BIBLIOGRAPHY.
The same as the preceding chapter, with the addition of “The Intercourse between the United States and Japan” (Nitobe); “Matthew Calbraith Perry,” “Townsend Harris,” and “Verbeck of Japan” (all by Griffis); “Advance Japan” (Morris); and Perry’s Expedition (official report).
On the early history of New Japan there are many valuable works by Alcock, Black, Dickson, Dixon (W. G.), House, Lanman, Mounsey, Mossman, and others. See also Satow’s translation of “Kinse Shiriaku.” On the war with China (1894, 1895), see “Heroic Japan” (Eastlake and Yamada); and on the lessons and results of that war, see “The New Far East” (Diosy). “The Awakening of Japan” (Okakura), “The White Peril in the Far East” (Gulick), and “Young Japan” (Scherer) trace thoughtfully the development of New Japan. “Dai Nippon” (Dyer), chaps, ii. and iv., may be read with profit. “The Progress of Japan, 1853-1871” (Gubbins), covers thoroughly part of this period.
CHAPTER IX
CONSTITUTIONAL IMPERIALISM
Outline of Topics: The “Charter Oath” of Japan; popular agitation; promise of a national assembly; a red-letter year; the “Magna Charta” of Japan; Imperial prerogatives; personality of Emperor and Empress; Crown Prince and Princess; Imperial grandchildren; Privy Council; Imperial Cabinet; Departments of State; sundry comments; House of Peers; House of Commons; some “firsts”; rights and duties of subjects; criticisms of Japanese politics; popular rights; personnel of two Houses; cabinet responsibility; political parties; persons and principles; constitutional system satisfactory.—Bibliography.
WHEN the Revolution, or Restoration, of 1868 ended the usurpation, and overthrew the despotism of the Shōgun, the young Emperor, Mutsuhito, restored to his ancestral rights as the actual sole ruler of the empire, took solemn oath that “a deliberative assembly should be formed; all measures be decided by public opinion; the uncivilized customs of former times should be broken through; the impartiality and justice displayed in the workings of nature be adopted as a basis of action; and that intellect and learning should be sought for throughout the world, in order to establish the foundations of the empire.” In that same year an assembly of representatives of the clans was called to meet in the capital, and was given the title of Shūgi-in (House of Commons). It consisted of samurai (knights) from each clan; and as they were appointed by each daimyō (prince), the body was a purely feudal, and not at all a popular, assembly. In 1871 feudalism was abolished, and later a senate was established; but that was an advisory body, consisting of officials appointed by the Emperor and without legislative power. In 1875 the Emperor convoked a council of the officers of the provincial governments with a purpose stated as follows: “We also call a council of the officials of our provinces, so that the feelings of the people may be made known and the public welfare attained. By these means we shall gradually confer upon the nation a constitutional form of government. The provincial officials are summoned as the representatives of the people in the various provinces, that they may express their opinion on behalf of the people.”
But a body so constituted and rather conservative could not satisfy the demands of the new age. Itagaki (now Count) insisted that the government should “guarantee the establishment of a popular assembly,” and organized societies, or associations, for popular agitation of the subject. Petitions and memorials poured in upon the government, within whose circles Ōkuma (now Count), Minister of Finance, was most active in the same direction. In the mean time (1878) provincial assemblies, the members of which were chosen by popular election, had been established as a preparatory measure.
It was on October 12, 1881, that the Emperor issued his memorable proclamation that a National Assembly should be opened in 1890. That proclamation read as follows:—
“We therefore hereby declare that we shall, in the 23rd year of Meiji, establish a Parliament, in order to carry into full effect the determination we have announced, and we charge our faithful subjects bearing our commissions to make, in the mean time, all necessary preparations to that end. With regard to the limitations upon the Imperial prerogative, and the constitution of the Parliament, we shall decide hereafter, and shall make proclamation in due time.”
From that time on there was progress, “steadily, if slowly, in the direction of greater decentralization and broader popular prerogative.”
The year 1889 was a red-letter year in the calendar of Japan’s political progress. On February 11 was promulgated that famous document[89] which took Japan forever out of the ranks of Oriental despotisms and placed her among constitutional monarchies; and on April 1 the law of local self-government for city, town, and village went into effect.
