Constitutional Imperialism in Japan/Chapter 5

From the point of view of constitutionalism, the Japanese Imperial Diet should be one of the most important organs. But at the outset, Americans and British must be warned not to expect an institution like either the American Congress or the British Parliament. The Japanese national assembly is rather like the German institution and is, therefore, generally called the “Imperial Diet”. It is well known that German ideas of government were largely followed by Ito in drawing up the Japanese Constitution, because they seemed best fitted to Japanese Imperialism.

The Japanese Imperial Diet is bicameral: it consists of a House of Peers (Kizoku-in) and a House of Representatives (Shugi-in). The House of Peers is composed of a varying number of members (about 375),—part hereditary, part elective, and part appointive. The hereditary members are the imperial princes and the princes and marquises. The elective members are those chosen from among the counts, viscounts, and barons, and the highest taxpayers of each prefecture. The appointive members are those who are nominated by the Emperor “for meritorious services to the State and for erudition.” But the number of appointive members and of elective taxpayers “shall not exceed the number of the members having the title of nobility.” The hereditary members and the appointive members enjoy a life tenure; while the elective members serve for a term of seven years.

The membership of the House of Peers in the Thirty-sixth Session^[1] of the Imperial Diet was as follows:

​The offices of president and vice-president of the House of Peers have been held by the following members:

The House of Representatives consists of 381 members. Any “male Japanese subject who is not less than full thirty years of age shall be eligible for election,” except that certain persons laboring under mental or financial or civic disabilities can neither enjoy the franchise nor be eligible for election. Heads of noble families; men in the active service of the army or the navy; students; Shinto priests and ministers, priests and teachers of religion of all kinds; teachers of elementary schools; and certain Government officials and persons working for the Government under contract are likewise ineligible in either case.

Electors must possess the following qualifications:

1. Completion of the twenty-fifth year of age.

2. A permanent residence in the election district for not less than one year previous to the date of drawing up the electoral list.

3. Payment of direct national taxes to the amount of not less than ten yen.

It should be noted that, while an elector possesses the franchise five years before he is eligible for election, the candidate has the great advantage over the elector of not being limited by any residential or property qualifications.

The members of the House of Representatives are elected under the system of large electoral districts, and by single non-transferable votes. The ballot is secret.^[2] A city having a population of over 30,000 forms one electoral district, with one or two members, according to size. The three cities of Tokyo, Osaka and Kyoto form each one district, ​with eleven, six, and three members respectively. In all other cases, each prefecture forms one district, with from two to twelve members according to the population. There are special provisions for the Hokkaido on account of its large area and scattered population. There are many polling-places in each district.

The members of both Houses receive an annual allowance (2,000 yen) and traveling expenses, except those who are in the service of the Government. Of course, no one can be a member of both Houses at the same time.

The members of the two Houses possess certain special personal privileges.

Ordinary sessions of the Imperial Diet must be convoked every year; and they last for three months, This time limit, however, may be prolonged by Imperial Order in case of necessity. An extraordinary session may be convoked by Imperial Order, “when urgent necessity arises”; and its duration “shall be determined by Imperial Order.”^[3] In the case of the dissolution of the House of Representatives, a new election must be held at such a time as will enable the new House to be “convoked within five months from the day of dissolution.”

A quorum in either House consists of one-third of the whole number of members; and, without such quorum, “no debate can be opened and no vote can be taken.”

An “absolute majority” is required for a decision in either House. The President has no vote, except in the case of a tie, when he has the deciding vote.

In general, the two Houses have equal rights and powers ​and are supposed, therefore, to be co-ordinate. It is however provided by the Constitution (Article LXV), that “the budget shall be first laid before the House of Representatives.”

In a hard-fought contest with the House of Representatives in 1892, the House of Peers won for itself an imperial interpretation to the effect that it had the right to reinsert in the Budget items expunged by the House of Representatives, i. e., that it had equal rights of amendment with the latter.

But an absolute equality of the two Houses is difficult to maintain. According to Ito, it was the intention of the framers of the Constitution, in case the House of Peers fulfilled its functions, to make it

The House of Peers is naturally much more conservative and bureaucratic than the House of Representatives; and it has checked not only evil tendencies but also progressive legislation. It almost invariably supports the administration, “no matter who forms it”, unless the latter appears too radical. It has hindered the attempts of the House of Representatives to revise or repeal “repressive and arbitrary laws” against public meetings, the press, political associations, etc. It has also checked attempts to revise the land-tax, to reform the electoral system, etc.; and it has often opposed the House of Representatives in contests over the budget. According to Ito, again: “The House of Peers can stop all legislation, however important and necessary it may be, and it cannot be dissolved.”^[5]

A little study of each session of the Imperial Diet may be profitable; and to illustrate such study, a table giving the dates ​of the election, of the opening and the closing, and of suspension, reopening and dissolution, is appended. The asterisks in the first column indicate special elections following dissolutions. The dates in the second column are those of the formal opening ceremony; in the last column, those of the formal closing ceremony in the cases where the session “died a natural death”.

