Samurai disestablished

Source: TW

The Samurai Disestablished
Abei Iwane and His Stipend
by SAKEDA MASATOSHI & GEORGE AKITA

SAKEDA MASATOSHI is professor of political science, Meiji Gakuin Daigaku, and GEORGE AKITA is professor of history, University of Hawaii.

On N 7 January 1874, the former samurai Abei Iwane wrote a lengthy position paper (kengensho -in) to Yasuba Yasukazu The governor of Fukushima prefecture, expressing his views on prefectural policy concerning the rehabilitation of former samurai, or shizoku .
Iwane’s letter was blunt and forthright in the extreme. ‘I cannot remain silent,’ he declared.
‘There is nothing in what you have stated that I can respect…. You are only trying to cover up your errors.’
These were strong words for a former samurai, a member of a han - defeated only six years earlier in the battles at the time of the Meiji Restoration,
to use when writing to a high-ranking official who represented the power and dignity of the central government.

The business at issue was the central government’s plan for former samurai to give up their hereditary stipends, or karoku 1,,
and earn their livelihoods along with merchants, farmers, artisans, and other members of Meiji society.
Ironically, the former samurai Abei was not writing to object to this policy.
On the contrary, he bitterly complained that officials in Fukushima prefecture
were not allowing him to give up his stipend in accordance with central government policy.

His kengensho does not, however, deal merely with this one point,
but discusses various major issues dealing with the rehabilitation of former samurai.
Abei’s written protest, therefore,
is a valuable document illustrating the views of an informed and intelligent ex-samurai
just six years after the Meiji Restoration.

The Stipend Issue
The Meiji Restoration in 1868 shifted imperial legitimacy from the shogun and the bakufu
to a new government controlled mainly by men from four domains in southwestern Japan.

1 See Harry D. Harootunian, ‘The Progress of Japan and the Samurai Class, 1868-1882’, in Pacific Historical Review, 3 (1959), pp. 255-66, and ‘The Economic Rehabilitation of the Samurai in the Early Meiji Period’, in JAS 19 (August 1960), pp. 433-44.
These are the only sources in English providing details of the Meiji government’s attempts to eliminate the ‘special social, political and economic privileges of the samurai’, and are therefore still useful.

[[300]]

These were the founding fathers of the modern Japanese state,
and they set in progress a series of far-reaching political, social, and economic transformations.
Among the most delicate of the reforms was the disestablishment of their own samurai class,
a group that comprised five or six percent of a population of some thirty million.

The new government proceeded to implement this reform in gradual steps.
In 1870, commoners (heimin T+P) were permitted to assume family names;
in 1871, former samurai were allowed to lay aside their swords, the symbol of their class and authority;
in 1872, they were permitted to engage in agricultural, commercial, and industrial work.
The creation of a national conscription system in 1873
further eroded the distinction between shizoku and heimin.2
Changes in the samurai stipend system were also gradually introduced.

Even before 1869, the new government had reduced the hereditary stipends of samurai from defeated domains to nearly subsistence level.3
In the same year, daimyo were given for their own use
one-tenth of their former income and were ordered to ‘reform’ (kaikaku at), that is, to reduce, the stipend system in their domains.

In 1870, the government made cash payments to shizoku who were living infu-ken E, or prefectures and metropolitan areas,4
and who wished to use the capital to engage in agriculture and commerce (seisan honshi *).
In December 1873, all the shizoku throughout the country in receipt of annual stipends of less than 100 koku ai
were given the option of exchanging their stipends for cash and bonds in equal amounts;
the total sum to be received was equivalent to six times their stipend.
The bonds would bear interest of 80/o,
and those wishing to cash them would be chosen by lot between three to seven years of the request to accept the option.
The aim of the offer was to provide the shizoku with capital to buy government land and forests
to be sold at special low rates.
In the three years following the promulgation of the ordinance,
94,656 shizoku opted for the exchange.6

2 For a discussion of the reforms and the stipend issue, see W. G. Beasley, The Meiji Restoration, Stanford U.P., 1972, pp. 361-65 & 379-90. We have also consulted relevant laws in volumes 2, 3, 4, 6, 7-1, 8-2, & 9 of Horei Zensho [HZ] ’ ti, Naikaku Kampo Kyoku, 1887-1890.

3 Domains, including the victorious ones such as Satsuma and Choshui, had also been reducing stipends. Beasley, pp. 339-40.

4 Despite the return of registers, or hanseki hokan JXP,* by the daimyo in 1869, the new government controlled directly only the former bakufu territories, the defeated domains, and the domains that had toppled the bakufu. Thefu-ken system was first imposed on mainly these areas (some defeated domains and even Satsuma remained han, as did many others). It was only after the abolition of domains, or haihan chiken PkMW-,* in 1871 that the fu-ken system became nationwide. HZ 3 (1870). See Fukaya Hiroharu iRbI: ‘, Kashizoku Chitsuroku Shobun no Kenkyu7 +lEt;gAM’o9:t, Takayama Shoin, 1941, pp. 171-81.

6 Niwa Kunio fMW;n, Meiji Ishin no Tochi Henkaku h O Pi o D ? *_ 1 Ochanomizu Shobo, 1962, p. 198. The number given in Okurasho, comp., Meiji Zenki Zaisei Keizai Shiryo ShuZsei M MFiB M 4 AgjAtFtA, Kaizosha, 1933, 8, p. 475, is 135,888. This is because a shizoku could opt he acto?? separate his request for cash from that for bonds, so this larger figure refers to the total number of requests.

[[301]]

In 1874, the optional commutation alternative was extended to all shizoku
regardless of the size of their stipend,
and in 1876, the commutation was made compulsory.
Shizoku with stipends of Y1,000 or more a year were given bonds capitalized at a value of 5 to 7.5 years ‘income, bearing interest at 50/o,
while those receiving less were to exchange their stipends for bonds valued up to fourteen years’ stipend and no more than 70o interest.

In this way, the Meiji government finally brought to an end the centuries-old system of samurai stipends.7
There are numerous studies in Japanese on the samurai stipend issue,8 but hardly any in English.
Detailed accounts of the reaction of individual shizoku to the abolishment of the system are rare,
and so Abei’s unpublished position paper is important for the light it sheds on the issue
and on how a particular samurai had to battle with prefectural authorities to exercise his right to give up his hereditary stipend.
His appeal shows that, despite the law of the central government,
it was not always easy for shizoku to surrender their stipends even when they wanted to do so,
owing to the obstructionist, but probably humanitarian-motivated, tactics of the prefectural authorities.

