Article 30 further required voters to present that year’s labor-service certificate or labor-exemption fee receipt. These procedures constitute a layered screening of “statutory resident—qualification registration—labor/fee credential—actual voting—three-person candidates—gubernatorial selection.” Without voter population bases, registration forms, and actual voting results, one cannot substitute the holding of elections for measuring democratic inclusiveness. (Grade B; implementation data UNVERIFIED)

Another Path of Self-Government in Building Guangzhou as a Municipality: Administrative Unification, Fiscal Takeover, and Citizen Participation

On February 16, 1921, Guangdong Governor Chen Jiongming explained in Provincial Governor’s Office Proclamation No. 7 the reasons for establishing Guangzhou as a municipality: the existing urban space was divided between Nanhai and Panyu counties, creating jurisdictional inconsistency between municipal administration and commercial-transportation needs. The proclamation accordingly proposed carving the provincial capital into an independent municipal administrative region, and appointed Sun Ke as mayor along with six bureau heads; the old municipal public office, police, education, telephone, and other affairs were to be taken over by the municipal government’s relevant organs, and the municipal taxes and some public properties managed by the original provincial finance department were also to be divided and transferred. On its own terms, the proclamation’s direct instruments were administrative-division reorganization, departmental transfer, and gubernatorial appointment — not the election of the mayor by citizens. This gives Chen Jiongming’s local governance practice a dual face: experimenting with popular election and gubernatorial selection at the county level, while first integrating administrative capacity by provincial order at the Guangzhou urban level. [16]

The two paths need not be mutually exclusive. An urban government first needs a defined jurisdiction for taxation, roads, policing, and public services before residents can discuss through what representative organs to control these powers; but administrative efficiency itself does not automatically produce popular accountability. Huang Yanpei’s 1922 edited One Year of Guangzhou (Yi Sui zhi Guangzhoushi), from its original book’s scan holdings, lists in its table of contents the Provisional Guangzhou Municipal Regulations, Municipal Election Regulations, Municipal Election Committee Organization Rules, and dedicated chapters on the “Council” (canshihui) and “Municipal Audit.” Its combination of materials suggests that Guangzhou’s municipal system should be reconstructed along four links: administrative establishment, deliberative representation, fiscal revenue and expenditure, and audit supervision. At present only the bibliography and table of contents have been checked; one cannot infer from the table of contents the statutory independence of the municipal audit office, or conclude that citizen representative organs had effectively supervised the budget in 1921. [17]

That same year’s women’s campaign for political participation further exposed the gap between “resident” and “voter.” The Ladies’ Journal (Funü Zazhi) 1921 Volume 7, Issue 7 preserves a photograph of The Women’s Suffrage Movement in Guangdong (Guangdong zhi Nüzi Canzheng Yundong), whose digital image description links it to the March 29 Guangzhou women’s federation rally and march to the provincial assembly. This is a contemporaneous image clue for tracing political mobilization, but not evidence that women had obtained county-magistrate suffrage, completed registration, or actually voted. To measure the democratic scope of Chen Jiongming’s reforms, one must separately verify gender qualifications in municipal council elections, county councilor elections, county-magistrate elections, and the provincial constitution draft; one cannot substitute the visibility of a march for the effective proof of legal rights. [18]

The correction of original-issue page numbers gives the comparison of Guangdong military-political provisions a more reliable coordinate. Page 30 of the SSID original print (PDF image 36) of the September 1921 Guangdong Provincial Constitution Draft juxtaposes Articles 114–118: Article 114 discusses finance, trade, and labor protection; Article 115 defines the province’s land and naval forces as the provincial army with organization determined by provincial law; Article 116 caps provincial military expenditures at 30% of the province’s total expenditures; Article 117 permits a part of the province’s army to accept national government command when the nation declares war on a foreign country. These four matters belong to industrial regulation, military organization, fiscal constraint, and wartime command — they cannot be mistaken as already implemented by the same organ merely because the articles are consecutive. The old draft misrecorded this page as printed page 20; it is now corrected to printed page 30 per the visible original-print page number. [32]

Especially Article 117’s restrictive wording gives Chen Jiongming’s provincial self-government scheme a conditional national military-power interface, not an already fully nationalized provincial army: the triggering event is a declaration of war against a foreign country, only “a part of this province’s army” is placed under command, and the original article provides no evidence of peacetime unified organization of the entire army. The 1923 national constitution’s Article 34 prohibited provinces from maintaining standing armies; the 1947 Constitution’s Articles 138–139 further set limits from the angles of national loyalty and prohibiting the use of armed force for political contention. The problem awareness of the three texts can be compared, but without drafting archives, military establishment tables, and wartime command records, one cannot presume direct succession, let alone write the statutory goal of nationalization as an accomplished military-political reform. [32][33]

Military-expenditure ratios must also be separated from transitional provisions. The original print’s page 30 can support the September 1921 draft’s Article 116 as writing the 30% standing norm, but is insufficient to support Article 134’s specific claims about when it would trigger in different versions. The latter currently has only mutually inconsistent September, December, and 1922 transcription leads; original-issue images have not been read character by character. This draft therefore treats only Article 116 as Grade-A partial normative evidence, keeping Article 134 as a triggering mechanism pending collation; actual military-expenditure ratios, audit enforcement, and army-obedience relations are all UNVERIFIED. [32]

V. Comparability and Incomparability of the Three Paths

Guo Songtao’s starting point was institutional observation: without good education, commercial, administrative, and judicial practices, the state can hardly govern sustainably. Song Jiaoren’s starting point was national political responsibility: without parliament and parties constraining executive power, a unified government may degenerate into personal power. Chen Jiongming’s starting point was local organization: without workable budgets, assemblies, and electoral systems at the local level, national constitutionalism may have only the abstract legal articles of the center.

The three are complementary, but they cannot be merged into an unproven common thought. Guo did not provide a complete Song-style parliamentary-cabinet platform; Song in 1913 explicitly advocated a unitary system, not a synonym for Chen-style province-and-county-first experiments; Chen’s local institutions were also limited by provincial appointment and military-political realities. The value of comparison lies precisely in preserving differences, not in manufacturing a tidy gallery of heroes for “federalist forerunners.”

Institutionally, tensions exist among state capacity, parliamentary accountability, and local self-government. A strong center, if unsupervised, may suppress self-government; strong localities, lacking judicial and fiscal transparency, may become local strongmen’s power; a parliament unable to constrain the military cannot ensure constitutionalism either. Historical experience requires handling these three risks together.

Supplementary Sources and Version Analysis (2026-10-11)

Supplementary source note (2026-10-11 research addition, without full original-issue collation): the late-Qing Twenty-Eight Articles of the General Regulations of the Southern Study Society and the Regulations of the Society for the Preservation of the Nation (Baoguohui Zhangcheng) cannot be conflated as one material. The former can be located on original pages 277–279 of the 1898 Xiang Bao No. 35; the latter’s later transcription is explicitly arranged in thirty articles and points to Guowen Bao (National News) No. 185. The two societies’ geographic activities, organizational procedures, and publication media should each be verified separately. Treating late-Qing societies’ voluntary association, knowledge dissemination, and local public discussion as constitutional social conditions can pose research hypotheses, but one should not directly presume them to be the public-law representative power of provincial assemblies, still less mis-cite the thirty articles as the Southern Study Society’s twenty-eight. The former’s facsimile location is Grade A (0/28 full text); the latter’s transcription is Grade B, original issue unread. Source: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/保國會章程; Xiang Bao facsimile https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NLC511-012031312030004-21069_湘報_第11卷.pdf .

The Guangdong provincial constitution draft’s version changes must also be observed in article combinations, not by reading one article in isolation. September 1921 draft Article 63’s limit on rejection counts for state-councilor appointments differs from the December transcription draft; December draft Article 61’s countersignature, Article 63’s assembly consent and tacit consent, Article 64’s state-affairs conference handling cross-department issues, and Article 65’s execution of policy lines decided by the assembly and approved by the governor together constitute the executive responsibility chain. Its institutional meaning is that the governor’s appointment power and the assembly’s consent power coexist — the assembly does not monopolize policy-making; the draft’s military command authority may still overwhelm the paper checks. The two drafts are Grade-B later transcriptions; the September original print’s Articles 63–65 and the December original assembly records have not been image-collated character by character, so the changes must not be written as implemented responsible-cabinet reforms. Sources: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東省憲法草案_(民國10年9月); https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東省憲法草案 .

VI. The 1923 Constitution: A Unified Democratic State Coexisting with Provincial Autonomy

Article 1 of the 1923 Constitution of the Republic of China called it “the Republic of China shall forever be a unified democratic state” (中華民國永遠為統一民主國), but Article 22 entrusted local matters to joint regulation by the constitution and provincial self-government laws; Articles 23–25 enumerated respectively national matters, matters of central legislation that could be entrusted to local execution, and matters of provincial legislation and execution. Provincial education, industry, provincial taxes, provincial debts, police, and lower-level self-government were all listed as provincial matters. This shows that a unified state does not necessarily exclude constitutionally protected local authority. [4]

Article 26 provided that unenumerated matters be attributed to the nation or the province according to their nature, with disputes decided by the Supreme Court; Article 28 provided that doubts about conflicts between provincial and national law be interpreted by the Supreme Court; Article 31 assigned inter-provincial disputes to the Senate. The adjudicators for the three types of disputes were not the same. Article 27 permitted the nation to restrict inter-provincial protective taxation, and Article 34 prohibited provinces from maintaining standing armies, military academies, and arms factories. This constitution thus attempted to maintain the nation’s unified market, judicial, and military order while granting provincial fiscal and legislative authority. [4]

This does not mean the 1923 Constitution successfully realized military nationalization, an independent judiciary, or provincial self-government. Textual existence and enforcement outcomes are two kinds of evidence. This constitution was not a document jointly drafted by Guo, Song, and Chen; one cannot presume direct intellectual transmission from later similar institutions. Its comparative value lies in providing an institutionalized checklist: whether local powers are enumerated, whether tax sources match, who adjudicates disputes, whether localities possess armed force, and how the nation supervises its own coercive power.

How National Coercive Power Is Checked: The Significance of Article 35 of the 1923 Constitution

Local image verification of pages 11–13 of the 1923 Constitution’s original book shows that Article 28 assigned doubts about provincial–national law conflicts to the Supreme Court for interpretation, Article 31 assigned inter-provincial disputes to the Senate for adjudication, Article 32 limited national armament expenditures to normally no more than one-fourth of expenditures (except for foreign wars), Article 34 prohibited provinces from maintaining standing armies, and Article 35 permitted the center to apply coercion against provinces that, after admonition, still refused to perform national-law obligations — but to suspend it when denied by the national assembly. These five articles jointly display different types of checks: judicial interpretation of normative conflicts, political adjudication of inter-provincial disputes, budgetary constraints on military expenditures, boundaries of local military power, and parliamentary constraints on central coercion. One should neither write all disputes as court adjudication nor write Article 35 as an unsupervised central power of force. Grade A is limited to these original-issue pages and articles directly read before; it does not concern implementation. Original issue: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/NLC416-11jh007322-56095_中華民國憲法.pdf .