On page 22, (page 342 of bound volume) under—Table of Sessions of the Diet—read corrections as follows:

​The following persons held the offices of president and vice-president of the House of Representatives during the session of the period under review:

It was feared by many that the first session would develop such antagonism between the Government and the legislature as to lead to a serious rupture; but such an unfortunate outcome was averted by tact on both sides. The House of Peers was composed of 252 members, as follows: 10 imperial princes, 10 princes and 21 marquises, having a hereditary tenure of office; 16 counts, 70 viscounts and 22 barons, elected by “the members of their respective orders”; forty-four persons chosen from among and by the highest taxpayers in each imperial city (fu) and prefecture (ken); and fifty-nine persons, nominated by the Emperor on account of meritorious services. Some of these members were incapables, possessing no merit save their rank; some were merchants, whose wealth was their only qualification; some among those appointed for erudition were mere book-worms without knowledge of political science. A curious paragraph, occurring now and then in the newspapers of that time, informed the public that a certain number of men, members of the House of Peers, “had formed an organization for the purpose of investigating the manner of ​studying political questions!” Nor was this so strange; for as representative institutions in Japan were but in their infancy, it would, of course, be unreasonable to expect the first Diet to be composed largely of tried and experienced legislators. But it is only fair to add that in both houses there were many veteran statesmen and well-versed young politicians, and that the House of Peers has since been steadily growing in reputation and influence. The House of Representatives consisted of an even 300 members, who had a great variety of professions and showed great differences in personal ability and experience. The old samurai (gentry) class had 109, and the heimin (commonalty) class had 191 representatives.^[7]

It was on December 2, 1890, that the House of Peers had the honor of receiving the first bill ever presented to a National Assembly in Japan—a “bill for the amendment and control of the system of weights and measures.” It was on December 4 that Count Matsukata, Minister of Finance, laid before the House of Representatives the first budget, over which ensued a prolonged and bitter discussion. The Government asked for the sums of 70,800,311 yen for “ordinary expenditures,” and 23,204,082 yen for “extraordinary expenditures.” The Budget Committee of the House recommended a reduction of about 7,840,000 yen; the “Moderates” proposed a reduction of 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 yen. At one time it looked as if the “Radicals” would surely win and thus provoke the Government to dissolve the House of Representatives; but finally a compromise was effected, by which the government consented to a reduction of about 6,500,000 yen.

Other important measures passed by the Diet were bills for opening additional ports, for postponement of the operation of the Commercial Code, for reforming weights and measures according to the metric system. One bill, passed by the lower House, but not reached in the upper House, was for the reduction of the land tax.

​The second session was almost entirely consumed in a bitter fight over the budget. Fortunately, the appropriation of $500,000 for the Columbian Exposition in Chicago was put through by itself in a supplementary budget. Vain attempts were made to amend the publication regulations, the law for public assembly, and other regulations, in a way to grant greater freedom of the press and liberty of speech. The main strength of the opposition, which had a good working majority, was spent upon reductions of the budget; and the government, insisting that the reductions proposed were too drastic for administrative purposes, finally dissolved the lower House on Christmas Day.

The third session, which was a special session, necessitated by the dissolution of the previous regular session, was marked by two conflicts: one between the lower House and the Government on the subject of interference in the election of members of that House; and one between the two Houses with reference to the respective powers of deliberation and consent in respect to the budget. In the former case, the House of Representatives by a large majority passed a resolution arraigning the Government for improper interference in the February elections. As a result of this resolution, the session was suspended for one week. The dispute between the two Houses arose from the fact that the House of Peers made amendments in the budget sent up from the House of Representatives, by restoring some items expunged by the latter. The majority of the representatives contended that the House of Peers, though competent to diminish or expunge items, exceeded its authority when it inserted items, because, according to the Constitution, the budget must originate with the executive, and any new item must be submitted first to the lower House. The upper House, however, insisted that it had equal rights of amendment with the lower House, and not only sent its amended budget down a second time, but also voted an address to the Throne on the question at issue. The Emperor, having consulted the Privy Council, decided that “neither House is superior or inferior to the other except … that … the lower House receives the budget from the ​Government before the upper.” The particular points at issue between the two Houses were afterwards settled by compromise, and the budget was finally passed on the last day of the session. But once again several important measures failed to get through both Houses.