Abei Iwane Abei Iwane was born in Nihonmatsu han
not far from what is now Fukushima City on 17 April 1832.
His father, MatanojO y?, was the younger brother of Ozawa Chuiuemon ‘J&i,*vrl
and was adopted into the Abei family.
His mother, Shimeko +X+, came from the Shidara &ff family.
Matanojo received a hereditary stipend of 65 koku,
and his post of chief fiscal officer (go-kattegata kanjo bugyo g4) in the han bureaucracy
provided an additional income of 35 koku.
Abei Iwane’s formal education was typical for a young samurai
preparing to follow in his father’s footsteps in the han bureaucracy.
He studied Wang Yang-ming ipMq thought under Sato Issai ft;- ,
the works of the kokugaku ME scholar Motoori Norinaga *)ffk,
the Yamaga [flt school of military strategy,
and the itto -7 style of swordsmanship.9

7 The yen value of one koku of rice differed greatly throughout Japan. In the three-year period 1872-1874, one koku was worth on average six yen in Tokyo but only Y3.45 in Nihonmatsu. Meiji Zenki, 8, p. 486. Although it had been defeated in the Boshin War, Nihonmatsu was one of those domains that remained a han, and so it was not until 1873 that Abei could opt for the cash/bond alternative. His hereditary stipend was 16 koku, so he would have received Y27.06 in cash as well as bonds valued at the same amount bearing 8Wo interest.

8 See, for example, Fukaya’s volume cited in n. 5, above.

9 Abei’s early and intense interest in kokugaku is shown by the fact that in his twenties he copied by hand the entire Kojiki t$id and Man’yOshu 7I5i. See Richard Rubinger, Private Academies of Tokugawa Japan, Princeton U.P., 1982, pp. 211-17, for a discussion of this kind of multifaceted education experience that was common in bakumatsu gj Japan.

[[302]]

The year 1846 marked a crucial turning point in his life when, at the age of fourteen,
accompanied his father, who had been transferred to Edo.
From 1847 until 1855 the young Abei was given at first minor
but increasingly substantive duties in the han’s Edo office.
He thus spent nine of his most formative years
in a metropolis with a population of more than a million people.
Abei returned to Nihonmatsu with his father in 1855,
but he was back in Edo in 1856 and remained there for a year.
In the years 1858-1859 he commuted between Nihonmatsu and Edo on han business.
He became a secretary of sortsl0 to the retired daimyo of Nihonmatsu, Niwa Nagatomi X&AtHk&, in 1861,
and was then appointed as an official connected with weapons and armor (bugu shufuku yaku AItPN) in 1864.
In 1868, he served in a liaison capacity in a group of representatives from han participating in the Ou-etsu reppan domei 4IJMME,
a regional defense alliance against imperial forces.
Nihonmatsu han was on the losing side in the Boshin War,
and when its castle fell to the imperial forces, MatanojO committed seppuku v’j
and Abei was imprisoned for some three months in Sendai.
From 1869 to 1873 Abei held posts in the administrations of Nihonmatsu and Wakamatsu prefectures.
He was engaged in farming and sericulture when he presented his petition and position paper in 1874 and 1875.

At this time he was forty-three years old, no longer a young man.
Abei subsequently became a figure of some national prominence,
being elected to the House of Representatives, 1890-1893, and 1898-1902.
He was appointed vice-president of that chamber in 1893."

The Kengensho
It is hazardous to draw causal relationships from this biographical sketch
to Abei’s motives for presenting his petition and position paper
or to use these documents as a basis for analyzing his thoughts.
Yet if we are to stress his national perspectives
as against the narrow class and provincial views of most of the shizoku in Nihonmatsu and elsewhere,‘2
his eleven years in Edo take on added importance.
Abei’s bureaucratic service in a large han of 100,000 koku,
and later in prefectural administration, may have given him the necessary confidence
to confront not only the subdistrict head but also the prefectural governor, Yasuba Yasukazu.‘3

10 The sources do not give the title.

11 The following sources were consulted for this biographical section: Sakura Magozo ft ff, Kuni no Iwane: Abei 0 no Den flt4R: n 9 > M 4 fj, Hakubundo, 1894, and Munakata Zenzo m}1DAg, Abei Iwane Sensei Ryakuden % g # Iwanekai, Fukushima, 1951.

12 A high-ranking inspector from Tokyo, Watanabe Kiyoshi lA , sent back a report on the shizoku in Ishikawa prefecture in 1882. He described their vision as being ’extremely narrow’, declaring that they knew next to nothing about the changes occurring in the country at that time. They saw the prefectural office as a mere continuation of the han administrative office, and those who sought official positions wished only to remain in Ishikawa. They were therefore unhappy when people from other prefectures arrived to take up positions in Ishikawa. Gabe Masao R,O A, ed., Meiji Jugonen Jfurokunen Chiho Junsatsushi Fukumeisho i+ttioY((E ftfifp-, San’ichi Shobo, 1980, 1, p. 518.

[[303]]

| I ~~~~~41 Abei Iwane, an early-Meiji portrait.

Abei’s kengensho tells us much about his ideas but little about how he came to acquire them,
except for his use of Confucian and Western concepts
and his reference to translated foreign works.14
It seems likely that he had read some of the works of thinkers such as Nakae Chomin rkaAfLj and Fukuzawa Yukichi j
for echoes from the essays of both of these writers can be detected in his petition.‘5

13 Yasuba, 1835-1899, was a shizoku from Kumamoto in Higo,
a major han that sat on the sidelines at the time of the Restoration.
He served in the administrations of Tokyo-fu (1869), Izawa-ken (1869), Sakata-ken (1870), and the Ministry of Finance (1871).
He left with the Iwakura Mission in 1871,
but turned back at San Francisco because of his self-admitted deficiency in English.
He was then appointed governor of Fukushima in 1872
and held that post until 1875.

14 In a speech delivered in 1876, Abei noted that he had read ‘Guizot, Buckle, and Montesquieu’.
Japanese translations of Frangois Pierre Guizot, Histoire de la civilisation en Europe; Henry Thomas Buckle, History of Civilization in England; and Montesquieu, De l’Esprit des lois, were all published in 1875.
Mitsuhashi Takeo -*%, Meiji Zenki ShisoshiBunken MM-JWTV Meijido, 1976, pp. 555-56.

15 See, for example, Fukuzawa Yukichi, An Encouragement of Learning, MN Monograph 33, 1969, and Sannosuke Matsumoto, ‘Nakae Chomin and Confucianism’, in Peter Nosco, ed., Confucianism and Tokugawa Culture, Princeton U.P., 1984, pp. 251-66.