Inter-Provincial Conflict and Emergency Defense in the 1923 National Constitution: “Provincial Self-Government” Should Not Be Mistaken for “Provincial Independence”

Article 1 of the 1923 Constitution of the Republic of China defined the state form as a “unified democratic state,” yet Articles 23–25 enumerated respectively central-exclusive, centrally legislated but locally executable, and provincially legislated and executed matters. This layered arrangement is more worth examining than the “federal/unitary” label: the same text both recognized provinces’ legally defined scope of affairs and retained national legislative supremacy and central correction. Especially Article 27 permitted national legislation to restrict provincial taxes damaging national revenue, commercial circulation, or causing double taxation; Article 28 assigned questions of provincial–national law conflict to the Supreme Court for interpretation. It can thus be seen that provincial self-government here was not an unlimited fiscal exclusion right, but self-government embedded in the national market and legal order. [25]

More easily overlooked is the three-tier structure of “peaceful disputes — national intervention — constitutional preservation” established by Articles 31–37. Article 31 assigned inter-provincial disputes to the Senate; Articles 33–34 prohibited inter-provincial political alliances and provincial standing armies, military academies, and arms factories; Articles 35–36 permitted limited central intervention against refusal to perform national statutory obligations or inter-provincial armed invasion, with a national-assembly veto mechanism. Article 37, when the national polity was changed or the constitution’s basic organization destroyed, required the provinces to take joint measures to maintain the constitutional organization until the original state was restored. Here the provinces’ joint measures are not of course proof of provincial sovereignty; rather, they show the text attempting to place local cooperation under the purpose of maintaining the national constitution. This article still requires verbatim collation against the 1923 original issue; one cannot infer from the English transcription that localities had an independent right of war. [25][26]

For Chen Jiongming research, the above articles constitute an important counterfactual comparative standard, not direct evidence of his personal thought. Chen’s 1921 Guangdong provincial constitution draft permitted a provincial army and attempted to set a military-expenditure ceiling; the 1923 national constitution explicitly prohibited provincial standing armies. The two differ not merely in “degree of local autonomy,” but made opposite designs on the ultimate attribution of armed power. To explain why the Guangdong system was difficult to operate stably, one must ask separately: what did the draft say in writing, which organ had the power to enforce, whether military expenditures and troop numbers were brought under effective budget audit, and who could enforce adjudication in military conflicts. Existing original-issue verification covers only several Guangdong articles; one should not write the 1923 national constitution’s normative scheme as the actual political consequence of 1921 Guangdong. [20][21][25]

Equally, one should not trace the 1923 national constitution’s specific articles back as a direct continuation of Song Jiaoren’s platform. Song’s platform emphasized a unified state, a responsible cabinet, and enumerated provincial self-government affairs; the 1923 national constitution’s elaboration of the Supreme Court, inter-provincial disputes, central intervention, and national military power belongs to constitutional arrangements under different later political environments. One can compare the continuity of institutional problems, but without drafting conference records or explicit citations, it is inadvisable to assert an intellectual transmission chain. The 1923 Xiehua Book Company 40-page original book (holding: 42 digital images) and the October 18, 1923 Government Gazette No. 2728 have both been located; related clauses’ images have not yet been read, and at present only the later English translated transcription is listed as B+, with the 1947 Presidential Office official decree as Grade A. [25][26][27]

Boundaries of Comparison for the 1931–1936 Institutional Turn (new research note; not original-issue image collation)

Song Jiaoren’s responsible cabinet and Chen Jiongming’s provincial assembly supervision are two different entry points for understanding early-Republic power-constraint schemes, but behind them there is no uninterrupted line of provincial-assembly self-government evolution. Article 78 of the 1931 Provisional Constitution of the Political Tutelage Period provided that provincial governments were subject to central direction, and Article 85 assigned interpretation of the provisional constitution to the Central Executive Committee of the Kuomintang of China; Articles 98–100 of the 1936 May 5th Draft Constitution (Wuwu Xiancao) positioned the provincial government as an organ executing central decrees and supervising local self-government, with the governor appointed and removed by the center and provincial councilors indirectly elected by county and municipal assemblies. This contrast shows that national institutional design once recombined provincial democratic self-government with central administrative hierarchization; one cannot use the 1921 Guangdong draft to retroactively infer the provincial political status of the 1930s. The above articles come from later digital transcriptions; the original-issue National Government Gazette facsimile pages have not been collated page by page; textual-level institutional comparison does not prove actual implementation effectiveness. [New source note: 1931 Provisional Constitution Articles 78, 85; 1936 Draft Constitution Articles 98–100; sources https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hans/訓政時期約法 and https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/五五憲草; Grade B (directly read digital transcriptions), original-issue images UNVERIFIED.]

A Unified Market Does Not Automatically Cancel Provincial Self-Government: 1931 Tax-Power Limits and 1947 Guarantees of Goods Circulation

Article 61 of the 1931 Provisional Constitution of the Political Tutelage Period left the division of central and local taxation to be decided by law; Article 62 enumerated six categories of reasons for the center to restrict local taxation, including harming central revenue, double taxation, harming transportation, discriminating against goods imported from other localities, and levying transit taxes on local goods. The articles simultaneously acknowledged the existence of local taxing activity and the boundaries the unified national market set for it: it can neither be summarized as “provincial tax power fully autonomous” nor inversely interpreted as localities having no fiscal authority at all. Institutional comparison with the 1923 national constitution’s Article 27 on provincial tax limits can pose the question of “local fiscal autonomy must avoid local protectionist barriers,” but Articles 61–62 of the 1931 Provisional Constitution are still only based on later digital transcriptions; the original-issue National Government Gazette No. 786, pages 6–11, has not completed image-by-image collation; nor have actual enforcement records of provinces adjusting their tax systems accordingly been verified. [40]

Article 107, Item 7 of the 1947 Constitution of the Republic of China listed the division of national, provincial, and county taxes as a matter of central legislation and execution; Article 109, Items 7–8 simultaneously enumerated provincial finance, provincial taxes, and provincial debts; Article 147 established the principle of tiered subsidies from the center to poor provinces and from provinces to poor counties; Article 148 required the free circulation of goods nationwide. The four articles jointly show that the legal space of provincial self-government, the national tax-system division of labor, regional fiscal equalization, and the common market are not mutually exclusive single choices, but institutional constraints to be handled together. What is compared here are constitutional questions repeatedly appearing in the 1920s–1940s, not the assertion that the 1931 provisions directly generated the 1947 provisions, still less should the normative “should grant subsidies as appropriate” be miswritten as actual appropriations already realized. Whether Song Jiaoren or Chen Jiongming personally advocated the same details still requires proof from each’s original platforms, correspondence, and administrative records. [40][41]

VII. Comparison with the Constitution Adopted in 1946 and Enforced in 1947: Continuous Questions, Not Linear Progress

The Constitution of the Republic of China, adopted December 25, 1946 and enforced December 25, 1947, provides in Articles 107–111 for central, provincial, and county matters and the attribution of unenumerated powers; Article 112 permits provinces to enact provincial self-government laws in accordance with the general principles of provincial and county self-government; Article 113 provides the popular-election principle for provincial assemblies and governors; Article 114 provides that provincial self-government laws be submitted to the Judicial Yuan for review of unconstitutional provisions; and Article 147 separately provides that the center, to seek balanced economic development among provinces, should grant subsidies as appropriate, and grant subsidies for local self-government funds in economically backward areas. [5] This constitution thus not only divided affairs but also established organizational and normative-review mechanisms for local self-government; but the existence of articles does not equal the implementation of local elections, fiscal equalization, and judicial review across localities. The institutional similarities between 1923 and 1947 are also insufficient to prove an uninterrupted intellectual transmission chain.

In power structure, Article 108 of the 1947 Constitution provides that certain matters be legislated and executed by the center, or executed by provinces and counties as entrusted, and that provincial single-act regulations must not contravene national law; Article 109, while enumerating provincial finance, provincial taxes, provincial debts, and provincial police administration as provincial matters, simultaneously placed inter-provincial joint handling and national treasury subsidies under statutory conditions; Article 111’s unenumerated matters were not generally attributed to the provinces either, but allocated according to whether affairs were national, provincial, or county in nature, with disputes resolved by the Legislative Yuan. [5] Therefore, one cannot, merely on the basis of provincial assemblies, popularly elected governors, and provincial self-government law provisions, classify the 1947 Constitution as a federal constitution in which the provinces possess original sovereignty. More precisely: within the constitutional framework of a unified state, it designed central–local relations through the coexistence of enumerated powers, local self-government, and central supervision.

Especially, one should distinguish historical constitutions’ normative design from their actual effective scope. Law can declare county and provincial self-government, but whether there were sufficient financial resources, effective elections, independent audits, and judicial remedies must be separately proven with institutional-implementation archives and outcomes. This paper uses the 1947 text as the comparative endpoint, not to retroactively infer the three thinkers’ subjective intentions.

The Third Organ of Constitutional Interpretation: The 1923 Constitutional Convention and the Judicial Boundaries of Local Self-Government

The 1923 Constitution of the Republic of China set up an institutional fault line, easily obscured by the generalization “judicial resolution of disputes,” between Chapter 5 and Chapter 13. Chapter 5’s Article 26 assigned unenumerated power disputes to the Supreme Court for adjudication, Article 28 assigned doubts about provincial–national law conflicts to the Supreme Court for interpretation, but Article 31 assigned inter-provincial disputes to the Senate. Chapter 13’s Article 139 further assigned interpretation of the constitution itself to a constitutional convention (xianfa huiyi), with Article 140 providing that the constitutional convention be composed of national assembly members, with special quorum and voting thresholds. Thus the Supreme Court was not this constitution’s sole final interpretive authority; the boundaries of local self-government power were constrained by different procedures of judicial organs, political representative organs, and a specially established constitutional convention. This power-division structure rests on the extant full-text transcription (B+); Articles 136–141 have been subjected to local image reading (Grade A limited to that set of articles) from original-printed pages 27–28 of the 1923 Xin Qun Book Society (Xin Qun Shushe) edition.

This institutional fault line helps avoid forcibly stitching Song Jiaoren’s responsible-cabinet advocacy and Chen Jiongming’s provincial judicial and military-political self-government schemes into a continuous “federal” system. The former concerned how national executive power should be responsible to representative organs; the latter’s difficulties included provincial constitution interpretation and the boundaries of local finance and armed force. The 1923 Constitution’s placing national constitutional interpretation in a constitutional convention composed of national assembly members differs both from provincial courts independently determining the meaning of provincial constitutions and from the Supreme Court uniformly resolving all constitutional questions. The three constitute comparable power-allocation schemes, but one cannot, from later institutional similarities, presume that Song or Chen participated in drafting or endorsed the 1923 articles.

Articles 171–173 of the 1947 Constitution of the Republic of China changed to having the Judicial Yuan interpret whether laws contravene the constitution and the constitution itself; Article 174 assigned the amendment procedure to the National Assembly, or to the Legislative Yuan’s proposal submitted to the National Assembly for referendum. Thus the difference between the 1923 “constitutional convention composed of national assembly members holding both amendment and constitutional-doubt interpretation” and the 1947 “Judicial Yuan interpretation, political representative organs amending” concerns whether interpretation and amendment are separated, and cannot be reduced to the degree of federalism. The 1947 articles are Grade-A official Presidential Office texts; 1923 Articles 136–141 already have Grade-A local reading from the Xin Qun Book Society original print, with other articles not yet collated article by article still handled at their existing evidentiary tiers. Sources: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/曹錕憲法 (Articles 26, 28, 31, 136–141); https://www.president.gov.tw/Page/284/1241 (Articles 171–174).

