Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-31T23:29:26.929Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Powers and Functions of the Japanese Diet, II*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Kenneth Colegrove
Kenneth Colegrove
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The principle of “no taxation without representation,” so dearly prized in European constitutional systems, finds its counterpart in the Japanese régime. In the ornate language of Prince Ito: “It is one of the most beautiful features of constitutional government and a direct safeguard to the happiness of the subjects that the consent of the Diet is required for the imposition of a new tax and that such matters are not left to the arbitrary action of the Government.“ The enactment of this rule, so far as the Japanese constitution is concerned, is found in Article LXII, which reads:

The imposition of a new tax or the modification of the rates [of an existing one] shall be determined by law. However, all such administrative fees or other revenue having the nature of compensation shall not fall within the category of the above clause. The raising of national loans with the contracting of other liabilities to the charge of the national treasury, except those that are provided in the budget, shall require the consent of the Imperial Diet.

In their commentaries on this article, the jurists of the new school emphasize the requirement of the consent (kyosan) of the Diet for taxation, while the jurists of the old school emphasize the duty of the subject to submit to taxation.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , February 1934 , pp. 23 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1934

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

37 Commentaries (1889), pp. 113–114Google Scholar.

38 Kempo Seigi (1931), p. 621Google Scholar.

39 Kempo Teiyo (1910), pp. 873–874Google Scholar.

40 Commentaries (1889), p. 114Google Scholar.

41 Compare Minobe, , Kempo Seigi (1931), pp. 630–637Google Scholar.

42 The resolution taking exception to Imperial Ordinance No. 84 of 1892 was passed in the House of Representatives on December 13, 1892, by a vote of 174 to 73. Dai Nippon Teikoku Gikai-shi, Vol. II, p. 524Google Scholar. Compare Kudo, Takeshige, Teikoku Gikai-shi, or “History of the Imperial Diet” (Tokyo, 1901–1903), Vol. I, pp. 242–244Google Scholar.

43 Dai Nippon Teikoku Gikai-shi, Vol. II, p. 947 (Feb. 18, 1893)Google Scholar.

44 The first bill was rejected in the House of Peers in 1893 by a vote of 89 to 88. In 1895, an identical bill secured a passing vote. Ibid., Vol. III, pp. 196, 756 (Feb. 22, 1895).

45 Genko Horei Shuran (1927), Vol. II, bk. xii, pp. 1–2Google Scholar. Upon procedure in budgetmaking, see Uchiike, R. and Sakamoto, Y., “Budget System of Japan”, in Municipal Research (New York), March. 1927, No. 83, pp. 1–44Google Scholar. The fiscal year in Japan begins on April 1.

46 Commentaries (1889), p. 121Google Scholar.

47 Hozumi, , Kempo Teiyo (1910), Vol. II, pp. 502–509Google Scholar; Uyesugi, , Kempo Jutsugi (1927), pp. 537–541Google Scholar; Minobe, , Kempo Seigi (1931), pp. 680–685Google Scholar, and his Kempo Satsuyo (1932), pp. 595–598Google Scholar.

48 Constitution, Art. LXV, and Giin-ho, or Law of the Houses, Art. LIN. See also the Kizoku-in Teirei, or Standing Orders of the House of Peers, ch. v, and the Shugi-in Teirei, or Standing Orders of the House of Representatives, ch. vi. An English translation of the Standing Orders of both chambers as existing in the year 1905 is found in A Guide to the Imperial Japanese Diet (Compiled by Kinroku Fuji; published by the Eikoku Shogyo Zasshi Sha, or British Commercial Magazine Office, Tokyo, 1905).

49 Hozumi, , Kempo Teiyo (1910), Vol. II, pp. 521–522Google Scholar; Minobe, , Kempo Seigi (1931), p. 658Google Scholar.

50 Dai Nippon Teikoku Gikai-shi, Vol. I, pp. 2185 (June 10, 1892)Google Scholar. Compare Kudo, , Teikoku Gikai-shi (1901–1903), Vol. I, pp. 152–158Google Scholar.

51 Dai Nippon Teikoku Gikai-shi, Vol. I, pp. 1743–1750 (June 11–13, 1892)Google Scholar.

52 Hozumi, , Kempo Teiyo (1910), Vol. II, p. 223Google Scholar.

53 Dai Nippon Teikoku Gikai-shi, Vol. V, p. 861Google Scholar.

54 Dai Nippon Teikoku Gikai-shi, Vol. V, p. 877 (March 13, 1901)Google Scholar. See also Kudo, , Teikoku Gikai-shi (1901–1903), Vol. II, pp. 101–103Google Scholar.

55 Dai Nippon Teikoku Gikai-shi, Vol. II, pp. 590–591, 746–758 (Dec. 19, 1892, and Feb. 10, 1893). For Ito's part in this episode, Kudo heaps fiery words of condemnation on the premier. See his Meiji Kensei-shi, or “History of Constitutional Government in the Meiji Era” (Tokyo, 1914–1922), Vol. I, pp. 420–421Google Scholar.