[[304]]

The kengensho also draws attention to the basic historical issue of continuity and change,
makes us wary about proposing easy generalizations about Meiji history,
and illuminates the complexity of the relationship between the central government and prefectural administrations in that period.
The document suggests a reevaluation of the picture of ‘progressive’ Meiji leaders
dragging reluctant and reactionary samurai into the new world that they were creating,
and compels a reassessment of the stereotype of inevitable animus
between the Meiji government and shizoku from defeated han.
Abei was undoubtedly an unusual man.
He was among the 10-20o of the local shizoku who were willing to give up their stipends,
but even in this small group, he stood out. When, in 1874, the subdistrict head (kucho VXA), clearly at the governor’s behest,
summoned the shizoku who had petitioned to hand back their stipends,
Abei alone refused to approve what was a helpful and sympathetic gesture by the governor.
In the following month the kucho followed up the offer
by returning the petitions that had been submitted earlier.
Everyone took back his petition except Abei, as his had somehow become ’lost’ in the prefectural office
and he again raised objections.
As stated above, Abei was nothing if not outspoken.
He wrote to the governor,

‘To remain silent now is not an act of sincerity and justice…. I cannot not raise this criticism. . . . Your opinion is no better than that which can be expected from any ordinary person.’

That Yasuba tolerated Abei’s attacks and finally approved his petition
suggests that the authorities in Tokyo and the provinces dealt gingerly with shizoku.
At the same time, Abei’s protests were not built on rhetoric alone
but were based on intensive and careful reading of the law.
He told Yasuba, for example, ‘Article Three of the appendix to the ordinance to grant government forests and lands to shizoku states that. . . .’
He pointed out that there was a critical qualification contained in a government ordinance relating to a tax on stipends
because of the inclusion of the one word ’tobun’, ’temporarily’.
Thanks to his precision in presenting his case,
all his references to government ordinances and regulations on the stipend issue have been located.
Abei was not the perpetually angry man.
He was angry, but only at a particular prefectural governor
whom he saw as throwing up obstacles against those who were seeking to come to terms with the new age. He was not raging against the system that had relegated him to a low status or had frustrated his pre-Restoration ambitions. Rather, his vision was concentrated on the future. And anger was but one of the emotions he revealed. Yasuba aptly labeled men such as Abei ’enthusiasts’, and Abei begins one version of his kengensho with the statement that he was ‘overjoyed’ over the government’s policy that would deprive him and his descendants of their hereditary stipend. He also talked of pride, honor, dignity, and shame as motives for meeting the challenges awaiting all the shizoku. Abei agreed with those in the central government who believed that if Japan was to survive in the 1870s and make progress, it had to become a unified nation. He opposed measuring policies by parochial, regional yardsticks, and attacked Yasuba, a central government appointee, for wrongheadedly

[[305]]

using his position to oppose the government’s policy on stipend return. He also condemned narrow class interests and thought in terms of equity for all by linking the stipend issue with the welfare of the whole country. He was concerned that shizoku received ‘unearned income’, maintaining that the system was inequitable to the other three classes. There was no justification, he believed, for the government to earmark tax income to support the shizoku and kazoku #, or former daimyo and Kyoto nobility. In one of the most striking passages in the kengensho, Abei declares: ‘I am aware that if a person receives an unearned income for even one day, he deprives someone in his country of a day’s labor. And if ten men are idle for ten days, they mock the labor of ten men for ten days.’“6 Nevertheless, Abei was not insensitive to the hard economic realities faced by the shizoku, but he believed that these financial problems should not blind the prefectural administration to the need to encourage the giving up of stipends. The sacrifice entailed would in turn result in specific benefits. For Abei, the unearned stipends were debilitating to the shizoku themselves and did not encourage them to seek new ways of making a living. To continue the system would be akin to giving ‘water to a drowning man’. There would be further benefits. The discontinuation of the stipends would restore shizoku pride and dignity, and would justify their traditional leadership over the other three classes; it would oblige them to exert themselves in their new enterprises. It would also grant the shizoku the political right to argue with the government over policies. Thus Abei’s presentation reveals a balance between fulfillment of duty to the nation and moral benefits to be reaped by the former samurai class. What, then, are the larger implications of Abei’s appeal? In the first place, he draws attention to the question of continuity and change in history. He was modern in this thinking. His stress on nation, the elimination of class differences, the existence of political rights for all, and the notion of general welfare has been noted above. Abei was also modern in his orientation toward the future. One aspect of this is his rejection of the notion that the past is the best guide for the present, and he tells Yasuba, ‘Those who love the past do not understand the present.’ He faults the governor for not doing what good government should be doing, that is, awaken the shizoku from their ‘dreams of the feudal past’. Abei’s optimism about the future of the shizoku, if only they gave up their stipends, comes through clearly. On this point, the report of a roving inspector shows that Abei was more accurate in his diagnosis of shizoku problems than he was in his prognosis. The inspector noted: The shizoku [in Ishikawa] are lazy and inactive, and still have not shed their old habits. Although they have been loaned funds to establish enterprises, only a few have achieved their goals. Most of them do not work and thus produce nothing. 16 See p. 329, below. 17 Gabe, Junsatsushi, 1, p. 518.

[[306]]

As the days go by, they increasingly face hunger and cold, but they do not display the spirit to help themselves and just depend on others for their living.17 It must be kept in mind, however, that Abei’s kengensho is as much a passionate manifesto as it is a reasoned legal brief. But Abei was a product of his time. Despite his forward-sounding views on autonomy, freedom, universal rights, and independence, he shared with fellow shizoku an inclination to dismiss the non-samurai classes and saw matters primarily from the shizoku point of view. He strongly believed that the shizoku should take the lead in the new age that Japan was entering. ‘Where is the samurai spirit of old that used to lead the three classes, pursued righteousness in peace and war, and sustained the country?’ Abei also held to the traditional concept of government as a model for the people, and he believed that it was crucially important for the government to nurture the moral strength or spirit of the people. Secondly, if we look at the issue of stipend exchange from Abei’s perspective and judge it from its ultimately successful result, it is easy to suppose that Abei was correct and farseeing in his position, as were the Meiji leaders in Tokyo with whom he agreed. As Harootunian has concluded, ‘The skillful manipulation or conversion of this form of danger [the shizoku] into a useful instrument was one of the outstanding achievements of the Restoration era, . . .,18 However, Abei’s petition is a litany of complaints against Yasuba’s obstructionist tactics that threatened the central government’s policy on stipend reform. As Abei pointed out, there is always the possibility of ‘gaps between policies and the actual situation’. In other words, while the Meiji leaders on the most fundamental level knew what was needed to be done to create a new state, the process of achieving their goals was marred by working at crosspurposes, misunderstandings, constant tinkering and adjustment in the face of unyielding realities, jealousies, pettiness, bickering, and backbiting among the leaders. Jansen has put matters in proper historical perspective when he noted, ‘. . . it is very hard for those who know the ending to realize what it was like to know only the beginning.‘19 In the third place, it is relevant to ask whether ’the problem of the samurai was at bottom economic.‘20 There is no denying that the financial burden of supporting the former samurai class was a heavy one for the new Meiji government. But economics was only one motive for the policy of stipend return and the government’s overall attempts to deprive the shizoku of their privileged status and to convert them into productive members of society. It is noteworthy that in his lengthy report Abei makes only one passing reference to the financial problems facing the government. If it is argued that Abei does not 18 Harootunian, ‘Progress’, p. 256. 19 ‘The Meiji Modernizers’, in Clark L. Beck & Ardath W. Burks, ed., Aspects of Meiji Modernization: The Japan Helpers and the Helped, Rutgers University Libraries, New Brunswick, 1983, p. 19. 20 Harootunian, ‘Rehabilitation’, p. 434; see also p. 443.