The Organizational Boundaries of Fiscal Responsibility and Local Self-Government: From the Southern Study Society to the Provincial-Constitution Audit Court

The late-Qing Southern Study Society, with lecture, deliberation, correspondence, and reform proposals to local authorities as its organizational instruments, could not thereby obtain statutory decision-making power over local taxation, budgets, and final accounts. The provincial constitution drafts more than two decades later provided a stricter test: local public discussion must pass through representative organs’ authorization, fiscal openness, and independent verification before being converted into accountable institutional arrangements. This is not asserting that the 1898 society charter directly produced the 1921 provincial constitution articles, but using different documentary genres to compare the institutional threshold between “participating in public affairs” and “holding public power.” The Southern Study Society’s original-issue 28 articles have not yet been collated character by character, so no specific charter article is directly attributed to the society. [30]

The extant transcription of Articles 93–98 of the 1921 Guangdong Draft Constitution of the Province concerns respectively: the assembly not increasing expenditures, funds not being diverted, final accounts submitted three months after the fiscal year’s end, provisional reliance on the previous year’s budget when the budget is not passed, assembly resolution for public-debt flotation, and fiscal openness. Articles 101–107 further designed an audit court (shenjiyuan) whose president is elected by the provincial assembly, supervising revenue and expenditure books, giving prior approval to expenditures, auditing final accounts, and permitting the provincial assembly to impeach an audit-court president who broke the law or took bribes. Reading these articles together, the Guangdong scheme was not only an abstract claim of “the province having fiscal power,” but proposed a chain of responsibility from compilation through spending to final accounts. However, original-issue character-by-character collation and whether an audit court was actually established and operated remain unfinished; one cannot infer from the articles that fiscal reform had succeeded. [31]

The transcribed Articles 70, 72–74, and 96–100 of Hunan’s 1922 Provincial Constitution provide an independent comparable institutional sample: provincial treasury payments required the audit-court president’s seal; the provincial assembly deliberated budgets and final accounts, with the fiscal situation to be published; the audit court could approve seals per budget or temporary expenditure bills and refuse non-conforming expenditures. Compared with the Guangdong text, provincial self-government practitioners at least attempted, at the normative-design level, to have fiscal power constrained simultaneously by representative organs and specially established audit institutions. But the two later transcriptions are insufficient to prove the direction of institutional transplantation, let alone enforcement performance. Research must trace each province’s original issues, gazettes, budget books, final-account books, and audit-organ organization records. [31]

From Provincial Audit to the 1923 National Constitution: Another Institutional Route of Fiscal Accountability

Articles 119–122 of the 1923 Constitution of the Republic of China separately established a Board of Audit (shenjiyuan) at the national level: national expenditure payment orders had to obtain prior approval, revenue and expenditure final accounts had to be audited and then reported by the government to parliament; auditors’ tenure protection was to be provided by law, the Board of Audit president was elected by the Senate, and could explain final accounts to the two houses. These norms have a comparable institutional structure with the Guangdong and Hunan provincial constitutions’ arrangements on provincial treasury payments and audit courts, but there is no evidence proving direct inheritance, nor should the national Board of Audit be miswritten as a provincial self-government organ. It reminds us that the provincial self-government debate in which Chen Jiongming stood concerned not only how much power localities possessed, but also how fiscal payments could be subjected to accountable legal procedures. [37]

The Chinese later transcription of Article 120 of the 1923 Constitution also contains a provision that state councilors be held responsible when the House of Representatives denies final accounts or ratification cases, while the existing English translation only summarizes the procedures of the Board of Audit’s auditing and the government’s reporting to parliament. The two texts are not fully equivalent in presenting responsibility consequences; before the corresponding pages of the original print are collated, this paper treats this difference only as a version-collation lead, not elevating it to verified historical implementation fact. This also shows that in discussing Song Jiaoren’s parliamentary responsible cabinet and 1923 fiscal accountability, one should distinguish the continuity of institutional problems from the intellectual transmission of specific articles. [37]

VIII. Research-Oriented Lessons for Future Institutional Design

If one wishes in the future to guarantee regional and local self-government within a unified state framework, the most critical thing is not choosing a political label, but formulating enforceable rules: clearly define central, regional, and local exclusive and shared matters; give elected organs real budgetary power; provide predictable tax sources and objective equalization grants for local tasks; establish independent adjudication of power disputes; implement transparent audits of local debt, public procurement, and executive power; and simultaneously prohibit the privatization of local armed force.

These principles are not a complete scheme already proposed by any historical figure, but contemporary analytical inductions from the three persons’ different problem awareness and subsequent constitutional texts. This comparison proposes only research-oriented principles and should not be directly equated with any existing or proposed constitutional articles.

Original-print reading further reveals the 1923 national constitution’s procedural diversion of “constitutional interpretation” and “constitutional amendment.” Chapter 13 of the 1923 Xin Qun Book Society print, on original-printed pages 27–28 (PDF images 28–29), records: Article 136 provides the procedure for parliament to propose amendment bills, Article 137 assigns formal amendment to the constitutional convention, Article 138 excludes changing the state form (guoti), and Article 139 assigns interpretation of constitutional doubts to the same constitutional convention. Previously the constitutional convention’s existence was judged only from later transcriptions; it can now be directly supported by the 1923 contemporary print for these articles’ existence and wording — but one still cannot infer from this that the convention actually ruled on specific provincial-constitution disputes. [28]

Article 140 gives this institutional design more concrete political consequences: the constitutional convention is composed of national assembly members; convening requires two-thirds or more of all members present, general resolutions require three-fourths or more of those present to agree, except that resolutions interpreting constitutional doubts are lowered to two-thirds or more of those present. In other words, the same organ bears interpretation and amendment, but applies different voting thresholds. This may both raise the stability of fundamental norms and push central–local power conflicts back into parliamentary majorities and their party relations. The above is only an inference of institutional risk; whether the convention was normally convened, whether judicial organs could constrain interpretation outcomes, and whether the provinces recognized its authority still require searching conference records and case law. [28]

This original article forms a testable institutional turn with the 1947 Constitution. The 1947 original promulgated text’s Articles 78 and 173 assigned constitutional interpretation to the Judicial Yuan, Article 111 assigned attribution disputes over unenumerated central–local affairs to the Legislative Yuan for resolution, and Articles 114 and 117 assigned the Judicial Yuan different duties regarding provincial self-government laws and provincial regulations’ unconstitutionality. Thus “who adjudicates central–local disputes” cannot be summarized by one organ name; interpreting the constitution, dividing residual affairs, and reviewing provincial norms belong to different statutory procedures. Comparing Song Jiaoren’s unitary-state advocacy and Chen Jiongming’s provincial self-government practice at this level is more prudent than inferring their institutional effects with the “federal/unitary” binary label. [28][29]

The 1923 Contemporary Press’s Fiscal Explanation of Chen Jiongming’s Defeat: The Break between the Provincial-Constitution System and Army Supply

The first issue of Volume 20 (1923) of The Eastern Miscellany, The Great Upheaval in the Southwest Situation (Xinan Jushi de Da Biandong), in discussing Chen Jiongming’s withdrawal from Guangzhou, did not simply attribute political failure to whether the “united-provinces self-government” idea was correct, but juxtaposed three explanations: the alliance of defeated factions, the complex composition of the Guangdong army, and fiscal distress. The report particularly addressed Guangdong’s years of warfare, paper currency depreciation, military-expenditure fundraising, and frontline troop morale. This is a contemporary observer’s situation judgment, not audited military-expenditure final accounts, let alone proof that the provincial constitution’s military-expenditure ceiling had been implemented. It instead suggests a testable question: if the provincial constitution’s military-expenditure ratio lacked a credible expenditure denominator, budget supervision, and actual army-command system, the article’s constraints might not convert into enforcement constraints on military finance. This analysis does not infer Chen Jiongming’s personal true motives toward the provincial constitution from contemporary press opinion, nor does it exclusivize its fiscal explanation.

Contemporary source path supplement: Li Zonghuang’s A New Observation of Guangdong (1922, Commercial Press edition) has now been located in the Wikimedia Commons batch catalogue as SSID-11351847, but this round did not obtain the book’s original pages; the 1923 Eastern Miscellany issue’s introduction to this book can only confirm contemporaneous publication and review, not county-by-county election results or fiscal statistics within the book. Later county-magistrate election materials show two counting measures, “81 counties” and the photograph description’s “85 persons,” plus the separate November announcement narrative of 68 counties; county counts, appointment numbers, photograph labels, and statistical moments have not been unified — no determined completion rate is given in the main text.

Sources and evidentiary tiers: the 1923 Eastern Miscellany Volume 20, Issue 1 The Great Upheaval in the Southwest Situation and the New Observation of Guangdong introduction, B-PERIOD-TRANSCRIPTION, original-issue images unread: https://wikisource.org/wiki/東方雜誌/一九二三年二十卷一期; Li Zonghuang’s A New Observation of Guangdong 1922 original book catalogue location, C-CATALOG, book text unread: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Library_back_up_project/file_list/SSID/1921-1925 (SSID-11351847); county-magistrate election count-conflict leads, C-TERTIARY, not as original results: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921年廣東省縣長選舉; 1921 photograph description of 85 persons, C-METADATA, not a county appointment roster: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1921廣東民選縣長.jpg.

IX. Conclusion

What modern China missed may not have been a ready-made federal constitution, but the opportunity to bring administrative capacity, parliamentary accountability, and local self-government together into an enforceable legal order. Guo Songtao reminds us that state capacity comes from social institutions, not merely artifacts; Song Jiaoren emphasized that a unified state needs parties and parliament to constrain executive power; Chen Jiongming’s Guangdong experiment shows that self-government must be implemented down to county councils, finance, and appointment mechanisms — yet also exposes the risks of local military-political control.

The 1923 Constitution further shows that a unified democratic state, local powers, and the prohibition of provinces maintaining standing armies can appear simultaneously within the same constitutional structure. The real difficulty is not writing these principles on paper, but establishing the judicial, fiscal, and political conditions that make them effective. Historical research should reject the deterministic counterfactual that “someone’s victory would necessarily have meant democracy,” and take the enforceability of institutions as the core of comparison.

Source scope note: the relevant original pages of the 1898 Xiang Bao, the 1913 Minli Bao original issues, and some 1921 Guangdong original decree gazettes have not yet been collated page by page; the relevant arguments rest on transcriptions, edited editions, and holding leads with the evidentiary tiers marked below, and do not claim completed original-issue verbatim certification on this basis.

Notes and Principal Sources

[1] Guo Songtao, A Record of the Journey to the West (Shi Xi Ji Cheng) and Guo Shilang’s Record of the Journey to the West, 1897 Chengdu Zhigutang edition holding: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NLC403-312001069134-5780_郭侍郎使西紀程.pdf ; Guangxu-era Tiexiangshi edition: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NLC892-GBZX0301010751-250698_使西紀程_二卷.pdf . Holding version catalogues are verifiable; the specific page numbers used in this paper await page-by-page collation, Grade B/C.

[2] Sun Yat-sen Academic Database, Kuomintang Political Views Declaration, Complete Works of the National Father, Volume 2, pages 36–42, and editor’s notes 1–6: https://sunology.yatsen.gov.tw/detail/24aae1425bbc7aadb20b40c288accee0/ . Notes the April 2–7, 1913 Minli Bao base text; B+ authoritative edited transcription, original-issue facsimiles not read issue by issue.