The apparently inevitable conflict between the Diet and the Government was continued in the fourth session, when it took the form of a dispute over what the Constitution terms “fixed expenditures,” and says “shall be neither rejected nor reduced by the Imperial Diet, without the concurrence of the Government” (Article LXVII). The lower House called for large reductions, especially in naval expenditures; but the Government refused to entertain the idea, although the opposition mustered a large majority. Even after the Government, by suspending the session, had given an opportunity for calm reflection, the opposition vehemently continued the fight and finally carried by the sweeping majority of seventy-eight an address to the Throne impeaching the Cabinet. The Emperor, with the advice of the Privy Council, having carefully considered the situation, critical in the extreme, issued a conciliatory and compromise message, in which he skillfully balanced the censure and the praise on each side and closed by donating ten per cent of the imperial household allowance,^[8] and by directing all civil and military officials (with certain exceptions) to give the same percentage of their salaries, for six years, to the fund for building men-of-war. The total sum thus obtained was from 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 yen. This spirit of compromise was still further carried out in the remainder of the budget, which was reduced, on its expense side, by about 3,750,000 yen. In this fourth session, the Diet also passed three important bills, marking long steps in advance in the path of popular rights; these bills effected most desirable amendments in the copyright law, the publication regulations, and the law of public meeting and political association.

In the fifth session, Mr. Hoshi, president of the lower ​House, was accused of unprofessional conduct as a lawyer and of having abused his official position in the interests of certain legislation, and finally not only deposed from office, but also expelled from membership. Later a conflict arose between the House of Representatives and the Government on the subject of the strict enforcement of the treaties; this led to a suspension for ten days. When the House reassembled, it was deemed by the Government to be in the same unconciliatory mood, and the session was again suspended for two weeks. The following day, however, dissolution was ordered, so that practically nothing of importance was accomplished in that session.

The sixth session was short-lived and came to an untimely end, because the House of Representatives passed an address to the Throne, impeaching the Cabinet. By this time the situation had become very critical: the Ito ministry stood firm, and the opposition were aroused by two dissolutions within six months; so that the harmonious co-operation of the legislative and the executive departments appeared almost an impossibility. At this juncture, the war with China broke out and temporarily cleared the political atmosphere. There were, indeed, those who claimed that the Ministry was not averse to a war which should divert the minds of the people from politics and unite the nation in a common patriotic cause.

Consequently, when the seventh (extraordinary) session was convened at Hiroshima in October, 1894, it took only a few days to get organized and vote, with unanimity, an appropriation of 150,000,000 yen for carrying on the war.

The eighth session, which met at the regular time two months later, also passed the budget with absolute unanimity, and sank all party differences in an earnest effort to support the government in the prosecution of the war.

But a year later, when the ninth session began, partisan feelings were again aroused in connection with post-bellum measures, and finally resulted, in the House of Representatives, in a resolution of want of confidence in the Cabinet. This was met by a suspension for ten days, after which that resolution was voted down. This result was due to a coalition between ​the Cabinet and the Liberal Party (Jiyuto), the first in the history of constitutional government in Japan. In accordance with the terms of this alliance, the Liberal leader, Count Itagaki, and other Liberal politicians, were admitted into the Cabinet. But this coalition ministry was soon broken up by internal dissensions; and Count Matsukata, with the aid of Count Okuma and the Progressives, organized the next ministry.

When the tenth session of the Diet began, it was supposed that the new Cabinet was in a minority in the lower house; but it soon gained the support of a good working majority and put through its measures with remarkable ease and celerity. Although the session was interrupted by frequent recesses on account of the death and funeral of the Empress Dowager, a great deal was accomplished. A national taxation law, a new tariff law, the adoption of the gold standard, a radical revision of the press law and the law of public meetings in the interests of larger freedom, and the budget, were among the important measures carried through both Houses.

But one year later, when the eleventh session was opened, the condition had so materially changed that a resolution of want of confidence in the Cabinet was able to command a good majority, and was on the point of being voted on the second day of the session, when the Ministry forced a “dissolution” and then itself resigned. In the following month Marquis Ito was again at the helm, with a Cabinet supposed to be able to command the support of the Liberals.