56 Dai Nippon Teikoku Gikai-shi, Vol. IX, pp. 104–129, 210–212 (March 13 and 23, 1914)Google Scholar.

57 Kwampo gogai, May 7, 1928, p. 614Google Scholar.

58 Compare Shimizu, , Kempo Hen (1923), p. 334Google Scholar; Ichimura, , Teikoku Kempo Ron (1926), p. 946Google Scholar.

59 Concerning the German theory of obligatory expenditures, see Laband, Paul, Das Staatsrecht des deutschen Reiches (4th ed., Tübingen, 1901) Vol. IV, pp. 489–490Google Scholar.

60 Compare Minobe, , Kempo Seigi (1931), pp. 642–676Google Scholar; Shimizu, , Kempo Hen (1923), pp. 1412–1416Google Scholar.

61 Compare Uyesugi, , Kempo Jutsugi (1927), p. 555Google Scholar; Shimizu, , Kempo Hen (1923), pp. 1414–1415Google Scholar.

62 For criticisms of this procedure, see Shimizu, , Kempo Hen (1923), pp. 1421–1422Google Scholar. Compare the debate in the House of Peers in 1891, in the Dai Nippon Teikoku Gikai-shi, Vol. I, pp. 326–330Google Scholar. For an English translation of a resolution relating to procedure introduced in the Peers, , see Japan Weekly Mail, March 7, 1891, pp. 279–280Google Scholar.

63 Compare Shimizu, , Kempo Hen (1923), pp. 1286–1288Google Scholar; Minobe, , Kempo Satsuyo (1923), pp. 522–523Google Scholar.

64 Concerning the origin of this article, see Ito, , Commentaries (1889), pp. 135–136Google Scholar; Minobe, , Kempo Seigi (1931), pp. 707–709Google Scholar.

65 Uyesugi, , Kempo Jutsugi (1927), p. 545Google Scholar; Shimizu, , Kempo Hen (1923), pp. 1416–1418Google Scholar.

66 For instance, see accounts published in the Tokyo Asahi and the Osaka Mainichi for January 24 and 25, 1930, following the dissolution of the Diet by decision of Premier Hamaguchi.

67 Standing Orders of the House of Peers, ch. ii; Standing Orders of the House of Representatives, ch. ii. Chapter V of the Kaikeiho, or Law of Finance, prescribes the form of the report by the Board of Audit. Genko Horei Shuran (1927), Vol. II, bk. xii, pp. 1–3Google Scholar. For an English translation of the text of the Kaikeiho as promulgated in 1889, see Ito, , Commentaries (1889), pp. 247–259Google Scholar.

68 Compare Hozumi, , Kempo Teiyo (1910), Vol. II, pp. 908–910Google Scholar; Minobe, , Kempo Seigi (1931), pp. 717–719Google Scholar; Uyesugi, , Kempo Jutsugi (1927), p. 470Google Scholar.

69 Commentaries (1889), p. 62Google Scholar.

70 Minobe, , Kempo Seigi (1931), pp. 423–424Google Scholar. Compare Ichimura, , Teikoku Kempo Bon (1926), pp. 895–899Google Scholar; Yoshino, Sakuzo, Gendai Kensei no Unyo, or “Studies in Recent Parliamentary Government” (Tokyo, 1930)Google Scholar ch. iv.

71 Article XXX. On this subject, compare Furuya, Hisatsuna, Système représentatif au Japon (Brussels, 1899), pp. 163–167Google Scholar.

72 The procedure is laid down in chapter xiii of the Giin-ho, or Law of the Houses, and in Standing Orders of the House of Peers, ch. viii, and Standing Orders of the House of Representatives, ch. x.

73 Kwampo gogai, March 26, 1931, pp. 956–961Google Scholar. In this session, 29 seigan were adopted and sent directly to the Government, 547 were adopted and sent up to the House of Peers, and 1013 were treated as adopted. Ibid., pp. 778–817, 956–961, 963–968, 1014.

74 Ito, , Commentaries (1889), p. 73Google Scholar. Compare Hozumi, , Kempo Teiyo (1910), Vol. II, p. 485Google Scholar; Uyesugi, , Kempo Jutsugi (1927), p. 472Google Scholar; Minobe, , Kempo Seigi (1931), pp. 465–466Google Scholar.

75 Kwampo gogai, March 12 and 26, 1927, pp. 422, 697Google Scholar. Compare Japan Chronicle, March 17, 1927, p. 299Google Scholar.

76 Kwampo gogai, March 28, 1931, pp. 1–56Google Scholar.

77 Giin-ho, Articles XLVIII–L, LXXIV; Standing Orders of the House of Representatives, ch. viii. A request for documents may be coupled with the questions.

78 Kwampo gogai, Feb. 3, 1932.

79 Giin-ho, ch. xi.

80 Uyesugi, , Kempo Jutsugi (1927), pp. 471–472Google Scholar; Minobe, , Kempo Seigi (1931), pp. 483–484, 681Google Scholar.

81 The fushinnin ketsugi was worded: “Resolved, That the House of Representatives does not confide in the present cabinet.” Just as Yukio Osaki mounted the rostrum to speak on the motion, the imperial decree arrived. Dai Nippon Teikoku Gikai-shi, Vol. X, pp. 1074–1079 (Jan. 25 1917)Google Scholar.

82 Kwampo gogai March 8, 1927, pp. 8, 77Google Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.