[3] Guangdong Provisional County-Magistrate Election Regulations, later transcription: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東暫行縣長選舉條例 ; draft later transcription: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/广东暂行县长选举条例草案 . Grade B/C; the draft’s source is unknown and cannot be treated as a certified original promulgated legal text.

[4] 1923 Constitution of the Republic of China (Cao Kun Constitution), Xiehua Book Company original book facsimile: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/NLC416-11jh007322-56095_中華民國憲法.pdf . The original issue’s specific article page numbers and versions still await independent page-by-page collation; this paper does not use the scan link itself as proof that articles have been verified. Government gazette transcription: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/曹錕憲法 , Grade B.

[5] Office of the President of the Republic of China, Constitution of the Republic of China (adopted December 25, 1946; promulgated January 1, 1947; enforced December 25, 1947), Articles 107–114, 147: https://www.president.gov.tw/Page/94 . Grade-A officially promulgated text; does not imply the historical implementation of each provision.

[6] Supplementary holding lead (not cited in main text): CiNii Research, Minli Bao 1969 facsimile union catalogue, NCID AA11247306: https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/AA11247306?l=en (Grade-C holding record; not original-issue verbatim verification).

[7] Guangdong Provincial Assembly, Draft Constitution of Guangdong Province (marked December 19, 1921), Articles 23, 54, 115–116, 134, later full-text transcription: https://www.zhonghuashu.com/wiki/广东省宪法草案 (Grade-B transcription, original-issue images unverified; distinct from the September 1921 draft).

[8] Guangdong Provincial Constitution Drafting Committee, Draft Constitution of Guangdong Province, 1921 printed edition, 40-page facsimile scan holding: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SSID-13420234_廣東省憲法草案.pdf (Grade-C scan existence; scan text not yet read page by page).

[9] 1922 National Affairs Conference Constitutional Draft, Drafts A and B, later transcriptions: https://zh.wikisource.org/zh/%E5%9B%BD%E6%98%AF%E4%BC%9A%E8%AE%AE%E5%AE%AA%E6%B3%95%E8%8D%89%E6%A1%88 . Grade-B transcription, original issue unverified.

[10] Cen Dezhang, ed., Constitutional History Materials of the Republic of China (1933), catalogue placing the draft under privately drafted manuscripts: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NLC416-02jh002552-13079_中華民國憲法史料.pdf . Grade-C catalogue location, original book text unverified.

[11] Cen Dezhang, Constitutional History Materials of the Republic of China: Editor’s Preface, signed preface May 1933, Shanghai St. John’s University, modern transcription: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E8%8F%AF%E6%B0%91%E5%9C%8B%E6%86%B2%E6%B3%95%E5%8F%B2%E6%96%99%E7%B7%A8%E8%80%85%E5%BA%8F . B+: modern transcription of a contemporaneous editor’s original text, 1933 original book’s image page numbers not yet checked; its historical judgments do not automatically count as factual originals.

[12] Zuo Yuhe, Disciplines, Learned Societies, and Scholarship: The Construction of China’s Modern Academic Community: https://modernchina.org/article/2363.html; Mao Haijian, On Liang Qichao’s Democratic Thought in the 1898 Reform Period: https://www.sohu.com/a/158311348_649798. These are later research positionings, not 1898 Xiang Bao original-issue evidence. The Xiang Bao No. 35’s correct facsimile volume candidate is Xiang Bao Volume 11, holding file NLC511-012031312030004-21069: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NLC511-012031312030004-21069_湘報_第11卷.pdf. Original-issue pages 277–279, the twenty-eight articles’ verbatim two-person collation remains 0/28; this note is not used as direct original-issue citation. Previously NLC511-012031312030004-21172 belonged to Volume 35 (containing No. 59), not No. 35 — excluded. Evidentiary tier: holding location Grade C, full-text original-issue collation UNVERIFIED.

[13] Guangdong Provincial Assembly, Guangdong Provisional County Self-Government Regulations Article 43, Guangdong Provisional County-Magistrate Election Regulations (April 21, 1921) Articles 3, 6–11, 14–20, later transcriptions: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東暫行縣自治條例 ; https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東暫行縣長選舉條例 . Grade-B transcription; the 1921 formal promulgated editions, election rolls, and appointment announcements not yet collated.

[14] Guangdong Provisional County Self-Government Regulations Articles 6–10, 25, 28, 43, 61, 68, later uncorrected transcription: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東暫行縣自治條例 . Grade B; the products of joint-signature and voting ratios are this paper’s mathematical derivations and do not represent actual turnout. The 1921 promulgated original issue awaits collation.

[15] Supplementary legal leads (not cited in main text): Guangdong Provincial Assembly, Guangdong Provisional County Councilor Election Regulations (April 21, 1921) Articles 3, 5–6, 16, 30–33, and Guangdong Provisional County-Magistrate Election Regulations Articles 3, 6, 10, 16–17, later transcription Grade B: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東暫行縣議會議員選舉條例 ; https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東暫行縣長選舉條例 . 1921 original promulgated editions unverified; women’s actual voting, rolls, and election results all UNVERIFIED.

[16] Guangdong Governor’s Office Proclamation No. 7, Proclamation on Municipal Reorganization, signed February 16, 1921, modern transcription: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東省長陳炯明發佈廣州市政廳成立的佈告 . Grade-B original-text transcription, original gazette pages unverified.

[17] Huang Yanpei, ed., One Year of Guangzhou, Commercial Press, 1922, National Library scan holding NLC416-02jh002844-14131, 119-page PDF, table of contents listing municipal elections, municipal council, municipal audit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NLC416-02jh002844-14131_一歲之廣州市.pdf . Grade-C original-book scan location/table of contents, text not read page by page. Guangdong Provincial Archives, July 11, 2023 introduction to the February 28, 1921 inaugural Guangzhou Municipal Gazette and the 2022 90-volume facsimile compilation: https://da.gd.gov.cn/portal_home/content/8112 .

[18] The Ladies’ Journal 1921 Volume 7, Issue 7, The Women’s Suffrage Movement in Guangdong photograph digital extraction: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:廣東之女子參政運動.jpg , original issue PDF: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NLC404-01J002598-49480_婦女雜誌_1921年7卷7期.pdf . Grade-C image and holding location, original-page caption verbatim collation not completed; cannot serve as evidence of women’s voting-right implementation.

[19] September 1921 Draft Constitution of Guangdong Province Articles 46, 49, 54, 61, 63, 67: uncorrected Wikisource transcriptions corresponding to original-issue scan page numbers (Article 49 corresponds to scan page /18; Articles 61, 63, 67 facsimile page numbers still to be recorded article by article); this round did not directly read the images — listed as B+, not Grade A. See [8] for sources.

[20] September 1921 Draft Constitution of Guangdong Province, Guangdong Provincial Constitution Drafting Committee printed edition, SSID-13420234, PDF image 36 (counting from page 1; zero-based page 35), original-printed page 30, Articles 114–116 images: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/SSID-13420234_%E5%BB%A3%E6%9D%B1%E7%9C%81%E6%86%B2%E6%B3%95%E8%8D%89%E6%A1%88.pdf . Also NLC416-07jh003655-41513, PDF page 34 (counting from page 1), printed page 30, containing Article 114: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:NLC416-07jh003655-41513_廣東省憲法草案.pdf/34 . Conflicts with the marked-1921-12-19 later transcription’s Article 114 “(missing)”: https://www.zhonghuashu.com/wiki/广东省宪法草案 . The original December assembly edition has not been directly checked; the nature of the difference is UNVERIFIED.

[21] Same SSID facsimile, PDF image 36 / original-printed page 30, Article 117 (wartime partial provincial army under central command); original-issue image partially read at Grade A. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/SSID-13420234_%E5%BB%A3%E6%9D%B1%E7%9C%81%E6%86%B2%E6%B3%95%E8%8D%89%E6%A1%88.pdf . Article enforcement and legal interpretation unverified.

[22] Xiang Bao NLC511-012031312030004-21172, digital Volume 35, 5 images, original-issue masthead “Xiang Bao No. 59,” pages 506–515: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/NLC511-012031312030004-21172_%E6%B9%98%E5%A0%B1_%E7%AC%AC35%E5%8D%B7.pdf . Five pages directly viewed (Grade A, limited to original-issue masthead, volume number, and page numbers); does not correspond to the No. 35 needed for research; the target Twenty-Eight Articles of the General Regulations of the Southern Study Society still not verified article by article.

[23] Xiang Bao No. 35, original-issue pages 277–279, Twenty-Eight Articles of the General Regulations of the Southern Study Society; National Library digital volume 11, NLC511-012031312030004-21069, 4 facsimile images (spreads). Original-issue masthead “Xiang Bao No. 35” seen on facsimile images 1–3; page 277 title and Articles 1–6, page 278 Articles 7–23, page 279 Articles 24–28. Grade A: facsimile location, title, article numbers, and start–end; not yet verbatim-collation Grade A. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NLC511-012031312030004-21069_湘報_第11卷.pdf .

[24] Xu Xue’er, A Brief Biography of Mr. Song Jiaoren, in Revolutionary Documents (Geming Wenxian), combined Vols. 42–43, Historical Materials on Song Jiaoren’s Assassination and Yuan Shikai’s Illegal Large Loan, catalogue location first article: https://sunology.yatsen.gov.tw/detail/dc5cae46d792d58b5566624737fa2959/ ; 1913 Xu Xue’er et al., eds., Song Yufu, Shanghai Minli Bao Press, original facsimile: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NLC416-07jh010328-20692_宋漁父.pdf . The “dictation—transcription—pending deliberation” account is currently based on later articles’ citations: https://www.chinesepen.org/blog/archives/75279 ; original text’s original pages unverified, Grade-B pending proof. Song’s death date and the platform’s April/May 1913 publication dates are respectively based on the Sun Yat-sen Academic Database’s biographical records and [2]’s editor’s note.

[25] 1923 Constitution of the Republic of China, later English full-text transcription, Articles 23–37: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Republic_of_China_(1923) . This transcription is not the 1923 printed edition directly read this round — provisionally B+. Especially Article 27’s provincial tax limits, Article 31’s Senate adjudication of inter-provincial disputes, and Articles 35–37’s central intervention and provinces’ joint constitutional-maintenance measures require original-issue re-verification.

[26] Contemporary original-version holding locations: 1923 Xiehua Book Company Constitution of the Republic of China, National Library NLC416-11jh007322-56095, holding 40 pages, 42 digital PDF images: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NLC416-11jh007322-56095_中華民國憲法.pdf ; 1923 Government Gazette No. 2728 (October 18) in the Nos. 2726–2741 bound volume, 276 images: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/File:ROC1923-10-16–10-31政府公報2726–2741.pdf . This round only located holdings; article pages were not directly read — not listed as Grade A.

[27] 1947 Constitution of the Republic of China, Office of the President official decree, Articles 107–117, 138–139, 147: https://www.president.gov.tw/Page/284/1241 , Grade-A legal text; implementation and subsequent amendment effects to be proven separately.

[28] 1923 Constitution of the Republic of China, Xin Qun Book Society printed edition, Chapter 13, Articles 136–141, original-printed pages 27–28, PDF images 28–29; this round directly read Articles 136–141’s facsimile pages — Grade A limited to that contemporary printed edition’s articles. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SSID-10109689_中華民國憲法_1923年10月10日宣布.pdf . Not to be conflated with the Xiehua Book Company’s other print’s page numbers.

