No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
No mention of the cabinet is made in the Japanese constitution of 1889. Nevertheless, both before and after the proclamation of the fundamental law, a large part of the national administration of Japan has been initiated, directed, and supervised in a collective method by a body of officials which resembles in external characteristics the typical European parliamentary cabinet.
This cabinet has never enjoyed the unrivaled direction of administration as found in many parliamentary systems. First of all, the Emperor combines in himself all the rights of sovereignty and exercises these rights through various organs including not only the cabinet, but also the army and navy and the Imperial Household. The cabinet does not have a monopoly upon advice given to the Emperor. The right to advise is shared with the Genro (Elder Statesman), the officers of the Imperial Household, the Privy Council, and the advisers of the “supreme command,” including the chiefs of staff of the army and navy, the Board of Marshals and Fleet Admirals, and the Supreme War Council. The Privy Council is the special guardian of the constitution, consulted by the Emperor upon the propriety and wisdom of projects of law, ordinances, and treaties drafted or negotiated by the cabinet, and its advice may, and often does, run counter to that of the cabinet.
2 Compare the Ito Ko Zenshu, or “Complete Writings of Prince Ito” (ed. by Komatsu, Midori, Tokyo, 1928), Vol. III, p. 84Google Scholar.
3 See the Imperial Proclamation No. 69, December 22, 1885. Horei Zensho, or “Collection of Laws,” 1885 (Tokyo, 1886), p. 1044Google Scholar. For an English translation, see McLaren, W. W., Japanese Government Documents, in the Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan (Tokyo, 1914), Vol. XLII, pt. i, pp. 94–95Google Scholar. For an account of the creation of the cabinet system, see Count Kaneko, Kentaro, “Reminiscences of the Time of the Initiation of the Cabinet System,” in the Chuo Koron (“Central Review”), Feb., 1936, no. 579, pp. 115–122Google Scholar.
4 The Naikaku Kansei, or “Imperial Ordinance Regarding the Organization of the Cabinet,” No. 125, December 24, 1889, is found in the Genko Horei Shuran, or “Compilation of Laws and Ordinances in Force” (Tokyo, 1907), Vol. I, bk. i, pt. iii, pp. 1–2Google Scholar. For an English translation, see McLaren, , Japanese Government Documents, pp. 232–233Google Scholar.
5 Compare Minobe, Tatsukichi, Kempo Satsuyo, or “Principles of the Constitution” (Tokyo, 1932), pp. 294–295Google Scholar; Shimizu, Cho, Kempo Hen, or “Principles of Constitutional Law” (Tokyo, 1923), pp. 735–736Google Scholar.
6 Originally proclaimed as Imperial Ordinance No. 122, October 31, 1893. As subsequently revised, see Genko Horei Shuran (1931), Vol. I, bk. iii, pp. 1–12Google Scholar.
7 For instance, the imperial ordinance for the organization of the foreign office is known as the Gaimusho Kansei, issued as Imperial Ordinance No. 258 of 1898. Genko Horei Shuran (1931), Vol. I, bk. iii, pp. 38–39Google Scholar. The text is also published in the Gaimusho Nenkan, or “Yearbook of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs” (1933), pp. 14–34Google Scholar.
8 See the Genko Horei Shuran (1931), Vol. I, bk. iii, pp. 10–12Google Scholar.
9 The Taiman Jimu Kyoku was created by the Imperial Ordinance No. 347, December 26, 1934. Kwampo gogai, or “Imperial Gazette” (extra), December 26, 1934, p. 1Google Scholar.
10 See the Imperial Ordinance Regarding the Imperial Household Department. Genko Horei Shuran (1931), Vol. I, bk. iii. pp. 15–34Google Scholar.
11 See the Nai Daijin-Fu Kwansei, or “Imperial Ordinance Regarding the Organization of the Office of Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal,” No. 4, November 1, 1907Google Scholar. Genko Horei Shuran (1931), Vol. I, bk. iii, pt. i, p. 20Google Scholar. Compare Baba, Eiichi, Kempo Seiji no Riron to Jissai, or “Principles and Practices of Constitutional Government” (Tokyo, 1926), p. 269Google Scholar.
12 Compare Yamada, Shikazo, “Formation of the Japanese Cabinet as Told by Press Reports,” in the Kokka Gakkai Zasshi, or “Journal of the Association of Political and Social Science” (April and May, 1924), Vol. XXXVIII, pp. 24–68, 95–140Google Scholar.