The twelfth (special) session, however, was not of very long duration. The bone of contention was the subject of taxation: the Ministry wished to obtain a larger amount of revenue by increasing the land tax; but the Liberals, who in the first few sessions of the Diet had been ardent supporters of a reduction of that tax, did not dare to put themselves in an apparently inconsistent position. The result was that the Government was unable to get many supporters for its bill, and, after one suspension, again resorted to dissolution, in less than six months after the previous one, and then, like the preceding Cabinet, resigned office. Although this sudden end of the ​session found some important measures left on the docket, yet the income-tax law, the naturalization law, and the revised Civil Code were fortunate enough to get through both Houses.

The Okuma-Itagaki “Party Cabinet,” organized with the support of the new Constitutional party, formed by the amalgamation of the opposition parties and factions, was soon broken up by internal dissensions; and the new party itself, because it was not a real union but only an amalgamation, was rent in pieces. But the temporary alliance had served its purpose; so that, when the Yamagata ministry was organized, theoretically as a “Neutral Cabinet,” it found itself compelled to make an informal alliance with the Liberals.

The result was that the thirteenth session of the Diet was harmonious and “unusually fruitful of legislative works,” as one vernacular journal expressed it in its English column. The chief failure of this session was the inability of the two Houses to agree upon a new law of election, by which the right of franchise should be largely extended by diminishing the age limit and amount of property qualification. But many important measures were carried through, such as a reform of the local government system, the amendment of the code of criminal procedure, the increase of the land-tax and a budget calling for 246,451,706 yen of expenditures.

The fourteenth session was a very tame one, but was distinguished by success in passing a new election law. By this law the membership of the House of Representatives was increased to 376; the districts were rearranged to give urban populations a more adequate representation; the plan of unsigned uninominal ballots was adopted; the limits of an electoral district were extended to include a whole prefecture, except in the cases of urban districts; and the property and age qualifications were reduced, so that the electoral franchise was largely extended.^[9] Moreover, the property qualifications of candidates were entirely abolished.

In the fifteenth session, the Ito Cabinet, supported by Ito’s newly organized party (Seiyukai), commanded a majority in ​the lower House, but met strong opposition in the upper House. Such a conservative body as the House of Peers could not brook the idea of having the leader of a political party as Premier, and refused to pass the budget which was sent up from the House of Representatives. When negotiations proved absolutely fruitless, Ito resorted to the extreme measure of an Imperial Rescript, which resulted in the passage of the budget.

The sixteenth session was a quiet one, because Ito, who had been succeeded by Katsura, gave instructions to his party, before he started on a trip abroad, “not to present unreasonable opposition to the Government.”

The seventeenth session was short-lived; it was dissolved because it threw out Katsura’s bill for increased taxation for the sake of securing funds for naval expansion.

The eighteenth session (special) was quiet, because a compromise had been effected between Katsura and the Seiyukai.

The nineteenth session holds the record (with the eleventh session) as the shortest session, of only one day. Mr. Kono, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, had introduced into his reply to the address from the Throne a short clause which amounted to an impeachment of the Government. This use of a purely formal document for partisan purposes could not be overlooked; and dissolution was the punishment.

The twentieth and the twenty-first sessions, meeting during the Russo-Japanese War, showed again a burying of political differences and unanimous support of the Government.

The twenty-second session opened with Katsura still in power, but in only a few days found him succeeded by Saionji, who had followed Ito as leader of the Seiyukai. This was a very important session at which post-bellum measures swelling the budget to 600 million yen, including the great expansion of the national armament and the nationalization of the private railways, were passed by the lower House, practically without any amendment.^[10]

The twenty-third and the twenty-fourth sessions, with ​Saionji continuing as Premier and the Seiyukai as the strongest party in the House of Representatives, passed off quietly.

The twenty-fifth session illustrated what Uyehara^[11] calls “one of the anomalies of Japanese domestic politics.” The Seiyukai, in a majority in the House of Representatives, supported the non-party Katsura Cabinet, which had been organized when Saionji, for some unaccountable reason, resigned. It would seem that, as Uyehara suggests,^[12] the Seiyukai had no other course, except to run the risk of a dissolution and the loss of their majority in an expensive election.

The twenty-sixth and the twenty-seventh sessions continued this anomaly, which Katsura called a “Rapprochement Policy.” But the Seiyukai were enabled during these sessions to obtain from Katsura some concessions in return for their support. For instance, the Government was compelled to agree to a slight reduction of the land-tax, a reassessment of the taxable value of land, a revised tariff, etc. Moreover, attention must be called to the budget for 1909–1910. The Japan Mail said:

When the twenty-eighth session met, it found Saionji again at the post of Premier, with the Seiyukai in a majority in the House of Representatives, so that everything passed off smoothly.