[29] 1947 Constitution of the Republic of China, Office of the President of the Republic of China promulgated text, Articles 78, 111, 114, 117, 171, 173–174; official decree text Grade A, institutional implementation history to be proven separately: https://www.president.gov.tw/Page/284/1241 . The Xiang Bao No. 35’s original-issue location and collation progress are listed separately in notes [23] and [30] and should not be merged into this note.

[30] Southern Study Society source tiers: 1898 Xiang Bao No. 35, Twenty-Eight Articles of the General Regulations of the Southern Study Society, original-issue pages 277–279, facsimile: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/NLC511-012031312030004-21069_%E6%B9%98%E5%A0%B1_%E7%AC%AC11%E5%8D%B7.pdf . Original-issue location Grade A, 28 articles’ verbatim collation 0/28; the distinction between late-Qing societies and statutory provincial assemblies is the researcher’s analysis, not the charter’s original text.

[31] Guangdong September 1921 original print catalogue/page holding https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NLC416-07jh003655-41513_廣東省憲法草案.pdf; related Articles 93–107 later transcriptions https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東省憲法草案_(民國10年9月), Articles 101–107 with the December 19, 1921 transcription https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東省憲法草案; Hunan 1922 Hunan Provincial Constitution Articles 70, 72–74, 96–100 later transcriptions https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/湖南省憲法. The Guangdong/Hunan articles here are all Grade-B/B+ transcriptions, without this round’s original-image verbatim reading; institutional implementation UNVERIFIED.

[32] Guangdong Provincial Constitution Drafting Committee, Draft Constitution of Guangdong Province (September 1921 original print), SSID-13420234, original-printed page 30 / PDF image 36, Articles 114–118 images partially read at Grade A, limited to discernible articles: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/SSID-13420234_%E5%BB%A3%E6%9D%B1%E7%9C%81%E6%86%B2%E6%B3%95%E8%8D%89%E6%A1%88.pdf . Article 134’s original print not yet read.

[33] 1947 Constitution of the Republic of China Articles 137–139, Office of the President of the Republic of China official promulgated text (Grade-A normative evidence, not implementation evidence): https://www.president.gov.tw/Page/284/1241 .

[34] Chronological Biography of the National Father, Vol. 1, page 632, later account of the August 13–14, 1912 reorganization and five-point party platform, based on Zou Lu’s Draft History of the Kuomintang of China, Part 1, pages 124–125; Sun Yat-sen Academic Database: https://sunology.yatsen.gov.tw/detail/2dab5e5cef2c490287ae0c9a7ea9f1b8/ . Evidence Grade B: later chronological biography, not the 1912 party headquarters’ original circular.

[35] Complete Works of the National Father, Volume 2, pages 36–42, Kuomintang Political Views Declaration, editor’s notes 1–6: https://sunology.yatsen.gov.tw/detail/24aae1425bbc7aadb20b40c288accee0/ . B+: collated edition and variant notes directly read; the April 2–7, 1913 Minli Bao and The National Monthly original-edition images unread.

[36] The April 1913 Minli Bao original title, the May The National Monthly variant title, and later collected works’ different editorial titles are all based on the aforementioned Complete Works of the National Father Note 1; Song Jiaoren’s death date 1913-03-22 is an existing chronology record requiring supplementation by original chronologies/obituaries. Evidence B+/B; not used to determine final-draft responsibility.

[37] 1923 Constitution of the Republic of China Articles 119–122, Chinese later transcription: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/曹錕憲法 ; English historical translation: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Republic_of_China_(1923) . This round directly read both later texts, evidence Grade B; the contemporary Xin Qun Book Society original print holding: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SSID-10109689_中華民國憲法_1923年10月10日宣布.pdf — the four articles’ original-issue images were not successfully read this round (Grade-C location), and cannot be marked Grade A. Article 120, Paragraph 2’s Chinese–English presentation difference requires original-print collation.

[38] Provisional Constitution of the Republic of China at Ezhou, Articles 2, 3, 23, 25, 37–38, later electronic transcription — directly read the transcribed text, not the 1911 original issue, evidence B-TRANSCRIPTION: https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hans/中华民国鄂州临时约法. The Xinhai Revolution Museum’s Compiled Documentary Materials of the Hubei Military Government, holding-edition introduction, can only verify the 1986 compilation’s publication and compilation scope; the compilation’s original official documents were not read, B-CATALOG: https://www.1911museum.cn/view_598.html. Drafting, promulgation, effectiveness, and implementation of the provisional constitution remain UNVERIFIED.

[39] Guangdong Provincial Assembly’s Telegram Announcing the Suspension of Proceedings (signed Lin Zhengxuan, page marked February 1921), later transcription: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東省議會宣告中斷通電 . The transcription’s source marking is incomplete; original newspaper facsimile, delivery records, and the other party’s rebuttal not seen — evidence B-/C. It proves the existence of a verifiable accusation-text lead; insufficient to independently confirm the complete facts of the military-coercion event; original provincial assembly meeting records and newspapers await verification.

[40] Provisional Constitution of the Political Tutelage Period of the Republic of China Articles 61–62 (promulgated June 1, 1931), later digital transcription directly read, evidence Grade B; the original-issue National Government Gazette No. 786, pages 6–11, not yet read; original-issue verbatim and enforcement evidence UNVERIFIED. https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hans/中華民國訓政時期約法

[41] Constitution of the Republic of China Article 107, Item 7, Article 109, Items 7–8, Articles 147–148, Office of the President of the Republic of China official promulgated constitutional text, Grade-A normative evidence; not equal to fiscal enforcement or intellectual-transmission evidence. https://www.president.gov.tw/Page/94

[42] Senate Secretariat: Senate Membership Roster (c. 1913, 140-image facsimile), Wikimedia Commons original book facsimile and holding note; this round only read the bibliography and carrier information, did not read member lists page by page — evidence C-CATALOG. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:參議院議員錄-1913.pdf . Party seat shares cannot be inferred from the catalogue.

[43] Beiyang Government: Government Gazette Nos. 324–352, April 1913 facsimile collection, Legislative Yuan congressional library original image system’s source note; this round only located the collection, does not claim to have read each issue’s text; the Minli Bao‘s April 2–7 original issues remain 0/6. https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/File:ROC1913-04-01–04-30政府公報324–352.pdf .

[44] Township Local Self-Government Regulations (promulgated 1909-01-18), Articles 1, 16–19, 25, 36–38, 90–103, later digital transcription directly read, evidence B-TRANSCRIPTION; the original official gazette and the Township Local Self-Government Election Regulations original printed editions were not directly read; enforcement numbers UNVERIFIED. https://zh.wikisource.org/zh/城鎮鄉地方自治章程

[45] September 1921 Draft Constitution of Guangdong Province Articles 5, 18, 31–32, later digital transcription https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東省憲法草案_(民國10年9月); December 19 assembly draft Articles 5, 18, 31–32, later transcription https://www.zhonghuashu.com/wiki/广东省宪法草案; September 1921 original printed facsimile carrier https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SSID-13420234_廣東省憲法草案.pdf. The two versions’ article-by-article original-issue image comparison is unfinished; election implementation UNVERIFIED, Grade B/B-. Appendix citations: Zhejiang Provincial Government Construction Department Statistics Committee, ed., Zhejiang Province Highway Statistics (May 1933), Table 17 (evidence-method comparison, not 1921 Guangdong fiscal data); 1946 Political Consultative Conference constitutional-draft group’s principles and the Basic Plan for Army Reorganization and the Incorporation of Communist Forces into the National Army (January–February 1946, provincial self-government — central military command institutional-structure comparison).

Supplementary Research Appendix (historical research addition, integrated in v1.65): Comparative Boundaries of 1911 Revolutionary Local Regimes and the 1946 Provincial Self-Government Scheme

Placing Chen Jiongming’s 1920s provincial self-government advocacy in a longer revolutionary state-building history, one cannot directly derive a federal constitution from the fact of the 1911 provinces’ independence. Article 3 of the Provisional Constitution of the Republic of China at Ezhou (November 9, 1911) simultaneously provided for the future national constitution’s priority and for Ezhou’s constitution-making space with the Republic of China’s recognition; Article 23 retained the military governor’s provisional legislative power when parliament had not convened, while Article 29 concentrated military command. This shows that revolutionary local governments could simultaneously propose representation and local constitution-making while retaining military–administrative concentration. It is comparable with the provincial self-government, military, and national-unity problems Chen Jiongming faced, but it is inadvisable to assert direct intellectual inheritance between the two on this basis.

The 1946 Political Consultative Conference constitutional-draft amendment principles on provincial constitutions, popularly elected governors, and equalized powers, as well as the April 19, 1946 draft amendment’s Articles 109–112 power list, provide a post-Chen institutional comparison. Especially Article 112’s assignment of unenumerated-matter disputes to the Legislative Yuan suggests that provincial self-government guarantees cannot be measured by power lists alone; one should also ask about the independence of the dispute-adjudicating organ. This comparison is an analytical coordinate of subsequent institutional history and cannot be retroactively claimed as Song Jiaoren’s or Chen Jiongming’s foresight of the 1946 specific articles.

Evidentiary tiers: the 1911 and 1946 articles are later electronic transcriptions read at Grade B; original-issue images and institutional enforcement evidence UNVERIFIED. https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/中華民國鄂州臨時約法 ; https://www.zhonghuashu.com/wiki/政治协商会议宪法草案决议案 ; https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/政治協商會議對五五憲草修正案草案 .

Corroboration from Original-Edition Images (v1.50 candidate): The 1921 Guangdong Provincial Constitution Draft’s Provincial Military Budget and National Command Conditions

Page 30 of the original print (PDF page 36, zero-based index 35) of the Guangdong Provincial Constitution Drafting Committee’s September 1921 printed edition allows direct reading of Articles 115–117: Article 115 defined the province’s land and naval forces as the provincial army, with organization determined by provincial law; Article 116 set the annual military-expenditure ceiling at 30% of the province’s total expenditures; Article 117, when the nation declared war on a foreign country, only stated that “a part” of the province’s army “may” (de shou) come under the national government’s command. The three articles’ consecutive arrangement shows that provincial fiscal control, army organization, and wartime national command did not form an unconditional, complete unified chain of command. One cannot infer from this alone that the Guangdong army in practice observed the military-expenditure ceiling, nor should “may come under” be rewritten as “must accept.”

For the Song Jiaoren–Chen Jiongming comparison, the key is not simply classifying the provincial constitution draft as federal or separatist, but distinguishing three constraints of the system: the provincial assembly’s budget constraint (Article 116), the provincial government’s organizational power (Article 115), and the conditional interface of national command in foreign wars (Article 117). This interface shows that the tension between state capacity and local self-government was still left to future legislation and political enforcement; one cannot infer from the articles that nationwide military integration had already been established.

Original evidence: September 1921 Draft Constitution of Guangdong Province scan, printed page 30 / PDF page 36, direct visual reading Grade A-PAGE (this round); https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/SSID-13420234_廣東省憲法草案.pdf . Only Articles 115–117 and the adjacent Article 114 are confirmed on this original-issue page; the December 19 assembly draft original issue, enforcement records, and county-level election original results remain UNVERIFIED.