[[307]]

represent the thinking of national leaders, let us turn to Yamagata, who, like Abei, spoke of matters not economic: ‘We overturned the social order in the early Meiji period. If we had not done so, we would not have been able to do away with traditional behavior and thinking.‘21 Moreover, the Meiji leaders had tended to stress the primacy of strengthening seishin ef$ over the material even while trying to cope with such hard realities as budget deficits or the need to strengthen the military.22 This emphasis might have been behind their rejection of showcase projects favored by some newly developing countries today. The thrust of the kengensho is not the economic problem of either the shizoku or the government, but the need, as Abei saw it, for a fundamental change in the way that men regarded themselves and the world around them. He states flatly: It is urgent that the people be liberated from their narrowness [of vision] and ignorance, and be introduced to enlightenment. In these ways, the people will be made aware of the need of the spirit of courageous action and of their responsibility to uphold Japanese society. These must be the fundamental aims of the government. It is not surprising that Abei, the former bureaucrat grounded in Confucian education, should emphasize so strongly the role of government in bringing about these desired changes in attitude. But change the people must and only then could they be called citizens (shinmin Vf, ’new men’). The need for this transformation is the linchpin of the report, for without it, there could be no nation: ‘If people do not act as citizens, can we then say that the nation exists?’ The fourth of the larger meanings of the petition is the light it sheds on the relationship between the central government and the prefectural governors. At a minimum, it indicates that a high degree of centralization and tight control from Tokyo was a myth, at least in the early Meiji period. Abei noted that circumstances differed among prefectures and that the governors differed in their understanding or perception of policy goals established in Tokyo. For this reason he devoted much space to pointing out that Yasuba misconceived the aim of the stipend policy and that this misapprehension was the cause of the governor’s wrong-headed tactics, tactics that contrasted strongly with the positive efforts of the governors of Chiba and Hamamatsu.23 21 Oyama Azusa ykI”, Yamagata Aritomo Ikensho U%JMW1tQ, Hara Shobo, 1966, p. 109. 22 See, for example, Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, ‘Kata Hiroyuki and Confucian Natural Rights, 1861-1870’, in HJAS 44 (December 1984), p. 472; and Sidney D. Brown & Akiko Hirota, tr., The Diary of Kido Takayoshi, Volume 1: 1868-1871, University of Tokyo Press, 1983, p. xliii. 23 Officials of Okayama tried to reassure the shizoku there with a public announcement warning them against being ‘carried away by rumors’ to the effect that ’the lower-salaried shizoku will be ordered to return to farms or go into business,’ and promising, ‘We will never take such steps.’ Ardath W. Burks, ‘Administrative Transition from Han to Ken: The Example of Okayama’, in Far Eastern Quarterly, 15 (1956), p. 379.

[[308]]

The kengensho argues against the generalization that Meiji prefectural governors were simply catspaws of the central government and that all governors saw matters in generally the same light. Indeed, Abei points out that even in Fukushima prefecture, the officials below the prefectural administration were not uniformly following prefectural government orders on stipend exchange.24 If the relationship between central and prefectural governments needs to be rethought, so too the relationship between the Meiji government and shizoku from han defeated by the imperial forces in 1868. In Abei’s case at least, even his father’s seppuku, his own imprisonment and drastic reduction of stipend, did not result in an anti-Satcho attitude.25 Ultimately, the wonder is not the creation of tight, centralized control or skillful manipulation from the center. Rather, it is almost a miracle that the Meiji state was established at all, given all of this working at cross-purposes on major policies. The history of the Meiji period, in sum, is one of a series of near-misses and lucky turn of events. Yamagata is speaking of Japan’s relations with the Western powers, but his sense of awe and wonderment that Japan survived is palpable: I recollect that there were more than a few times when Japan faced grave crises in the fifty or sixty years that Japan has been involved in relations with the great powers in the modern period. And when I think about them today, the memory still sends a shock of fear through my heart. That we have been fortunately able to surmount the grave crises and see the expansion of national fortunes may be said to be mostly the result of heavenly blessings.26 The history of Meiji Japan is rooted in the fact that the reforms, including the most hazardous, that of destroying the potential military threat to the government by eliminating the privileged position of the shizoku, in the end succeeded. It is risky to generalize from Abei alone, for he was clearly an unusual man, but that there was such a person as he and others-the nessha among the shizoku who were trying to cope with the new age-helped Japan to turn the corner and move forward.27 They succeeded in the hardest reform of 24 Mikuriya Takashi makes the point in his review of Gabe’s work, cited above, that Home Minister Yamagata, when he ‘institutionalized’ the practice of sending inspectors from Tokyo to the provinces in 1882, had in mind to strengthen the Home Office’s control over prefectural governors who were trying to evade restraint from Tokyo. Shigaku Zasshi t.tZ5G 91:3 (1982), p. 111. 25 See Tetsuo Najita, Hara Kei in the Politics of Compromise, 1905-1915, Harvard U.P., 1967, pp. 13-15. Hara’s case well illustrates the Meiji government’s willingness to use talent wherever it was found. Abei’s kengensho was published in Tokyo Nichi-Nichi Shimbun IkI(H H ifix on 14, 16, & 18 May 1875. This led to inquiries from a government official in Tokyo about the possibility of Abei’s entering government service. Abei chose to remain in Fukushima. These and other materials will form the basis of the forthcoming volume on Abei. 26 Letter to Hayashi Ichizo ftii), October 1917, in Irie Kan’ichi Ei:g-, Yamagata Ko no Omokage 7% i >f, Hakubunkan, 1922, pp. 100-01. 27 Prime Minister Kato Takaaki’s bn , father, Hattori Shigeaya 5 of Owari han, is a good example of a shizoku who seized the chance to become a successful en

