The purpose of this paper is to question the legitimacy of the appropriation of the common pasture in Miyazaki Prefecture by the Meiji Government. "Kan min yû kubun" (the classification of land) was an undertaking begun in 1871, through which the Meiji Government classified forests, pastures, and waste lands into private or government-owned land and continued until 1881. It was the beginning of the Land Tax Reform. By this appropriation 71 percent of all the forests and waste lands were incorporated into land owned by the Government.
Fukushima, located at the southernmost district of Miyazaki prefecture, was an exceptional case, where, some of the commons were taken up by the Government through "Kan min yû kubun". Then most of the rest were appropriated even after the Land Tax Reform. As a result, a total of 95 percent of the forests and waste lands in Fukushima were incorporated into land owned by the Government.
When the Law concerning the Returning of Government-owned Land to former owners (Koku-yû-tochi-shinrin-genya karei hô) was enacted in 1899, however, in Miyazaki prefecture only 1.5 percent of the requests were granted. All the land returned, inclusive of land brought back through administration litigations, amounted to no less than 6 percent.
One common was returned to its owners through an administration litigation as late as 1910, in which only half the villagers participated. Then the remaining one half of the villagers called for the affirmation of joint ownership on the rest of the land. But the Tokyo district court dismissed their claim in 1972.
I would like to question the above-mentioned decision of the Tokyo district court, and also to criticize three writings on which the decision was based.
First I woud like to mention the title of each writing and summarize its assertion, followed by my criticism.
I. "Tokugawa Jidai niokeru Yamanengu no Seishitsu" (The Nature of Yamanengu dues on common forests in the Tokugawa Period) by Kaoru Nakada in Kokkagakkaizasshi, Vol. 21, No. 11, 1907.
It asserted: Except the land which yielded "Honto Mononari" (main rice-tax), all forests and waste lands should be incorporated into government-owned land.
My criticism: Dr. Nakada interpreted only the letter of the Law concerning the Returning of Government-owned Land, but omitted to cite detailed instructions which the Department of Agriculture and Commerce had issued for the enforcement of the law. It is unreasonable to interpret the criteria of the classification of land of 1876 according to the administrative regulations of 1899.
II. Takanabe Han Maki Mondai no Kôsatsu (An Inquiry on Pastures in the Takanabe Han), by Mataji Takakura, c. 1964.
It asserted: Commons were owned by the Han, not by the villagers, and the Hanshu (lord) permitted the villagers to pasture in them.
My criticism: Mr. Takakura failed to cite any evidence showing the actual conditions of use of pastures in the Fukushima district, and misinterpreted many of the documents he cited.
III. Iriai no Kenkyû (The Study on Commons) by Michitaka Kainô, 1943.
It asserted: "Classification of land" was an administrative act by the Meiji Government to "create" arbitrarily (or tyrannically) ownership of land.
My criticism: Dr. Kainô neglected to recognize a delicate nuance in the wording of the criteria of the classification of land and failed to appreciate the fact that the Daishin-in (the Supreme Court before World War II in Japan), respecting old usages, had been in favor of the upholding of common ownership of villagers on the grounds of common usages which had been held for a long time.
It is my conclusion that the common pasture had features which should justly be called "private" common land, and so it should be incorporated into private land.

View full abstract

Ich wies früher auf, daß sich der Mainzer Rat, der in vollem Einver-ständnis mit dem Stadtherrn, d. h. Erzbischof von Mainz entstanden war, zu das selbständige, mit ihm tatsächlich gleichgestellte Herrschaftsorgan Mitte 14. Jahrhundert entwickelte. Spätestens 1406 wurde die Stadt Mainz als die reichsunmittelbare “Freie Stadt” in der Reichsverfassung anerkannt. Aber auch nachdem blieb die Stadtherrschaft aufrecht, noch his 1462, als Mainz seine reichsunmittelbare Stellung verlor. Die allgemeine Literatur zur deutschen Stadtgeschichte, die das Schwergewicht auf die Ausbildung der Stadtgemeinde legt, läßt die Stadtherrschaft als Element der Stadtgeschichte in den Hintergrund treten. Die Aufgabe dieser Abhandlung ist so es, die geschichtliche Stellung and Funktion der Stadtherrschaft zu erklären. Dabei will ich schließlich aus Gesichtspunkt der Stadtherrschaft untersuchen, wie sich trotz des “Dualismus” von Stadt-herrn and Bürgergemeinde die Stadt als ein politisches Gebilde vereinigte.
Der Entwicklung des Stadtrats entsprechend differenzierte sich die Stadt-herrschaft in zwei Elemente.
(1) Die unmittelbare Herrschaft über die Bürgergemeinde. Sie wird hauptsächlich durch die Erbhuldigung begründet, die die Bürgergemeinde (der Rat and die Bürger) dem Erzbischof beim Regierungsantritt leistet. Die weltlichen Stadtamtleute waren der Kämmerer als Vertreter des Stadtherrn, der Schultheiß, die Richter, der Walpode, der Münzer-meister and der Marktmeister. Sie wie die geistlichen Gerichte übten die einheitlichen Aufsichts- und Rechtsprechungsfunktioren über wirt-schaftliche Betätigung, “Erbe and Eigen” und Ehe aus; these Funktionen entsprechen denen des Rats, Leib und Leben zu schützen. Die fast alien Amtleute außer dem Kämmerer ernannte der Erzbischof aus der oberen Schicht “der Alten Bürger” mit dem Ämterverkaufe, so daß der Zwie-spalt der Stadt bis zu einem gewissen Grad gehindert werden konnte.
(2) Die Herrschaft über den Rat. Sie wird durch die Huldigung be-gründet, die der Rat dem Erzbischof jährlich bei der Aufnahme und Zulassung der neuen Bürgermeister leistet. Der Erzbischof gewährte dem Rat das Macht, für sich einen Rat einzusetzen, and die ursprünglich autonome, auf freiwilliger “Friedenseinung” der Bürger gegründete Straf-gerichtsbarkeit als Freiheit and Privileg. Der Rat mußte den Legitimi-tätsgrund seiner Herrschaftsrechte in der Stadtherrschaft zu suchen fort-setzen, weil die Struktur seiner Herrschaft schwach war. Auf Grund der unmittelbaren Herrschaft über die Bürgergemeinde setzte der Erzbi-schof doch die Zunftkämpfe, in denen sich die Schwäche der Ratsherr-schaft am ausdrücklichsten zeigte, auf Seite “der Alten” zu schlichten fort. Über dem Rat erhaltete er immer wieder die einheitliche Ordnung der gantzen Stadt aufrecht. Die Schwäche der Ratsherrschaft entspringt endgültig dem Umstand, daß die Zunftmeister die bürgerlichen Autono-mien mit dem Rat teilten.
In der Zeit des “Ständestaats” war die geschichtliche Bedeutung der zweiten Herrschaft größer. Indem der Erzbischof these Herrschaft be-wahrte, vereinigte sich die Stadt Mainz als ein politisches Gebilde trotz des “Dualismus” von Stadtherrn and Bürgergemeinde.