The twenty-ninth session was a special one, necessitated by the death of the Emperor Mutsuhito, and was marked by perfect unanimity.

The thirtieth session was a stormy one from the very outset. The Saionji Cabinet had been wrecked by the demand of the War Minister (Gen. Uyehara) for an increase of the ​army by two divisions. Katsura had come back^[13] to political life as Premier and was also organizing a new political party (Doshikai). The new Premier and Saionji had effected an understanding, by which an oral message was to be given by the new young Emperor to Saionji, asking him to use his influence to keep the Seiyukai from pressing its opposition. But when Saionji delivered his message to the Seiyukai, he found them strongly united in declining to conform to the desire of their President. They were even more bitterly opposed to Katsura for dragging the Throne into the contest. Their attitude, as Satoh points out (p. 90), “was tantamount to disobeying an Imperial command.” Katsura suspended the Diet and intended to resort to dissolution; he is reported to have even carried in his pocket the Imperial Order for dissolution, but, when he realized the strength of public opinion against him, he resigned. Some of the newspaper comments on this struggle are interesting and instructive. The Chuo Shimbun, Tokyo, speaking of “such a hot encounter between the executive and the legislature,” says:

The Yomiuri Shimbun, Tokyo, said:

Inasmuch as the new Ministry under Yamamoto was practically a Seiyukai Cabinet, the rest of the session was quiet.

The thirty-first session was not so peaceful. When it transpired that the proposed budget included a very large sum for naval expansion, while at the same time naval scandals were being exposed, the popular disaffection became very great. The Seiyukai, with a large absolute majority as the result of ​the election of 1912, passed the budget, with a reduction, however, of 30,000,000 yen from the naval appropriation. The House of Peers voted a reduction of 70,000,000 yen, “the whole of the new appropriation.” When a conference of the two Houses failed to effect any compromise, it happened that the whole budget “failed to materialize.” The Yamamoto Cabinet resigned and the Diet adjourned.

The thirty-second, the thirty-third and the thirty-fourth sessions were all special ones. The first one was necessitated by the death of the Empress-Dowager and was marked by unanimity. The thirty-third session presented the interesting spectacle of the new Okuma Cabinet, with only a small number of supporters in the House of Representatives, confronting the Seiyukai with its large absolute majority. Although the Ministry was implacable, yet, as its program presented no great issue for a difference of opinion, the Seiyukai wisely refrained from carrying their opposition so far as to refuse to pass the important special budget. The thirty-fourth session, necessitated by Japan’s ultimatum to Germany, was harmonious.

The thirty-fifth session (ordinary), however, found the Seiyukai taking a firm stand against the Government on the budget, on the ground of opposition to the army increment feature; so that Okuma decided to appeal to the people by a dissolution.

The thirty-sixth session (special), with the Okuma Cabinet supported by a large absolute majority, obtained in the election, passed the army increment bill which had wrecked two strong cabinets. And it is one of the frequent paradoxes of Japanese politics, that the popular Premier Okuma finally put through that most unpopular measure.

After this somewhat detailed consideration of the thirty-six sessions of the Imperial Diet, it may be profitable to examine the tables on pages 25 and 26; for they throw some light on various points. It is instructive to note that, during the first decade, there were fourteen sessions (of which, of course, four were special); five cases each of suspension and dissolution, the latter of which necessitated five special ​elections; that no House was permitted to serve out its full term of four years, except the one which was elected in August, 1898, and which ran over into the next period. This we shall make a half decade, during which there were seven sessions (two special sessions); three cases of suspension and two of dissolution, the latter of which necessitated two special elections; and one House, elected in March, 1904, served out its full term, almost all of which was in the next period. On the other hand, during the last decade, there have been fifteen sessions (five special ones), with only a single suspension and a single dissolution and one special election. And the last dissolution, on December 25, 1914, was really in the interests of constitutionalism. In fact, as one looks down the table of sessions of the Diet for twelve years, from 1903 to 1915, he cannot help noticing one of the most significant proofs of the progress of constitutionalism in Japan. And, if one compares that table with the table of Cabinets, he will not fail to observe that there have been more dissolutions of the Ministry than of the Diet for the past ten or twelve years. In spite of the fact that the longer tenure of the members of the House of Representatives was often gained by unholy alliances with the administration, on the whole, there is good reason for encouragement over the general progress of representative institutions in Japan.