[[314]]

hands of the prefectural governors. It is therefore necessary that the governors should have a good understanding of the goals of these policies. What, then, are these goals? I truly believe that Japanese society lags behind the progressive trend [elsewhere in the world] and that our people are not enlightened. They do not even understand the significance of enlightenment and progress, and so they must be liberated from their narrow ignorance and be introduced to enlightenment. In this way they will be made aware of the need to acquire a spirit of courageous action and of their responsibility to uphold Japanese society. These must be the government’s fundamental aims. The prefectural governors should recognize this and see to it that their subordinates are also familiar with them. If this is done, the people themselves will gradually become aware of the goals, and this will stimulate in them sentiments of loyalty to the throne, patriotism, and respect for lofty virtues. Japan will then become a righteous, proper, prosperous, vigorous, and strong country. What will enable Japan to become a strong country? The prefectural government must operate correctly and bring about desirable results. Thus the prefectural government’s present responsibilities have no precedent in our country’s history. But at this juncture you believe that the government’s orders are not appropriate and you accordingly wish to reject them. I cannot understand why you have taken this position, although I think that your actions stem from a sincere attempt to carry out what you believe to be your proper duty. As a result, you have criticized the government’s policy on stipends. Although I praise your magnanimous benevolence and express my gratitude to you, I still have doubts about your position. The facts are as follows. On 27 December 1873 the government promulgated the order to hand back hereditary stipends. You left Fukushima for Tokyo on 15 February.42 There were forty-eight days between these two events. Why did you not leave for Tokyo sooner [if you had doubts about the order]?43 I am not a government official and so I do not know the real situation within the prefectural government, but I believe that the situation among the people and in society itself is very fluid these days. And so it is clear that a speedy response to a problem eliminates unnecessary difficulties and ensures effective results. With regard to the surrender of hereditary stipends, there are many shizoku who are ashamed of having to depend on their stipend without working and so they welcomed this order. And in many prefectures the shizoku’s petitions to return their stipends are being steadily processed by the local governments. The situation is as I have stated. And so if the central government were to accept your arguments on this issue, then three metropolitan areas and fiftynine prefectures would have to change their position on this matter. 42 Marginal note written by Abei: ‘He left for Tokyo on 15 February and returned on 9 March.’ 43 Abei is counting from the receipt of the order to Yasuba’s departure for Tokyo.

[[315]]

Moreover, time passes steadily and the prefectural government faces many other different problems that have to be resolved in the course of time, and so decisive action should not be postponed even for a day. Yet you went back to Tokyo once again, and after you returned, you still did not promulgate any orders. I just do not understand the reason for this.44 On 19 December the kucho transmitted an order to the effect that shizoku who wanted to hand back their stipends should submit their petitions by 23 December. Requests for government lands and forests also had to be sent in by the same date. Although I am happy that the prefectural government has decided to receive our petitions, a question still remains in my mind. If your views were not accepted [in Tokyo] and you made up your mind to go along with the law, why did you not act on our petitions immediately upon your return? As you are aware, Article 4 in the appendix to the government’s ordinance on the disposal of government forests and uncultivated lands states that the box containing the petitions for these areas should be opened every two weeks, regardless of the number of petitions submitted.45 Also, Ordinance 23 of the Ministry of Finance stipulates that there should be no delay in granting funds [shikin] due to petitioners who ask to hand back their stipends.46 Finally, there is an unnumbered ordinance of the same ministry stating that, in the case of petitioners seeking cash for the bonds they have received, the government must respond speedily so that they will not lose any opportunities to establish new 47 enterprises. Thus the government has taken great care to think through in detail the problems involved in carrying out its policy. You have the responsibility, therefore, to execute these orders and not to delay even for a day. You shoul consider the government’s real intentions’ and then carry out the policy on that basis. Despite this, you have not taken a decisive stand and much time has elapsed. Do you consider this to be fulfilling your duties? The reason why I have kept silent so far is that you have told us to wait a little longer. But there was also an additional reason, for I believed [as I have mentioned earlier, that since the issue does not brook any delay, you would take prompt action]. But there is a limit to everything, and that limit has now been reached. To remain silent and merely wait for you to do something is neither sincere nor just. Indeed, it is tantamount to committing a crime against the state. Why do I say this? People today do not participate in government decisions nor do they discuss them. This does not mean that they do not have the right to do so. People should listen to and obey the government, it is true, 44 Marginal note written by Abei: ‘He left Fukushima on 20 May and returned on 3 October.’ 45 The ordinance cited by Abei is actually an annex (besshi 9I K.) to Dajokan Tasshi, #426, 27 December 1873, in HZ 6:1, pp. 68591. The appendix is Dajokan Tasshi, #9, 20 January 1874, in HZ, 1889, 7:1, pp. 260-61. 46 Okurasho Tasshi t)WtA, #23, 9 March 1874, in HZ 7:1, p. 575. 47 Unnumbered Okurasho Tasshi, 13 September 1874, in HZ 7:1, pp. 681-82.

[[316]]

but they should argue with it if they cannot agree with its policies. This is our duty, and the government and state will thereby be sustained. People should spare no effort to see that this is done. However, in the past the shizoku have depended on the other three classes for their livelihood, but today they no longer enjoy this right. The government has now given the shizoku the choice to renounce their hereditary stipends. I have taken the opportunity given me by the government to respond positively, but you have not accepted my petition. I cannot remain silent, and I must emphasize that you should recognize your grave responsibility. If you do not accept this petition, I shall resubmit it [for the third time], so please give me your prompt decision. What is the regulation on which you base your order that those who petition to renounce their stipends have only to 23 December to do so? Is this not too short a time to apply for government lands and forests? Snow lies on the ground everywhere and people cannot move about easily. So to ask the shizoku to go to the prefectural government office to consult the official records [on available government lands and forests], and then to have them go to the actual sites to survey the land and determine its fertility, and count the trees-it is very difficult to do all this in time to meet the deadline. In addition, there are some shizoku who reside outside the prefecture. And so the order is not realistic and, moreover, may be contrary to government regulations. According to Article 3 of the appendix to the ordinance promulgated on 20 January last year granting government forests and lands to shizoku, the prefectural governments must inform the shizoku of the size and kinds of lands available.48 This ordinance definitely stated that prefectural governments had to inform the shizoku of the size and kinds of lands available. However, I presume that you are arguing that since you did not intend to accept petitions to hand back stipends, you therefore did not inform us of the requirements regarding size and kinds of lands. And yet once you had finally decided to accept the petitions, you demanded unreasonably speedy submissions. But if such is your argument, you are then in effect stating that you have the authority not to inform us of the government’s ordinances. Do you really possess this kind of authority, based on your own judgment, when it comes to carrying out government orders? I just cannot resist raising this criticism. You had the kucho circulate your order dated 19 December regarding the deadline of 23 December, but more than half the shizoku did not receive it. As for myself, I heard of it indirectly from another source. This clearly shows that your administration does not function efficiently and does not understand the importance of this problem. Do you not agree that you have the responsibility of improving the machinery of your administration? On 29 December last year, the kucho assembled those of us who had petition48 HZ 1874, 7:1, pp. 260-61.