View full abstract

Public Peace Police Law (promulgated in 1900) Art.17. forbade assault, menace, slander and sedition accompanied with organization or disputes carried out by laborers. After World War I labor movement developed, then abrogation of this clause and enactment of labor union law became political issues.
In those days labor affairs were under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Social Affairs (Shakai-Kyoku), which was organized as outer bureau of the Ministry of Home Affairs (Naimu-Sho) in 1922. The young bureaucrats in this Bureau had a plan of labor legislation that made a model of Western legislations. The plan was as follows; (a) Public Peace Police Law Art.17. should be abolished, (b) labor union law guaranteeing the right to organize should be enacted, (c) labor disputes should be settled by a conciliation committee provided by labor disputes conciliation law, (d) socialists' movement should be supervised by other peace law.
The other sections in Government (the Ministry of Agriculture, Commerce and Industry, Judicial, War-Office and the Navy Department, etc.) opposed this plan, and the capitalist unions also opposed it. At the 51th Diet (1925-26) Government brought three bills, i. e. bill of amendment of Public Peace Police Law, bill of Labor Disputes Conciliation Law and bill of labor union law, and the former two passed the Diet, but the last one was pigeonholed. The causes brought this result, I suppose, can be attributed to the opposition by the capitalist unions, the disagreement among the members in the Cabinet, and various parties' interests in the Diet. Eventually until after Japan's surrender labor union law had not been enacted.
The Labor Disputes Conciliation Law (Rodo Sogi Chotei Ho) was the only law that regulated relations between managers and labor unions before World War II in Japan. Its traits were as follows; (a) the contrast between compulsory conciliation in the case of public employees and voluntarism in other case, (b) ad hoc conciliation committee was to consist of nine members, three each from management and labor, and three chosen by the former six from disinterested outsiders, (c) the conciliation proposal could not be enforced, and if the conciliation were not successful the proposal of committee would be made public. The scholars who took the prominent view look on this law as the switching of the Public Peace Police Law. When we consider the significance of this law, it is necessary for us to discuss it not only in the context of labor legislation, but also in reference to the various conciliation statutes during the 1920's (the Land-Lease and House-Lease Conciliation Law, the Conciliation Law for Tenants, etc.).

View full abstract

This study directly treats of the Sessha _??__??_, and it is a trial essay on the commentaries of Ritsu and Ryo which had been not quoted in the Ritsu-no-Shuge _??__??__??_ and the Ryo-no-shuge _??__??__??_.
The Sessha is quoted in the Seiji-yoryaku _??__??__??__??_, the Hosso-ruirin _??__??__??__??_, and the Hosso-shiyosho _??__??__??__??__??_ etc, and sometimes in Myobo-kamon _??__??__??__??_. This Sessha has seemed to be the quotation at second hand, or careless quotation, and arrangement of the Ritsu-no-shuge and the Ryo-no-shuge. But I can't think as is stated above, because I consider that there is the common uniformity of its method of comments and expressions. Moreover I can't find the gap of the law consciousness in its content. Therefore I consider it as a volume of commentary.
This commentary has such characters as concise, precise, concrete, practical and basic. And having commented Ritsu, it had partly depended on the commentaries of Táng Lü _??__??__??__??__??_.
I have presumed that it had been written between the tenth year of Enryakn _??__??_ (791) and the twelfth year of Enryaku (793). But I couldn't know who was its writer.
Finally on the relation between the Koremunes _??__??__??_ and it, I have presumed that the Koremunes had gotten it between the seventh year of Engi _??__??_ (907) and the nineth year of Tengyo _??__??_ (946).

View full abstract