13 See Yamagata Aritomo Ko Den, or “Life of Prince Aritomo Yamagata” (ed. by Takutomi, Soho, Tokyo, 1933), Vol. III, pp. 38–43Google Scholar; Kudo, Takeshige, Teikoku Gikai Shi, or “History of the Imperial Diet” (Tokyo, 1901–1908), Vol. I, p. 181Google Scholar; and his Meiji Kensei Shi, or “Constitutional History of the Meiji Era” (Tokyo, 1914–1922), Vol. I, pp. 359, 390Google Scholar. On several occasions, the outgoing prime minister has suggested his successor to the Genro. In 1898, Prince Ito recommended Marquis Okuma, and in 1916 Okuma named Count Taka-akira Kato. In the first instance the Genro followed the advice of Ito, but in the second instance it rejected the recommendation of Okuma. Compare Kato Taka-akira, or “Life of Count Taka-akira Kato” (ed. by Ito, Seitoku, Tokyo, 1929), Vol. II, pp. 59–61Google Scholar.
14 Count Okuma died on January 10, 1922, Prince Yamagata on February 1, 1922, and Prince Matsugata on July 2, 1924. Regarding the designation of Prince Saionji as Genro, see Takekoshi, Yosaburo, Toan-Ko, or “Prince Toan” (Kyoto, 1929), pp. 249–250Google Scholar.
15 Compare an article on “Politics” by Baba, Tsunego in the Chuo Koron Nempo (Annual Supplement of the “Central Review”), 1935, pp. 112–113Google Scholar.
16 The party cabinets in 1924–36 include: Taka-akira Kato (first, 1924); Taka-akira Kato (second, 1925); Wakatsuki (1926); Tanaka (1927); Hamaguchi (1929); Wakatsuki (second, 1931); and Inukai (1932). There has been one super-party cabinet, Kiyoura (1924); and three coalition-bureaucratic cabinets, namely, Saito (1932); Okada (1934); and Hirota (1936).
17 For the demands of the progressives, see Shigenobu Okuma's address to the Throne in March, 1881, concerning the fundamental principles of a modern constitution. Okuma-ko Hachiju-go Nen Shi, or “History of the Eighty-Five Years of Marquis Okuma” (ed. by Ichijima, Kenkichi, Tokyo, 1926), Vol. I, pp. 796–808Google Scholar. Compare Osatake, Takeshi, Nippon Kensei Shi, or “Constititional History of Japan” (Tokyo, 1930), pp. 273–283Google Scholar.
18 Compare Osatake, Takeshi, Nippon Kensei Shi, or “Constitutional History of Japan” (Tokyo, 1930), ch. xiv, pp. 337–346Google Scholar.
19 Teikoku Kempo Koshitsu Tempan Gikai, or “Commentaries on the Constitution of the Empire of Japan” (Tokyo, 1889), p. 86Google Scholar. The English translation of these commentaries, as authorized by Ito, Prince, is entitled Commentaries on the Constitution of Japan by Count Hirobumi Ito (trans, by Ito, Miyoji, Tokyo, 1889)Google Scholar. There are two other editions of this translation under dates of 1906 and 1931.
20 Kempo Teiyo, or “Principles of the Constitution” (Tokyo, 1910), Vol. II, p. 530Google Scholar. Dr. Hozumi was a member of the law faculty of the Imperial University of Tokyo from 1891 to 1912, serving for fourteen years as dean of that faculty.
21 Kempo Teiyo, Vol. II, pp. 537–538Google Scholar.
22 Kempo Teiyo, Vol. II, pp. 553–554Google Scholar.
23 Kempo Jutsugi, or “Commentaries on the Constitution” (Tokyo, 1927), p. 645Google Scholar. Dr. Uyesugi, a brilliant pupil of Professor Hozumi, was a member of the law faculty of the Imperial University of Tokyo from 1903 until his death in 1925. He was prominent in the movement to suppress socialist societies among students.
24 See his Kempo Hen, or “Principles of Constitutional Law” (Tokyo, 1923), pp. 678–687Google Scholar.
25 The attack on Dr. Minobe in the House of Peers began in February, 1935, with denunciatory speeches by Baron Takeo Kikuchi and Baron Mimuroto. Kwampo gogai, Feb. 19, 1935, pp. 92–98Google Scholar. Compare the Tokyo Asahi, Feb. 19, 1935, p. 1Google Scholar.