[[317]]

ed to hand back our stipends and told us, ‘You submitted your petitions this spring, but according to regulations, if the petitions are processed and accepted, you won’t be able to receive this year’s stipend. Now currency rates and the price of rice have fluctuated this year and have risen higher than last year’s. So if you do not accept your stipends due to you this year and choose instead to receive your funds based on last year’s low prices, you will suffer a great financial loss. I just can’t ignore this possibility. I therefore urged the prefectural government to return your petitions, issue you your stipends, and to have you resubmit your petitions next year. I received permission from the prefectural governor to do this. And so I will give you your stipend [paid in cash] for this year.’ All the shizoku except me nodded in approval at this suggestion, but I raised the following points with him. ‘It is true that, according to the instructions from the Ministry of Finance dated 24 November, the government will not issue shizoku their stipends for the year in which their petitions are accepted.49 But even if you had passed on to the prefectural government our petitions on 27 December, the office would have been starting its winter vacation on the 28th, the very day that it should have been processing our petitions. Moreover, in my case, didn’t you say that my petition had been lost in the prefectural government office, but that the petitions of others were in your possession? How could the prefectural government possibly have processed those petitions?’ In this way I told the kucho that he had misconstrued50 the ordinance of the Ministry of Finance.51 On 7 January this year, the kucho again assembled us to return our petitions, and everyone accepted theirs.52 I again raised objections, stating, ‘I don’t intend to raise the same objections that I made on 29 December last year, because I accept the fact that you merely misconstrued the ordinance of the Ministry of Finance. But how can you explain the repetition of last year’s not processing the petitions? On 24 December the central government issued a second ordinance on this question and its provisions are very clear.53 And so there can now be no misconstruing the meaning and intent of the first ordinance. This being the case, I am compelled to suggest that by your returning the petitions you wish to have us resubmit new petitions. And you do this solely to cover up your mistakes.‘54 49 Okurasho Futatsu, Ko tWttI A, V, #5, 24 November 1875, in HZ 7:1, p. 645. 50 gokai g 51 Abei is actually calling the kucho a liar since, as he points out, it was impossible in any event to process the petitions. As Abei shows later, the kucho was using the Ministry of Finance ordinance merely as an excuse not to process the petitions. 52 Except Abei, since his petition had been reported lost. 53 Okurasho Tasshi, Otsu tktA, Z, #42, 24 December 1874, in HZ 7:1, p. 664. 54 hi 4. In Abei’s view, Yasuba and the kucho acting on the governor’s behalf erred in stalling

[[318]]

In the second place, you [Yasuba] wrote, ‘As I see it at present, those shizoku who are enthusiastic….’ But I respectfully cannot agree with your decision not to accept the petitions of the 80-90o [that is, the unenthusiastic]. I believe that your judgment is based on a sense of compassion for the shizoku, and this compassion in turn stems from charity-and these sentiments are certainly indispensable among mankind. Still, there is no need for me to tell you that it is common knowledge that it is an enduring and universally accepted principle that compassion has no place in administration. The sole purpose why people pay taxes and the government collects them is to protect all the people. And so there is no justification for the government to use part of these taxes to support the kazoku and shizoku. But the government continues to provide them with stipends, because the time is not ripe to abolish the practice. And so the government has adopted the policy of optional handing back of stipends and of granting funds to those who chose to do so. We should understand and appreciate the government’s prudence in this policy. In these circumstances there have been more and more shizoku who have petitioned the government to hand back their stipends and are now waiting for their petitions to be accepted. But you have resisted this development by raising various arguments. But in light of what is required to govern society as a whole and to administer the state, how can you justify your actions? I do not think that you can. Your actions are based solely upon pity for the 80-90o, and you wish only to secure for them their livelihood as has been done in the past. Can it be said that your actions are based at least upon what you consider is appropriate for the circumstances of this particular prefecture? Again I do not think so. What you are actually doing when you refuse to accept petitions is arbitrarily exercising your authority on the basis of your personal perception of compassion. But can you say that it is possible to convince and reassure public opinion in this way? I believe that people have inalienable rights.55 And so as long as people do not violate the law, social mores, and customs, the government does not have the right to control their behavior or punish them. Moreover, we should recognize the great changes that are now taking place and we should strive to be enlightened men. I therefore fear that the prefectural government’s actions based on compassion run contrary to the central government’s policy as well as and continuing to stall by returning the petitions for resubmission. Abei is here reiterating his position that since the Ministry of Finance ordinances were clear and precise in their meaning, anyone wishing to give up his stipend would know that he would not receive his karoku for that year. There was, consequently, no reason for the kucho to have cited the first ordinance in order to decline processing the petitions. Abei is, in fact, telling both Yasuba and the kucho that they should be forthright and give the real reasons for not processing the petitions. 55 kenri no ubau bekarazaru mono ari *fIJ ‘/ 7 7+ -q 0i 1- IVA- 9