Research Addendum | Source Gating and Comparative Corrections (2026-10-12)

P0 Version Identification and the County-Magistrate Election Procedure: How Legal Popular Election Entered Gubernatorial Appointment

For Guangdong’s 1921 county-magistrate popular election, it is inadvisable to only list “popularly elected county magistrates” or to generally adopt the 85-person figure. The later full text of the April 21, 1921 Guangdong Provisional County-Magistrate Election Regulations, Articles 3–4, linked county-magistrate voter qualifications and rolls with county councilor elections; Articles 11–12 provided that election supervisors be appointed by the governor and suspend electoral and eligibility rights in the supervised county; Article 17 required that after elected persons were determined, the supervisory organ post announcements, notify, and report to the governor, who then appointed per County Self-Government Regulations Article 43. Articles 19–20 handled “invalid elections” and “invalid elected status” separately: the former, after judicial determination, triggered re-election; the latter was succeeded by the next-highest vote-getter. This was not a simple single step of voters directly obtaining administrative office, but a procedural chain of roll—voting—adjudication—provincial appointment. Its legal design gave local elections procedural standing while retaining the provincial executive organ’s final appointment link; whether it could truly restrain gubernatorial interference requires county-by-county announcements, elected-person rolls, adjudication documents, and appointment orders to be mutually verified.

P0 Original-Edition Versions and Statistical Evidence Error-Proofing

Wikimedia Commons currently holds two original-issue facsimiles of the 1921 Draft Constitution of Guangdong Province: the National Library source NLC416-07jh003655-41513, 39 pages, catalogue listing Chapters 1–15, Articles 1–135; and SSID-13420234, 40 pages, described likewise as the Guangdong Provincial Constitution Drafting Committee’s 1921 printed edition. The page-count difference between the two carriers does not equal proven identification as the September draft and the December 19 draft respectively; in particular, one should not backfill the later December 19 digital transcription directly as one of the scans’ original issues. One should first verify covers, tables of contents, prefaces/postfaces, article start–end, and seals before building an article-by-article version-difference table. The “85 persons” attached to the 1921 popularly elected county magistrates’ group photograph is a digital holding’s image description, not a county-by-county original vote or gubernatorial appointment aggregation.

Evidence and Boundaries

Guangdong Provisional County-Magistrate Election Regulations 1921-04-21 later digital transcription (B-TRANSCRIPTION): https://zh.wikisource.org/zh/廣東暫行縣長選舉條例 ; 1921 Guangdong provincial constitution draft 39-page original-issue carrier catalogue (C-CATALOG, not read page by page this round): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NLC416-07jh003655-41513_廣東省憲法草案.pdf ; 40-page carrier catalogue (C-CATALOG, not read page by page this round): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SSID-13420234_廣東省憲法草案.pdf ; the 1921 county magistrates’ group photograph’s “85 persons” description (C-CAPTION, must not be treated as official statistics): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1921廣東民選縣長.jpg . County-level election original rolls/judgments/appointment orders: UNVERIFIED.

Collation Appendix: Version Differences in Article 134’s Transitional Military-Expenditure Clause of the 1921 Guangdong Provincial Constitution (added 2026-10-12)

This appendix uses the September drafting-committee draft and the marked-December-19, 1921 assembly draft’s two public electronic transcriptions for “variant comparison,” not original-issue verbatim collation. The September original issue previously completed only local image reading of Articles 114–117; Article 134’s original-printed page, the December draft’s original-printed carrier, and both versions’ formal promulgation procedures remain directly unverified. Therefore all Article 134 readings in this table are B-TRANSCRIPTION and cannot be upgraded to Grade A.

The interpretation of Chen Jiongming’s institutional practice must therefore be narrowed: Article 116’s 30% is the draft’s normal rule; Article 134 in different transcriptions hands the question of when it takes effect to different external conditions. The September text even lists the establishment of the national constitution as a time condition, while the December text highlights the establishment of neighboring provinces’ self-government governments. The two differ not only in the value changing from one-third to one-half, but in the change of “what kind of political event can activate the fiscal constraint”; before original-issue reading, they can only be called candidate variants shown by the transcriptions, and should not be used to judge the assembly’s actual intentions, military-expenditure decline, or Chen Jiongming’s performance.

Source tiers: September draft later transcription: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東省憲法草案_(民國10年9月) ; December 19 draft later transcription: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/廣東省憲法草案 . The December transcription page explicitly notes its source is unverified. Original scan index: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SSID-13420234_廣東省憲法草案.pdf . Evidence Grade B (two-transcription comparison) / Article 134 original issue UNVERIFIED.

Xiang Bao No. 35, Twenty-Eight Articles of the General Regulations of the Southern Study Society, original-issue pages 277–279. Research arguments reference Mao Haijian’s On Liang Qichao’s Democratic Thought in the 1898 Reform Period (later historiographical discussion, C-SECONDARY): https://www.sohu.com/a/158311348_649798 ; another 2007 Historical Review (Shilin) article’s note explicitly cites Xiang Bao No. 35, the 25th day of the third month of the 24th year of Guangxu (bibliographic citation, C-BIBLIOGRAPHY): https://lwbi.cbpt.cnki.net/portal/journal/portal/client/paper/1f61d80503594f99e69f1e8caba3182e . Original-issue scan carrier: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:湘報 (NLC511-012031312030004-21069).

Original-Document Supplementary Note | 1898 Xiang Bao Original-Page Re-verification and Evidentiary Boundaries of 1913 Contemporary Materials (2026-10-12)

This round re-examined directly the first three original images of the National Library’s Xiang Bao digital volume 11: original-issue page 277 on scan image 2 begins the Twenty-Eight Articles of the General Regulations of the Southern Study Society, page 277 listing Articles 1–6; scan image 3’s original-issue page 278 listing Articles 7–23, original-issue page 279 listing Articles 24–28. The three pages’ layout and article-number continuity have been verified; no article’s complete original text has yet been transcribed character by character, so “3/3 pages directly image-checked” does not equal “28 articles verbatim collated.” The 0/28 verbatim collation status is retained here — neither fabricating original text from paraphrase nor mistaking the scan’s digital “Volume 11” for the original newspaper’s No. 11. The original newspaper is No. 35.

The holding catalogue of Song Yufu (Song the Fisherman, 宋漁父), the 1913 Shanghai Minli Bao Press edition compiled by Xu Xue’er et al., shows it collected Song Jiaoren’s posthumous works, speeches, the assassination, investigation and interrogation, autopsy reports, and contemporary press commentary; this round directly saw only the original book’s cover and did not read its text. It is therefore an important original carrier of 1913 contemporary editing, publication, and reception history, but not a substitute image for the April 2–7, 1913 Minli Bao six-issue platform serialization. The related 1959 Stanford microfilm (CiNii AA12935133, work number C-972) and the 1969 facsimile (CiNii AA11247306) both point to the same newspaper source system of the Minli Bao and must not be counted as two independent authorship-attribution witnesses. The platform’s text still takes the Complete Works of the National Father‘s editorial collation as B+, with the original newspaper’s six issues at 0/6.

Original carriers in this section: 1898 Xiang Bao NLC511-012031312030004-21069, original-issue pages 277–279, A-IMAGE (article numbers and layout); 1913 Song Yufu NLC416-07jh010328-20692, C-CATALOG + A-IMAGE cover (text unread); CiNii AA12935133 and AA11247306, C-CATALOG. Links: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NLC511-012031312030004-21069_湘報_第11卷.pdf; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NLC416-07jh010328-20692_宋漁父.pdf; https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/AA12935133; https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/AA11247306.

Original-Evidence Supplementary Discussion | The 1898 Southern Study Society’s “General–Branch” Structure and the Limits of Local Sovereignty (2026-10-12)

Direct comparison of the Twenty-Eight Articles of the General Regulations of the Southern Study Society carried in Xiang Bao No. 35, original-issue page 277 (scan image 2), confirms its opening takes the Southern Study Society as the general society (zonghui) of the province-wide societies, incorporating societies established in prefectures, departments, and counties into a branch (fenhui) system; the charter continues on pages 278–279 through Article 28. What is seen here is the internal tiered arrangement of a private association, not a statutory division of power among local governments. Even if the charter adopted a cross-regional general–branch organizational form, it is inadvisable to identify the Southern Study Society as a federal unit possessing taxing power, legislative power, or provincial sovereignty on this basis. Compared with Song Jiaoren’s parliamentary responsible politics and Chen Jiongming’s provincial-county self-government, what the 1898 organization shows is the formation condition of a public deliberative network, not a mature constitutional federal arrangement. The direct original-issue evidence here is limited to the title, the opening general–branch relation, and continuous layout; all twenty-eight articles’ verbatim collation remains 0/28.

Original carrier: National Library scan NLC511-012031312030004-21069, Xiang Bao digital volume 11, original newspaper No. 35, printed pages 277–279; Wikimedia PDF, 4 pages (printed pages 274–281): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NLC511-012031312030004-21069_湘報_第11卷.pdf . This round’s direct check through the original PDF page images, A-IMAGE (title, general–branch relation, layout), not a 28-article full-text collation. Subsequent falsifiable materials: the Southern Study Society’s actual society affairs, dues accounts, prefecture/county branch reports, officially granted statutory powers; absence must not be inversely presumed.

The April 2–7, 1913 Minli Bao six issues: CiNii AA12935133 records the Hoover original and Stanford 1959 microfilm work number C-972; AA11247306 records the 1969 Huang Jilu-edited facsimile. These two reproductions share the same source and do not constitute mutually independent textual witnesses; the six issues’ text has not been obtained, 0/6, and cannot be substituted by the Song Yufu compilation or later transcriptions. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/AA12935133 ; https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/AA11247306 .

Supplement | 1946 Local Self-Government and the Procedural Thresholds of Military Power: Comparability with the 1921 Guangdong Draft (2026-10-12)

On January 25, 1946, Zhang Qun reported to Marshall the Political Consultative Conference constitutional-draft group’s principles: the province as the highest local self-government unit, able to enact a provincial constitution not contravening the national constitution and to popularly elect the governor. The February 25, 1946 Basic Plan for Army Reorganization and the Incorporation of Communist Forces into the National Army assigned the national army’s command to the President of the Republic of China exercised through the Ministry of National Defense; in case of intra-provincial disturbance, the governor had first to prove to the State Council meeting (guowu huiyi) that local police and provincial security forces were insufficient, before the President could, with the State Council meeting’s approval, deploy the national army; provincial security forces were capped at fifteen thousand. This is an institutional structure in which “provincial self-government — central military command” appeared side by side in the same political negotiation, not provincial independent military sovereignty. Compared with the 1921 Guangdong provincial constitution draft’s Articles 115–117 and Article 134 military-expenditure limit design, the 1946 text more clearly distinguished local public-security organs, the central army, and approval procedures; the two texts’ types, drafting subjects, and historical conditions differ — it is inadvisable to presume direct inheritance from this.