26 Compare the statement by Baron Takeo Kikuchi to the effect that although Baron Ikki had not published his lectures in the law school, nevertheless there were stenographic notes of his lectures in 1899. Kwampo gogai, Feb. 19, 1935, p. 94Google Scholar.
27 Kempo Satsuyo, or “Principles of the Constitution” (Tokyo, 1932), pp. 10–21Google Scholar. See also his several essays in the Saikin Kempo Ron, or “Recent Developments in Constitutional Law” (ed. by Hoshijima, Jiro, Tokyo, 1927)Google Scholar.
28 Minobe, , Kempo Satsuyo (1932), pp. 304–311Google Scholar; and his Kempo Seigi (1927), pp. 542–550Google Scholar.
29 Regarding Prince Ito's conversion to party government, see Kudo, Takeshige, Meiji Kensei Shi, or “Constitutional History of the Meiji Era” (1914–1922), Vol. I, pp. 397–398, 603–605Google Scholar; Vol. II, pp. 58–59.
30 Compare article on “The Plight of Parliamentarism in Japan in Recent Years,” in the Nippon Keizai Nempo, or “Japanese Economic Annals” (Feb. 1934), Vol. XV, pp. 228–269Google Scholar.
31 See reports in the press of the statement of Baron Kikuchi to the effect that the late Marshal Uyehara used to denounce Dr. Minobe's theory and warned his subordinate officers against the dissemination of such theories in the army. Tokyo Asahi, Mar. 5, 1935, p. 2Google Scholar; Japan Weekly Chronicle, Mar. 14, 1935, p. 339Google Scholar.
32 Compare the address of Yukio Ozaki before the House of Representatives on March 16, 1935. Kwampo gogai, Mar. 17, 1935, pp. 687–690Google Scholar.
33 Minobe, , Kempo Satsuyo (1932), pp. 304–311Google Scholar, and his Kempo Seigi (1931), pp. 546–547Google Scholar; Moriguchi, Shigeji, Kensei no Genri to Sono Unyo, or “Principles and Practices of Constitutional Government” (Tokyo, 1929), pp. 211–217Google Scholar.
34 Dai Nippon Teikoku Gikai Shi, or “Stenographic Records of the Imperial Japanese Diet” (Tokyo, 1926–1930), Vol. I (May 14, 1892), pp. 1891–1899Google Scholar. Compare Kudo, Takeshige, Teikoku Gikai Shi, or “History of the Imperial Diet” (1901–1908), Vol, I, pp. 150–151Google Scholar; and his Meiji Kensei Shi, or “Constitutional History of the Meiji Era” (1914–1922), Vol. I, pp. 382–383Google Scholar.
35 Dai Nippon Teikoku Gikai Shi, Vol. X (Jan. 25, 1917), pp. 1074–1079Google Scholar.
36 Genko Horei Shuran (Tokyo, 1907), Vol. I, bk. i, pt. iii, p. 1Google Scholar.
37 Compare Minobe, , Kempo Seigi (1931), pp. 532–534Google Scholar, and his Kempo Satsuyo (1932), pp. 330–333Google Scholar; Baba, , Kempo Seiji no Riron to Jissai (1926), pp. 201–204Google Scholar.
38 The rule was laid down simply by appending lists to the Rikugunsho Kansei (“Imperial Ordinance for the Organization of the War Department”) and the Kaigunsho Kensei (“Imperial Ordinance for the Organization of the Navy Department”) specifically naming the army and the navy officers eligible for appointment respectively to the two portfolios. Compare Minobe, , Kempo Seigi (1932), pp. 528–529Google Scholar. Prince Ito, in reply to a question from the Emperor on September 15, 1891, had held for the separation of the military and political powers, and in principle approved of the appointment of only high ranking army and naval officers to the portfolios of war and the navy. See Ito Hirobumi Hiroku, or “Secret Memoirs of Prince Hirobumi Ito” (ed. by Hiratsuka, Atsushi, Tokyo, 1929), pp. 113–115Google Scholar.
39 Yosaburo Takekoshi, Toan-ko, ch. lxiv; Kudo, , Taisho Kensei Shi, pp. 13–20Google Scholar. Saionji persuaded Admiral Saito to leave the navy portfolio, and when Prince Katsura tried to form a cabinet he was compelled to petition the Emperor for an imperial edict commanding Admiral Saito to retain his post. See the interpellation by Motoda, Hajime in the Dai Nippon Teikoku Gikai Shi (Feb. 5, 1912), Vol. VIII, pp. 1473–1478Google Scholar.