[[319]]

to the people’s interests. But I also believe that you have the country as a whole in mind and therefore you must have your own good reasons for your actions. Thus I am torn between trust and doubt. I can also interpret in the following manner your position on the second point raised above. That is, you will not accept our petitions unless all the shizoku become enthusiasts for the change. But is it ever possible to achieve such unanimity? Based on my observation, not only is it impossible to expect this but also your actions contravene government policy. You are at present responsible for administering only one prefecture, but what if you were a member of the central government with responsibility for the entire country? Could you then say that it would only be after unanimity among the shizoku is achieved that the government would issue the ordinance [on the surrender of stipends]? But the government has not assumed the stance that you have taken, and so it has issued the ordinance and expects the shizoku to use their own judgment and choose for themselves whether or not to hand back their stipends. Further, although I would like to believe that you have a deep understanding of the shizoku problem, in your reply you simply divide them into those who are enthusiastic and those who are not. If this is the extent of your analysis of the situation, I wish to express my views based on my own observations. There are not a few shizoku who are inclined to hark back to the glories of the past and do not understand the changes that are now taking place. They continue to look down on the other three classes and are not ashamed to rely upon their hereditary stipends as in the past. Where is the samurai spirit of old that used to lead the three classes, pursued righteousness both in peace and war, and sustained the country? I deplore the present situation with all my heart. Those who love the past do not understand the present. This is because the government’s policy has not been made clear to everyone. This unfortunate state of affairs is true not only of the shizoku. Is this not because there are government officials who do not change their old attitudes and are unaware of the changing times? Instead of concerning yourself about these bad tendencies, you try to persuade the shizoku by merely telling them that the government’s ordinance is premature. I have not heard that you have tried to stress the shizoku’s sense of pride and honor, urging them to be progressive, or that you have taken positive measures to develop people’s universal rights.56 As a result there are several shizoku who decided to hand back their stipends, but then later changed their minds and withdrew their petitions. They now declare that they earnestly appreciate the warmth of your reply and maintain that the stipend system should continue. They further say that, since even the prefectural governor is not positive about the shizoku handing back their stipends, it 56 tsagi kenri jK*friIJ

[[320]]

is surely sufficient if they pay taxes on the stipends that they will continue to receive as before. And as long as the government does not deprive us of our stipends, they say, we shall not return them, for only those who can’t think intelligently and realistically would hand them back. In this way we have seen the emergence of people who take pride in receiving their stipends. This is outrageous. There is surely no need to discuss further such people who think of satisfying their gratifications only in terms of the past. But this kind of shizoku has emerged because it is you who have inveigled them. The policy of the prefectural government has already been decided and so there is nothing I can do to remedy the situation. But if you do not pay attention to this situation and continue on your present course, it will become impossible to succor the shizoku, and as a result they cannot be expected to walk the road toward enlightenment. What, then, should be done? By nature people tend to be satisfied with the status quo and will resist any rapid change of customs. But if those in authority wish to ease the transition to new ways and have the people follow them, they should themselves first adopt the new course; then the people will believe their words and actions, and will begin to try out the new. There are many ways to liberate the shizoku from their old ways and enlighten them. But the most important is for the government itself to strive eliminate the despotism of old and make clear the respective rights and duties of government and people. Further, it should make clear, both explicitly and implicitly, its intentions and policies in the course of its daily administration. In this way the government would make known that what it is doing now differs greatly from what was done in the past. This is the most urgent and appropriate task today for the prefectural government. After all, the government ought to be the model for the people. Everything it does is closely related to the country’s progress. In particular, the kucho and town and village heads are channels to the government. They are close to the people, and by their words and actions they serve as mentors for every ward, village, and town. I heard informally that last December you assembled the kucho and kocho57 at the prefectural government office and ordered them to discuss the question of accepting or rejecting petitions to hand back stipends. It was decided that those requesting to hand back their stipends should first be asked about the present state of their livelihoods, and that the prefectural government would not approve their petitions unless they can show that they have had previous experience as farmers, artisans, or merchants, or are presently successful in these occupations.

[[321]]

If I had been invited to the meeting and had taken part in the discussion, I would not have gone along with this decision. The government’s order reads as follows: ‘The government has received reports that there are those who, because of the smallness of their stipends, do not have enough capital and are therefore unable to realize their desires to become farmers, artisans, or merchants…. 58 The decision reached at that meeting, therefore, means that the government’s intention to furnish necessary capital was ignored. Furthermore, who can really forecast the future of those shizoku who at present depend on their stipends? There are many ways in which people can make a living. On the one hand, there are those who after repeated failures are finally successful thanks to their sustained efforts; and on the other, there are some people who fail and lose everything despite their best efforts. If we seek the reasons for the success of the one and the failure of the other, we note the differences between people who are progressive and those who are traditional. Some people are intelligent and others are not; some are young and others are old; some are physically strong and others are not; some are diligent and others are not. There are still people upon whom fortune smiles and are therefore blessed, while there are others who are plagued by misfortune. Only by looking at their past lives can we understand why some people succeed while others fail. We cannot predict success or failure merely by making assumptions about people’s future behavior or circumstances. Of course, government officials are more intelligent and able than ordinary people. But they did not become government officials by studying how to earn a living and stand on their own [so how can they predict the future?]. Shizoku may be stupid, but they realize that they may lose their property and starve by the roadside. What can be done about this? The government has already promulgated the compassionate regulation [on the surrender of stipends] and has proposed providing shizoku with capital equivalent to six years of stipend, and thus the necessary capital is available. And so isn’t it now the time for them to begin new enterprises and also produce goods and wealth? So your main function is to encourage their willingness to make a new start and then to support their enterprises. Surely this matter should receive your top priority. I have also heard that since last year some of the kucho have accepted petitions from the shizoku while others have not done so. This state of affairs seems to indicate that your intentions and the decisions made at the prefectural government office level [are not being understood at the kucho level] and they therefore end up as so much empty rhetoric. I do not wish to argue this point any further, but you should see for yourself what is happening. And if you do so, you will discover that what I have been saying is not in the least frivolous. You said to me earlier, ‘And so I have hesitated about the matter and have 58 Dajokan Tasshi, #425, 27 December 1873, in HZ 6:1, p. 685.

[[322]]

taken such a long time to come to a decision.’ But I hope that you will settle the issue of stipends with due reason and firm resoluteness. In the third place, you wrote, ‘There is an ordinance to the effect that those who give up their stipends may submit petitions for government lands and forests. ..’ As regards this point, the government has issued several ordinances to cope with this problem, extending the time limit two or three times so that the original purpose relating to shizoku petitions for government lands and forests can be realized; the most recent limit was fixed at 30 June of this year.59 I will therefore not argue with you any further on this point. In the fourth place, you wrote, ‘The government has ordered the kazoku and shizoku to pay taxes on their stipends. . . .’ I respectfully submit that you are equating this tax with the land tax. What you are in effect saying is that the stipend today is different from the stipend of the past, and that living without working today is different from living without working in the past. But in my opinion there are no differences between past and present as regards the function of the stipends and living without working. I maintain this position because the kazoku and shizoku depend on their stipends for their livelihood and that they still receive their stipends without working. Consequently, the tax on the stipends does not contribute to the country as does money earned by one’s own hard effort. So how can you say that the tax on the stipends is the same as land tax? Stipends are stipends, taxes are taxes. Fundamentally it is not proper to tax the stipends. The government uses the word ’tax’ in only a nominal sense when applied to stipends. The real reason for the government’s tax on the stipends is that the country now faces critical times and cannot balance the budget as it requires a great deal of funds. It needs to maintain the army and navy, and so for the time being it is levying this tax on the kazoku and shizoku. So how can you say that this levy will continue forever [as will the land tax]? As proof of this, note the term ’temporarily’ in the government’s ordinance. You further stated in the fourth place, ‘I believe that if you really [do not wish to depend on your stipend but instead want to establish new enterprises . . . after you have achieved your goals, then will be the time to give up your stipend].’ I would like to believe that your words and actions are based on deep thought and careful calculation, thus prompting you to urge the shizoku to move slowly and cautiously. However, is your position based upon deep concern and sympathy for the shizoku? As you have said, the shizoku are not adept at finding new ways and are therefore truly to be pitied, and the difficulty they find in coping is really frightening. My feeling is that there is no difference between you and me as regards pity for and concern about the shizoku. But there are fundamental differences between us over how to deal with this 59 See Naimusho Futatsu, Ko rJUMiif, FP, #15, 29 June 1874, in HZ 7: 1, p. 468, & #32, 28 December 1874, on p. 484; the first deadline of 30 June 1874 is given in HZ 6-1, p. 687.