The Japanese Constitution has very appropriately been called “the Magna Charta of Japanese liberty.” It was not, however, like the famous English document, extorted by force from an unwilling monarch and a cruel tyrant, but was voluntarily granted by a kind and loved ruler at the expense of his inherited and long-established rights. The present Emperor holds the throne according to the native tradition, perpetuated even in the language of the Constitution, by virtue of a “lineal succession unbroken for ages eternal.” But even though rigid criticism compels us to reject as more or less mythological the so-called “history” of about 1,000 years; and although Yoshihito, therefore, may not be really the 123d ruler of the line from the Japanese Romulus (Jimmu), nevertheless he remains the representative of the oldest living dynasty in the world. If, then, time is a factor in confirming the claims and rights of a ruler, no king or emperor of the present day has a better title. And his father, born and bred in the atmosphere of Oriental absolutism and despotism, “in consideration of the progressive tendency of the course of human affairs, and in parallel with the advance of civilization,”[90] voluntarily and generously admitted his people to a share in the administration of public affairs.
That important document, which signed away such strongly acquired and inherited prerogatives, at the outset, however, seems far from generous. The Emperor, “sacred and inviolate,” is “the head of the empire,” combining in himself the rights of sovereignty; but he “exercises them according to the provisions of the Constitution.” It is only “in consequence of an urgent necessity to maintain public safety or to avert public calamities,” that the Emperor, “when the Imperial Diet is not sitting,” may issue “Imperial Ordinances in place of law.” But these ordinances must be approved by the Imperial Diet at its next session, or become “invalid for the future.” To the Emperor is reserved the function of issuing ordinances necessary for carrying out the laws passed by the Diet or for the maintenance of public peace and order; but “no Ordinance shall in any way alter any of the existing laws.” The Emperor also determines the organization of the various branches of the government, appoints and dismisses all officials, and fixes their salaries. Moreover, he has “the supreme command of the army and navy,” whose organization and peace standing he determines; “declares war, makes peace, and concludes treaties”; “confers titles of nobility, rank, orders, and other marks of honor”; and “orders amnesty, pardon, commutation of punishments and rehabilitation.”
Now it must be quite evident to the most casual reader that, in carrying out this Constitution, patterned after that of Germany, much depends upon the Emperor and his personality. One, like Kōmei (the father of the recent Emperor), bigoted and intent upon resisting any infringement, to the slightest degree, upon his “divine rights,” could create a great deal of friction in the administration of affairs. But, fortunately for Japan and the world, Mutsuhito was not at all inclined to be narrow-minded, selfish, and despotic, but was graciously pleased to be the leader of his subjects in broader and better paths. And although the Empress had no share in the administration and wisely kept “out of politics,” her popularity enhanced the interest felt in the reign recently closed.[91]
It is, moreover, fortunate for Japan that the new Emperor, Yoshihito, is also a man of most liberal ideas and progressive tendencies. He has had a broad education, by both public and private instruction, and a careful training for the career that lies before him; and he will undoubtedly be found ready to extend popular privileges just so far as conditions warrant. Seated on the ancestral throne, he is the first Japanese Emperor who has received any education in public; for it was in the Gakushūin—or Nobles’ School, as it is called in English—that he completed the elementary course.[92] After that, on account of poor health, he was compelled to pursue his studies under private tutors.
And that the Imperial line will, in all human probability, remain “unbroken” for many years, is rendered likely by the fact that the Emperor and the Empress Sada have been blessed with three healthy sons, Princes Michi, Atsu, and Teru, who are being brought up by professional “tutors,” Count and Countess Kawamura, away from court life, with such care as the needs of said Imperial line demand.
But, to return from this digression to the subject of the Constitution, another body recognized by that document is the Privy Council (Sumitsu-In), appointed by the Emperor and consulted by him upon certain matters of State. It consists of 1 President, 1 Vice-President, 25 Councillors, and 1 Secretary, with 5 assistants; and it is composed of “personages who have rendered signal service to the State and who are distinguished for their experience,” such as ex-Ministers of State and others, whose “valuable advice on matters of State” would naturally be sought. The matters coming within the cognizance of the Privy Council are specified as follows: Matters which come under its jurisdiction by the Law of the Houses (of Parliament); drafts and doubtful points relating to articles of the Constitution, and to laws and ordinances dependent to the Constitution; proclamation of the law of siege and certain Imperial ordinances; international treaties; and matters specially called for. The Ministers of State are, ex officio, members of the Privy Council; but although it is “the Emperor’s highest resort of counsel, it shall not interfere with the Executive.”