Evidence sources and limits: U.S. Department of State, FRUS 1946 Vol. IX, Document 39 (1946-01-25, Zhang Qun’s report to Marshall), printed pages 144–146; Document 100 (1946-02-25 reorganization plan), printed pages 295–300, especially Article 1, Article 2 Section 2, and Article 6 Section 1. Official archives directly read, A-OFFICIAL-TRANSCRIPTION; original Chinese conference records and actual enforcement UNVERIFIED. The 1921 Guangdong draft’s Articles 115–117 already have local original-issue image check records, but Article 134’s September/December variants remain Grade-B later transcriptions and cannot be conflated with the 1946 formal agreement in evidentiary tier. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1946v09/d39 ; https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1946v09/d100

The April 1946 Provincial Self-Government Controversy: After “Provincial Constitution” Was Renamed “Provincial Self-Government Law,” Did Central Approval Power Disappear?

The provincial constitution and popularly elected governor proposed in the January 1946 Political Consultative Conference discussions did not obtain institutional implementation free from central interference in April. A U.S. Embassy in Chongqing telegram of April 9 recorded that although the PCC Steering Committee agreed to rename “provincial constitution” (shengxian) as “provincial self-government law” (sheng zizhi fa), disagreements centered on whether central approval was required after laws were enacted and whether the Legislative Yuan could amend them: the CCP and the Democratic League advocated that, so long as they did not contravene the national constitution, they should not be subject to central approval; the Kuomintang insisted on central approval and Legislative Yuan amendment power, accepting only that central administrative acts must not unilaterally alter them. It can thus be seen that the legal effect of the word “self-government” cannot be judged by name alone, but depends on the normative-review organ, approval procedures, and the reserved powers of provincial self-government. For comparison with Chen Jiongming’s 1921 Guangdong system, whether provincial laws took effect autonomously and whether provincial armies commanded autonomously should be split into two independent questions.

An April 18 embassy memorandum still listed the scope of provincial self-government and executive responsibility to the legislature as unresolved controversies; the April 9 telegram’s negotiation proposals should not be treated as the already-passed Constitution of the Republic of China. Source tiers: Grade A, directly read official transcriptions of contemporaneous U.S. State Department FRUS telegrams; Grade C, original Chinese conference records and the April provincial self-government law text unverified; X, specific provincial enforcement unverified. FRUS 1946 IX doc. 52, 1946-04-09, printed pages 164–166: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1946v09/d52; doc. 55, 1946-04-18, printed pages 169–171: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1946v09/d55. Already reused C-T04-1946-APR09-HSIEN-DELEGATES-THRESHOLD-ART26-20261012 and P2-PCC-1946; no separate independent historical-material witness created.

Comparative Research Supplement | From 1921 Guangdong Fiscal Provisions to 1933 Zhejiang Statistics: The Auditability of Institutional Design (research addition)

Chen Jiongming’s Guangdong self-government experiment cannot be judged as success or failure solely by the provincial constitution draft’s military-expenditure ratios, audit organs, and county self-government provisions’ wording. The testable implementation chain includes at least: how statutory expenditure ceilings were converted into annual budgets; how counties and the provincial office submitted engineering and fiscal materials in the same accounting caliber; whether audit organs obtained original vouchers; and when local aggregated figures conflicted with provincial totals, which organ had the power to correct and publicly disclose the difference. This framework is a meta-level test standard proposed by this paper’s researchers, not a complete claim already held by Chen Jiongming himself.

As a cross-province, cross-era evidence-method comparison, Table 17 of the Zhejiang Provincial Construction Department’s 1933 Zhejiang Province Highway Statistics, registered in C-T04 historical research, provides a recalculable example: 19 counties’ itemized total was 498,897.360 yuan, while the original table’s provincial total was 496,635.960 yuan — a difference of 2,261.400 yuan. The original issue’s page 33 Zhenhai subtotal of 14,780.600 yuan and page 34 Fenghua subtotal of 23,691.800 yuan have been image-read by C-T04, correcting the earlier Fenghua 23,692.400 yuan estimate error; but the conflict between the 19-county aggregation and the provincial total remains unresolved. This 1933 statistic is not 1921 Guangdong fiscal data, let alone proof of the Guangdong provincial constitution’s actual enforcement.

Evidence and limits: Zhejiang Provincial Government Construction Department Statistics Committee, ed., Zhejiang Province Highway Statistics (May 1933), Table 17, printed pages 31–37, original-issue scan: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NLC511-027032013015344-16332_浙江省公路統計.pdf. Shared evidence ID: C-T04-ZJ1933-ZHENHAI-FENGHUA-DIRECT-20261012; this round reused per the already-read global evidence registry and C-T04 verification records, without independently re-reading the original images — hence this round marked REUSED-A-IMAGE / RECHECK-PENDING. Page 37’s stated county-reported surveys and department archival sources cannot be equated with treasury actual appropriations or audited final accounts; the numerical conflict remains CONFLICTED and must not be silently corrected. This comparison serves only source methodology and does not infer direct institutional inheritance between the two provinces.

Comparison Variables

• September 1921 draft: later transcription

• December 19, 1921 draft: later transcription

The Spanish edition is in preparation; a link will be added here when it is published.

Normal Rule (Article 116)

• Provincial military expenditures ≤ 30% of provincial expenditures

• Provincial military expenditures ≤ 30% of provincial expenditures

Transitional Threshold before Formal Government Formation (Article 134)

• “One-third” (original text has duplicated stage wording, pending verification)

• “One-half”

Role of Neighboring Provinces’ Self-Government Governments

• Wording: after neighboring provinces’ self-government governments are established, “until the day of” with the one-third threshold; sentence parsing is doubtful

• When neighboring provinces’ self-government governments are established, Article 116 is implemented

Final 30% Triggering Condition

• Half a year after the national constitution’s establishment (as the later transcription records)

• Establishment of neighboring provinces’ self-government governments (as the later transcription records)

Article 114: Finance, Trade, Labor Protection

• Has complete article text; original-issue page 30 previously partially read

• Electronic transcription only marks “(missing)” — does not equal proof that the formal draft deleted the article

Article 5 Equality Clause

• Expressly lists “male and female”

• Does not expressly list “male and female”; both require checking against the original print and then-current election laws

Editorial Note | 2026-10-15

The April 2–7, 1913 Minli Bao six original issues: PENDING VERIFICATION (0/6); at present only the Complete Works of the National Father‘s edited transcription and its variant notes are used, not treated as original-newspaper verbatim verification.

Xiang Bao No. 35, Twenty-Eight Articles of the General Regulations of the Southern Study Society: PENDING VERIFICATION (0/28 verbatim two-person collation; 28/28 article-number positions located). The disputed later verbatim transcriptions of Articles 26–28 are not cited.

Lei Zhen’s 2010 citation and Zhang Junmai’s manuscript: DEFERRED / PENDING VERIFICATION. Currently lacking a verifiable 2010 edition, specific page numbers, citation originals, and Zhang Junmai’s manuscript holding number, page images, and authorization status. To avoid fabricating citations, no direct quotations are added for now; this deferral does not indicate the materials are unimportant.

Note on Bibliographic Format

This draft has added an independent References index, 45 entries, corresponding one-to-one with Notes [1]–[45] in “Notes and Principal Sources.” Complete source links, versions, page numbers, and evidentiary tiers are governed by the corresponding notes. This index only organizes already-disclosed bibliographic information and does not represent that all original issues and publication items have obtained independent verification; pending items retain their original evidentiary tiers and PENDING VERIFICATION marks.

References (arranged by main-text note number; retaining the original draft’s versions and verification tiers)

This section is an index-style bibliography of the 45 notes; note numbers correspond one-to-one with “Notes and Principal Sources” above. Its bibliographic notes intentionally repeat the original notes for separate retrieval. Notes [6], [12], [15], and [39] are supplementary holding or research leads, not direct main-text citations. Specific URLs, page numbers, versions, and evidentiary tiers are governed by the complete original notes; this table does not constitute new independent verification of original issues.

[1] Guo Songtao, A Record of the Journey to the West and Guo Shilang’s Record of the Journey to the West, 1897 Chengdu Zhigutang edition holding; Guangxu-era Tiexiangshi edition. Holding version catalogues are verifiable; the specific page numbers used in this paper await page-by-page collation, Grade B/C.

[2] Sun Yat-sen Academic Database, Kuomintang Political Views Declaration, Complete Works of the National Father, Volume 2, pages 36–42, and editor’s notes 1–6. Notes the April 2–7, 1913 Minli Bao base text; B+ authoritative edited transcription, original-issue facsimiles not read issue by issue.

[3] Guangdong Provisional County-Magistrate Election Regulations, later transcription, ; draft later transcription. Grade B/C; the draft’s source is unknown and cannot be treated as a certified original promulgated legal text.

[4] 1923 Constitution of the Republic of China (Cao Kun Constitution), Xiehua Book Company original book facsimile; the original issue’s specific article page numbers and versions still await independent page-by-page collation; this paper does not use the scan link itself as proof that articles have been verified. Government gazette transcription: , Grade B.

[5] Office of the President of the Republic of China, Constitution of the Republic of China (adopted December 25, 1946; promulgated January 1, 1947; enforced December 25, 1947), Articles 107–114, 147, Grade-A officially promulgated text; does not imply the historical implementation of each provision.

[6] Supplementary holding lead (not cited in main text): CiNii Research, Minli Bao 1969 facsimile union catalogue, NCID AA11247306.

[7] Guangdong Provincial Assembly, Draft Constitution of Guangdong Province (marked December 19, 1921), Articles 23, 54, 115–116, 134, later full-text transcription.

[8] Guangdong Provincial Constitution Drafting Committee, Draft Constitution of Guangdong Province, 1921 printed edition, 40-page facsimile scan holding.

[9] 1922 National Affairs Conference Constitutional Draft, Drafts A and B, later transcriptions. Grade-B transcription, original issue unverified.

[10] Cen Dezhang, ed., Constitutional History Materials of the Republic of China (1933), catalogue placing the draft under privately drafted manuscripts. Grade-C catalogue location, original book text unverified.

[11] Cen Dezhang, Constitutional History Materials of the Republic of China: Editor’s Preface, signed preface May 1933, Shanghai St. John’s University, modern transcription. B+: modern transcription of a contemporaneous editor’s original text, 1933 original book’s image page numbers not yet checked; its historical judgments do not automatically count as factual originals.

[12] Zuo Yuhe, Disciplines, Learned Societies, and Scholarship: The Construction of China’s Modern Academic Community; Mao Haijian, On Liang Qichao’s Democratic Thought in the 1898 Reform Period (later historiographical discussion, C-SECONDARY); Xiang Bao No. 35 candidate facsimile volume: Volume 11, holding file NLC511-012031312030004-21069 (4 facsimile images, original-issue pages 277–279).

[13] Guangdong Provincial Assembly, Guangdong Provisional County Self-Government Regulations Article 43, Guangdong Provisional County-Magistrate Election Regulations (April 21, 1921) Articles 3, 6–11, 14–20, later transcriptions. Grade-B transcription; 1921 formal promulgated editions, election rolls, and appointment announcements not yet collated.

[14] Guangdong Provisional County Self-Government Regulations Articles 6–10, 25, 28, 43, 61, 68, later uncorrected transcription. Grade B; the products of joint-signature and voting ratios are this paper’s mathematical derivations and do not represent actual turnout. The 1921 promulgated original issue awaits collation.

[15] Supplementary legal leads (not cited in main text): Guangdong Provincial Assembly, Guangdong Provisional County Councilor Election Regulations (April 21, 1921) Articles 3, 5–6, 16, 30–33, and Guangdong Provisional County-Magistrate Election Regulations Articles 3, 6, 10, 16–17, later transcription Grade B. 1921 original promulgated editions unverified; women’s actual voting, rolls, and election results all UNVERIFIED.