40 Compare Kudo, , Taisho Kensei Shi, or “Constitutional History of the Taisho Era” (Tokyo, 1927), p. 72Google Scholar; Minobe, , Kempo Seigi (1932), pp. 528–529Google Scholar. Recently an imperial decree has again limited the appointment of ministers and vice-ministers of war and the navy to the active list. Kwampo, May 18, 1936, p. 1Google Scholar.
41 See the editorial note in the Dai Nippon Teikoku Gikai Shi, Vol. IX, p. 786Google Scholar. Compare Kudo, , Taisho Kensei Shi, p. 96Google Scholar.
42 Tokyo Asahi, Mar. 6, 7 and 8, 1936; Jiji Shimpo, Mar. 7 and 9, 1936.
43 Regarding the deliberations in the cabinet, see accounts in the Tokyo Asahi, the Osaka Mainichi, and the Jiji Shimpo, Sept. 22, 23 and 24, 1931. Compare an article in the Keizai Orai, or “Economic Review” (Nov., 1931), Vol. VI, no. 6, pp. 90–97Google Scholar.
44 For Secretary of State Stimson's statement, see U. S. Department of State: Press Releases, Nov. 28, 1931, pp. 502–503Google Scholar. Compare the Tokyo Asahi, Nov. 29, 1931, p. 1Google Scholar.
45 See O-oka's speech in support of his resolution for retrenchment of the army, on February 7, 1922. Dai Nippon Teikoku Gikai Shi, Vol. XIII, pp. 655–656Google Scholar.
46 Yoshino, 's Niju Seifu to Iaku Joso, or “Dual Government and the Supreme Command” (Tokyo, 1922)Google Scholar, was the leading literary attack on the system of iaku joso.
47 See the Sumitsuin Kansei, or “Imperial Ordinance Regarding the Privy Council,” No. 22, April 28, 1888Google Scholar, as amended. Oenko Horei Shuran (1927), Vol. I, bk. i, pp. 1–14Google Scholar.
48 See the author's “Japanese Privy Council,” in this Review, Vol. XXV, pp. 881–905Google Scholar.
49 Kudo, , Meiji Kensei Shi, or “Constitutional History of the Meiji Era” (Tokyo, 1914–1922), Vol. I, pp. 298–302Google Scholar.
50 Commentaries, pp. 94–95.
51 See Hozumi, , Kempo Teiyo (1910), Vol. I, pp. 560–566Google Scholar; Uyesugi, , Kempo Jutsugi (1927), pp. 672–673Google Scholar; Shimizu, , Kempo Hen (1923), pp. 647–649, 702, 727Google Scholar.
52 Minobe, , Kempo Seigi (1927), p. 552Google Scholar; and his Kempo Satsuyo (1932), p. 301Google Scholar. Compare Moriguchi, Shigeji, Kensei no Genri to sono Unyo (1929), pp. 206–217Google Scholar.
53 Kwampo gogai, Feb. 19, 1934, pp. 341–342Google Scholar. Compare the Tokyo Asahi and the Osaka Mainichi, Mar. 4 and 6, 1934Google Scholar.
54 Kwampo gogai, Feb. 10, 1934, p. 210Google Scholar; Tokyo Asahi, Feb. 11, 1934, p. 1Google Scholar; Japan Weekly Chronicle, Feb. 15, 1934, pp. 197–198, 207–208Google Scholar.
55 Compare Minobe, , Kempo Seigi (1931), pp. 483–484Google Scholar; Moriguchi, , Kensei no Genri to sono Unyo (1929), pp. 201–205Google Scholar.
56 The Naikaku Shingi Kwai was established by an imperial ordinance dated May 10, 1935. Kwampo gogai, May 11, 1935, p. 1Google Scholar. Another ordinance provided for the Naikaku Chosa Kyoku, or Cabinet Research Bureau, for the purpose of conducting investigations of subjects referred to it by the prime minister. Compare section on the “Naikaku Shingi Kwai” in the Nippon KeizaiNempo, or “Japanese Economic Annals” (July, 1935), Vol. XX, p. 275–279Google Scholar.
57 See the interpellation in the Budget Committee of the House of Representatives on March 18, 1935. Tokyo Asahi, Mar. 19, 1935, p. 2Google Scholar.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.