The Cabinet includes the holders of 10 portfolios: those of the Minister President, or Premier; the Minister of Foreign Affairs; the Minister of Home Affairs; the Minister of Finance; the Minister of the Army, or War; the Minister of the Navy; the Minister of Justice; the Minister of Education; the Minister of Agriculture and Commerce; and the Minister of Communications. There is one other official who holds the title of Minister, but is not a member of the Cabinet, that is, the Minister of the Imperial Household. When the Cabinet is fully organized, it contains 10 members; but occasionally circumstances compel the Premier or some other Minister to hold an extra portfolio, at least temporarily. Each department of state has its own subordinate officials, most of whom hold office under civil-service rules and are not removable.
The titles of the departments are mostly self-explanatory, and correspond in general to similar departments in Occidental countries; but in some cases there are vital differences, especially in comparison with the United States Cabinet. In a paternal government, like that of Japan, the Minister of Home Affairs holds a much more important position than our Secretary of the Interior, for he has the general oversight of the police system and the prefectural governments; the Minister of Justice holds a broader position than our Attorney-General; and the Minister of Communications has the oversight, not of the postal system only, but also of telegraphs, telephones, railways, and other modes of conveyance and communication. In general, as will be observed, the Japanese Government owns many institutions which, in our country, are entrusted to private enterprise.
The Premier receives a salary of 9,600 yen, and other ministers receive 6,000 yen, besides official residence and sundry allowances. In most cases the real work of each department is performed by the subordinate officials, while the frequently changing[93] Ministers of State are only nominal heads of the departments. The two portfolios of the Army and the Navy, however, have been taken out of politics, and are not subject to change whenever a ministry goes out of office. Ministers of State, as well as governmental delegates, specially appointed for the purpose, “may, at any time, take seats and speak in either House” of the Imperial Diet.
The Imperial Diet of Japan consists of two Houses, the House of Peers and the House of Commons. The membership of the former comprises three classes,—hereditary, elective, and appointive.[94] The members of the Imperial Family and of the orders of Princes and Marquises possess the hereditary tenure. From among those persons who have the titles of Count, Baron, and Viscount a certain number are chosen by election, for a term of seven years. The Emperor has the power of appointing for life membership a limited number of persons, deserving on account of meritorious services to the State or of erudition. Finally, in each Fu and Ken one member is elected from and among the highest tax-payers and appointed by the Emperor, for a term of seven years.
The members of the House of Commons are always elected by ballot in accordance with the Election Law, by which they now number 379. Their term of office is four years, unless they lose their seats by dissolution of the Diet, as has often happened. “Those [persons] alone shall be eligible [as candidates], that are male Japanese subjects, of not less than full thirty years of age, and that in the Fu or Ken in which they desire to be elected, have been paying direct national taxes to an amount of not less than 15 yen, for a period of not less than one year previous to the date of making out the electoral list, and that are still paying that amount of direct national taxes.”[95] Certain officials, as well as military and naval officers, are ineligible. A voter must be full twenty-five years of age; must have actually resided in that Fu or Ken for one year; and must have been paying direct national taxes of not less than 10 yen. The limits of an electoral district include a whole Fu or Ken, except that an incorporated city (Shi) forms one or more districts by itself. And the number of the latter kind of districts has been increased lately, so that urban populations might have a more adequate representation. The plan of unsigned uni-nominal ballots is employed. The present number of eligible voters is a little over one million.
DEPARTMENTS OF STATE: NAVY; AGRICULTURE AND COMMERCE; JUSTICE; FOREIGN AFFAIRS
The first election under the Constitution took place (whether designedly or accidentally, I know not), by a curious coincidence, on July 4, 1890; and the first session of the Imperial Diet opened on November 29, 1890. On December 2 the House of Peers received the first bill ever presented to a National Assembly in Japan; and on December 4 the first Budget (for 1891) was laid before the House of Representatives by Count Matsukata, Minister of Finance.
Some notice must be taken of the rights and duties of subjects under the Japanese Constitution. All such persons are eligible to civil and military offices; amenable to service in the army and the navy, and the duty of paying taxes, according to law; have the liberty of abode, inviolate right of property, right of trial by law, and freedom of speech, writing, publication, public meeting, association, and religious belief, “within the limits of law”; cannot be arrested, detained, tried, or punished, “unless according to law,” and can claim inviolate secrecy of correspondence. Moreover, “the house of no Japanese subject shall be entered or searched without his consent,” except in due process of law. All subjects may also present petitions, “by observing the proper forms of respect.” The freedom of religious belief is granted “within limits not prejudicial to peace and order, and not antagonistic to their duties as subjects.” These “rights” are old to Anglo-Saxons, but new to Japanese.