[16] Guangdong Governor’s Office Proclamation No. 7, Proclamation on Municipal Reorganization, signed February 16, 1921, modern transcription. Grade-B original-text transcription, original gazette pages unverified.

[17] Huang Yanpei, ed., One Year of Guangzhou, Commercial Press, 1922, National Library scan holding NLC416-02jh002844-14131, 119-page PDF, table of contents listing municipal elections, municipal council, municipal audit. Grade-C original-book scan location/table of contents, text not read page by page. Guangdong Provincial Archives, July 11, 2023 introduction to the February 28, 1921 inaugural Guangzhou Municipal Gazette and the 2022 90-volume facsimile compilation.

[18] The Ladies’ Journal 1921 Volume 7, Issue 7, The Women’s Suffrage Movement in Guangdong photograph digital extraction, original issue PDF. Grade-C image and holding location, original-page caption verbatim collation not completed; cannot serve as evidence of women’s voting-right implementation.

[19] September 1921 Draft Constitution of Guangdong Province Articles 46, 49, 54, 61, 63, 67: uncorrected Wikisource transcriptions corresponding to original-issue scan page numbers (Article 49 corresponds to scan page /18; Articles 61, 63, 67 facsimile page numbers still to be recorded article by article); this round did not directly read the images — listed as B+, not Grade A. See [8] for sources.

[20] September 1921 Draft Constitution of Guangdong Province, Guangdong Provincial Constitution Drafting Committee printed edition, SSID-13420234, PDF image 36 (counting from page 1; zero-based page 35), original-printed page 30, Articles 114–116 images. Also NLC416-07jh003655-41513, PDF page 34 (counting from page 1), printed page 30, containing Article 114. Conflicts with the marked-1921-12-19 later transcription’s Article 114 “(missing)”. The original December assembly edition has not been directly checked; the nature of the difference is UNVERIFIED.

[21] Same SSID facsimile, PDF image 36 / original-printed page 30, Article 117 (wartime partial provincial army under central command); original-issue image partially read at Grade A. Article enforcement and legal interpretation unverified.

[22] Xiang Bao NLC511-012031312030004-21172, digital Volume 35, 5 images, original-issue masthead “Xiang Bao No. 59,” pages 506–515. Five pages directly viewed; does not correspond to the No. 35 needed for research; the target Twenty-Eight Articles of the General Regulations of the Southern Study Society still not verified article by article.

[23] Xiang Bao No. 35, original-issue pages 277–279, Twenty-Eight Articles of the General Regulations of the Southern Study Society; National Library digital volume 11, NLC511-012031312030004-21069, 4 facsimile images (spreads). Original-issue masthead “Xiang Bao No. 35” seen on facsimile images 1–3; page 277 title and Articles 1–6, page 278 Articles 7–23, page 279 Articles 24–28. Grade A: facsimile location, title, article numbers, and start–end; not yet verbatim-collation Grade A.

[24] Xu Xue’er, A Brief Biography of Mr. Song Jiaoren, in Revolutionary Documents, combined Vols. 42–43, Historical Materials on Song Jiaoren’s Assassination and Yuan Shikai’s Illegal Large Loan, catalogue location first article, ; 1913 Xu Xue’er et al., eds., Song Yufu, Shanghai Minli Bao Press, original facsimile. The “dictation—transcription—pending deliberation” account is currently based on later articles’ citations, ; original text’s original pages unverified, Grade-B pending proof. Song’s death date and the platform’s April/May 1913 publication dates are respectively based on the Sun Yat-sen Academic Database’s biographical records and [2]’s editor’s note.

[25] 1923 Constitution of the Republic of China, later English full-text transcription, Articles 23–37. This transcription is not the 1923 printed edition directly read this round — provisionally B+. Especially Article 27’s provincial tax limits, Article 31’s Senate adjudication of inter-provincial disputes, and Articles 35–37’s central intervention and provinces’ joint constitutional-maintenance measures require original-issue re-verification.

[26] Contemporary original-version holding locations: 1923 Xiehua Book Company Constitution of the Republic of China, National Library NLC416-11jh007322-56095, holding 40 pages, 42 digital PDF images, ; 1923 Government Gazette No. 2728 (October 18) in the Nos. 2726–2741 bound volume, 276 images. This round only located holdings; article pages were not directly read — not listed as Grade A.

[27] 1947 Constitution of the Republic of China, Office of the President official decree, Articles 107–117, 138–139, 147, Grade-A legal text; implementation and subsequent amendment effects to be proven separately.

[28] 1923 Constitution of the Republic of China, Xin Qun Book Society printed edition, Chapter 13, Articles 136–141, original-printed pages 27–28, PDF images 28–29; this round directly read Articles 136–141’s facsimile pages — Grade A limited to that contemporary printed edition’s articles. Not to be conflated with the Xiehua Book Company’s other print’s page numbers.

[29] 1947 Constitution of the Republic of China, Office of the President of the Republic of China promulgated text, Articles 78, 111, 114, 117, 171, 173–174; official decree text Grade A, institutional implementation history to be proven separately. The Xiang Bao No. 35’s original-issue location and collation progress are listed separately in notes [23] and [30] and should not be merged into this note.

[30] Southern Study Society source tiers: 1898 Xiang Bao No. 35, Twenty-Eight Articles of the General Regulations of the Southern Study Society, original-issue pages 277–279, facsimile. Original-issue location Grade A, 28 articles’ verbatim collation 0/28; the distinction between late-Qing societies and statutory provincial assemblies is the researcher’s analysis, not the charter’s original text.

[31] Guangdong September 1921 original print catalogue/page holding; related Articles 93–107 later transcriptions, Articles 101–107 with the December 19, 1921 transcription; Hunan 1922 Hunan Provincial Constitution Articles 70, 72–74, 96–100 later transcriptions. The Guangdong/Hunan articles here are all Grade-B/B+ transcriptions, without this round’s original-image verbatim reading; institutional implementation UNVERIFIED.

[32] Guangdong Provincial Constitution Drafting Committee, Draft Constitution of Guangdong Province (September 1921 original print), SSID-13420234, original-printed page 30 / PDF image 36, Articles 114–118 images partially read at Grade A, limited to discernible articles. Article 134’s original print not yet read.

[33] 1947 Constitution of the Republic of China Articles 137–139, Office of the President of the Republic of China official promulgated text.

[34] Chronological Biography of the National Father, Vol. 1, page 632, later account of the August 13–14, 1912 reorganization and five-point party platform, based on Zou Lu’s Draft History of the Kuomintang of China, Part 1, pages 124–125; Sun Yat-sen Academic Database. Evidence Grade B: later chronological biography, not the 1912 party headquarters’ original circular.

[35] Complete Works of the National Father, Volume 2, pages 36–42, Kuomintang Political Views Declaration, editor’s notes 1–6. B+: collated edition and variant notes directly read; the April 2–7, 1913 Minli Bao and The National Monthly original-edition images unread.

[36] The April 1913 Minli Bao original title, the May The National Monthly variant title, and later collected works’ different editorial titles are all based on the aforementioned Complete Works of the National Father Note 1; Song Jiaoren’s death date 1913-03-22 is an existing chronology record requiring supplementation by original chronologies/obituaries. Evidence B+/B; not used to determine final-draft responsibility.

[37] 1923 Constitution of the Republic of China Articles 119–122, Chinese later transcription, English historical translation. This round directly read both later texts, evidence Grade B; the contemporary Xin Qun Book Society original print holding; the four articles’ original-issue images were not successfully read this round (Grade-C location), and cannot be marked Grade A. Article 120, Paragraph 2’s Chinese–English presentation difference requires original-print collation.

[38] Provisional Constitution of the Republic of China at Ezhou, Articles 2, 3, 23, 25, 37–38, later electronic transcription — directly read the transcribed text, not the 1911 original issue, evidence B-TRANSCRIPTION. The Xinhai Revolution Museum’s Compiled Documentary Materials of the Hubei Military Government, holding-edition introduction, can only verify the 1986 compilation’s publication and compilation scope; the compilation’s original official documents were not read, B-CATALOG. Drafting, promulgation, effectiveness, and implementation of the provisional constitution remain UNVERIFIED.

[39] Guangdong Provincial Assembly’s Telegram Announcing the Suspension of Proceedings (signed Lin Zhengxuan, page marked February 1921), later transcription. The transcription’s source marking is incomplete; original newspaper facsimile, delivery records, and the other party’s rebuttal not seen — evidence B-/C. It proves the existence of a verifiable accusation-text lead; insufficient to independently confirm the complete facts of the military-coercion event; original provincial assembly meeting records and newspapers await verification.

[40] Provisional Constitution of the Political Tutelage Period of the Republic of China Articles 61–62 (promulgated June 1, 1931), later digital transcription directly read, evidence Grade B; the original-issue National Government Gazette No. 786, pages 6–11, not yet read; original-issue verbatim and enforcement evidence UNVERIFIED.

[41] Constitution of the Republic of China Article 107, Item 7, Article 109, Items 7–8, Articles 147–148, Office of the President of the Republic of China official promulgated constitutional text, Grade-A normative evidence; not equal to fiscal enforcement or intellectual-transmission evidence.

[42] Senate Secretariat: Senate Membership Roster (c. 1913, 140-image facsimile), Wikimedia Commons original book facsimile and holding note; this round only read the bibliography and carrier information, did not read member lists page by page — evidence C-CATALOG. Party seat shares cannot be inferred from the catalogue.

[43] Beiyang Government: Government Gazette Nos. 324–352, April 1913 facsimile collection, Legislative Yuan congressional library original image system’s source note; this round only located the collection, does not claim to have read each issue’s text; the Minli Bao‘s April 2–7 original issues remain 0/6.

[44] Township Local Self-Government Regulations (promulgated 1909-01-18), Articles 1, 16–19, 25, 36–38, 90–103, later digital transcription directly read, evidence B-TRANSCRIPTION; the original official gazette and the Township Local Self-Government Election Regulations original printed editions were not directly read; enforcement numbers UNVERIFIED.

[45] September 1921 Draft Constitution of Guangdong Province Articles 5, 18, 31–32, later digital transcription; December 19 assembly draft Articles 5, 18, 31–32, later transcription; September 1921 original printed facsimile carrier. The two versions’ article-by-article original-issue image comparison is unfinished; election implementation UNVERIFIED, Grade B/B-. Appendix citations: Zhejiang Provincial Government Construction Department Statistics Committee, ed., Zhejiang Province Highway Statistics (May 1933), Table 17 (evidence-method comparison, not 1921 Guangdong fiscal data); 1946 Political Consultative Conference constitutional-draft group’s principles and the Basic Plan for Army Reorganization and the Incorporation of Communist Forces into the National Army (January–February 1946, provincial self-government — central military command institutional-structure comparison).

Editor’s Note (2026-10-15)

For negative sentences concerning legal effect, source verification, or causal boundaries, necessary qualifications are retained; argumentative accuracy is not sacrificed in pursuit of low word frequency. All uncompleted original-issue collations in this paper continue to be marked PENDING VERIFICATION. The “Notes and Principal Sources” in the main text remains the complete citation record, with the independent References serving as a navigational bibliography; missing publication items are not filled in by conjecture.

---

Other Language Editions of This Paper

• 简体中文（原文）
• 繁體中文
• Français
• Deutsch