Now we often see and hear rather uncomplimentary statements about the Imperial Diet, political parties, cabinet ministers, and Japanese political affairs in general, and are even told that Japan is only “playing” with parliamentary and representative institutions, that her popular assemblies are mere “toys,” her constitutional government is all a “farce,” and her new civilization is nothing but a “bib.” Such criticisms, however, result either from ignorance or from a wrong point of view. It is undeniably true that, viewed from the vantage-ground attained by popular institutions and constitutional government in many Occidental nations, Japan is still lagging behind. It is not fair, however, to judge her by our own standards; the only just way is to estimate carefully the exact difference between her former and her present conditions. This the author has tried to do elsewhere in a pamphlet[96] on “Constitutional Government in Japan,” in which he has given a sketch of the workings of the Japanese Constitution during the first decade, or period, of its history. From that he quotes the following conclusions:—
The progress made during the first decade of constitutional government in Japan was considerable. In the first place, popular rights were largely expanded by the removal of most of the restrictions on freedom of the press and public meeting; as much extension of the electoral franchise as seems warranted was accomplished; and public opinion, as voiced in the newspapers and magazines, was wielding an increased and constantly increasing influence. On this point the “Japan Times” says: “No one who goes into the country and compares the present degree of the people’s political education with what it was ten years ago, can fail to be struck by the immense progress achieved during that interval.”
In the second place, the character of the two Houses of the Imperial Diet has greatly improved. The inexperienced have given way to the experienced, the ignorant to the intelligent; so that, after six elections, the personnel of the House of Representatives is of a much better quality, and the House of Peers has been quickened by the infusion of new blood. Experience, as usual, has been a good teacher.
In the third place, the Cabinet, theoretically responsible to the Emperor because appointed by him on his own sole authority, is practically responsible to the Imperial Diet and must command the support of a majority of that body. Hereafter it would seem that dissolution of the Diet is not likely to occur as often as dissolution of the Cabinet.
The one weak point in this situation is that, although the principle of party cabinets is thus established, its practical application is difficult of realization, simply because there are no true political parties in Japan. There are many so-called “parties,” which are really only factions, bound together by personal, class, geographical, or mercantile ties, and without distinctive principles. One “party” is actually Count Ōkuma’s following; another is Count Itagaki’s; another is called “the business men’s party”; another is composed of politicians of the Northeast; and another tries to maintain the old clan alliances; so in 1913 Prince Katsura assumed leadership of a new progressive party.[97]
But it is, nevertheless, true that “Japan is at length passing out of the epoch of persons and entering the era of principles,” when, of course, will speedily come the development of parties. It is not, perhaps, strange that the personality of the great statesmen who made New Japan possible has been felt for so long a time, nor that the able men of the rising generation have begun to chafe a little under the prolonged control of those older statesmen. But, as the “Japan Times” says, “the conflict between the old and the new elements of political power, the so-called clan statesmen and the party politicians, has been so far removed that the time is already in sight when the country will see them working harmoniously under the same banner and with the same platform.” Such was apparently the case in the Seiyukwai, Marquis Itō’s new party, organized in 1900, the closing year of the first decade of Japanese constitutionalism. And this problem of political parties is the great one to be solved in the second period of constitutional government in Japan.
We may, therefore, conclude that the working of the new system of government has, on the whole, been satisfactory. We must acknowledge, with the “Japan Mail,” that “it would be altogether extravagant to expect that Japan’s new constitutional garments should fit her perfectly from the first. They are too large for her. She has to grow into them, and of course the process is destined to be more or less awkward.” We must agree with Prince Itō, the author of the Constitution, not only that there has been the experimental period, but also that “excellent results have thus far been obtained, when it is remembered how sudden has been the transition from feudalism to representative institutions.” We ought, indeed, to bear in mind, that, when the Constitution was promulgated, Japan was only eighteen years out of feudalism and twenty-one years out of military despotism; so that, by both the Oriental and the Occidental reckoning, New Japan had only just come “of age” politically. She seems, therefore, deserving of the greatest credit for the progress of the first decade of constitutionalism.