[[323]]

difficult problem. My pity and concern are not limited to only the shizoku and their difficulties in finding new ways to cope. The most urgent task of the central and prefectural governments today is to clarify the central government’s policies and the prefectural government’s guidelines to the people. If the people, including the shizoku, understand these policies and guidelines, they will also come to understand the justness of the reasons underlying them. And if they do understand this, they will then realize that it is not right to receive stipends, and this realization will enable them to seek new ways of earning a living. And so when the the central and prefectural governments clarify their policies and guidelines they will not directly be assisting the people to establish a new way of life, but the consequences of such clarification will be true assistance to the people [by raising their consciousness of the desirability to seek new ways]. At first sight my views may seem unrealistic, but if you think they are unrealistic and work on that basis, then you will not take action to clarify the policies of the central and prefectural governments. Further, you will not take action to attract popular sentiment and nurture the people’s moral strength. As a result, there will be no hope of leading the shizoku out of the crisis they now face, and your opinion is no better than that which can be expected from any ordinary person. And so your immediate subordinates cannot rise above mediocrity, and thus you undermine the moral fiber and enthusiasm of the people under your jurisdiction, shizoku and commoner alike, and place them in a truly pitiable state of enslavement. This is why I regard the situation as pitiable and alarming. My feelings do not arise out of sympathy for the shizoku’s way of life alone [but rather, for the overall situation in which they now find themselves]. 60 You again said [in the fourth place], ‘within ten or fifteen years’. But when I quietly recall the past ten years and imagine the fate awaiting Japan ten years from now, my hopes for the future differ from yours. You said at the same time, ‘And after you have achieved your goals, then will be the time to give up your stipend.’ I own only two plots of land and am trying to raise mulberry trees. But I cannot guarantee that I can earn a living for the rest of my long life even if I am diligent, for I have been physically weak from birth. However, everyone has to contribute to national affairs; each has a right to participate in national affairs and the duty to bear his responsibility for national affairs. I am stubborn and stupid, and cannot distinguish between what is enlightened and what is unenlightened. But translated works that I have read have pointed out that we must not neglect to fulfill our rights and duties every minute of the day. When I became aware of this, I felt as if I 60 In Abei’s view, a simple-minded approach would be to think merely of the welfare of the shizoku. But as governor, Yasuba should always keep in mind the welfare of society in general.

[[324]]

had been awakened from a long sleep and my whole outlook changed in a flash. And so I cannot bear being as selfish as those people who put aside their essential rights and duties, satisfied with living without working and pursuing only their own private interests. There is an old saying, ‘Heaven equally bestows fortune on everyone.’ 61 And yes, it is true that opportunities to establish new ways to acquire good fortune can be found everywhere today. Moreover, the central government has already provided unprecedented dispensation to the shizoku. So although your instructions are both compassionate and benevolent, I cannot agree with them. I would like to add that the petitioners’ motives for handing back their stipends may well be different. But giving up the stipends compels petitioners to face the new reality. So you should not differentiate between the enthusiastic and the unenthusiastic shizoku, but uniformly accept petitions from them all. You again say [in the fourth place], ‘Who among you can succeed in his enterprises within a day?’ Men who are above average do not lose their pride even in poverty, whereas those who are below average lose their pride even when blessed with worldly goods. But the case of people who are only average is different, for they lose their pride in poverty and maintain it only when blessed with worldly goods. When we look at the shizoku under your jurisdiction, we note that most of them are average, and I assume that you are well aware of this. This is why you asked, ‘Who among you can succeed in his enterprises within a day?’ I understand why you said this. Indeed, most of the shizoku are planning to earn an income from agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial enterprises. So although they are not yet accustomed to private enterprise, they will find the means to stand on their own feet if they give up their stipend. So why should it be thought that they will all become loafers and beg for a living? Moreover, a law itself does not determine the concrete results [of a policy], for they depend on how the policy is carried out. As you are so careful to distinguish between the enthusiastic and the unenthusiastic, why do you not focus your attention on new methods of helping the shizoku, such as establishing an office for aiding new enterprises as has been done in Chiba prefecture, or an office of industries as in Hamamatsu? Although more than a year has passed, I have yet to hear of any such proposal for Fukushima. To my bewilderment, rumor says that the prefectural government officials have not been thinking about assisting and encouraging the shizoku, but instead have merely been passing the time of day. I am not sure whether this rumor is true, but there may be some truth in it. You told us [in the fourth place], ‘I myself do not intend to give up my 61 The same sentiment is found in the opening lines of Fukuzawa’s Gakumon no Susume *Ittd: ‘. . . when men are born from heaven they all are equal.’ Fukuzawa, Encouragement, p. 1.

[[325]]

stipend.’ Your stipend is your property and you have the right to it, and so I cannot tell you what you should do. It is the same in the case of my own stipend, and therefore I have decided by myself to hand it back. I will not accept your instructions not to hurry to return it. I leave it for the future to decide whether my action is correct or not. You wrote in the fifth place, ‘The governor of Chiba prefecture has instructed the shizoku there not to depend on their hereditary stipends and has given them several reasons for this.’ I agree with your good judgment as regards the Chiba governor’s logical arguments. But you also said, ‘His intention seems to be to ingratiate himself with his superiors. . . .’ Is this statement based on your knowledge of Mr Shibahara as a person? I myself do not know him personally, and so I do not know whether what you say about him is correct or not. But I believe that his arguments are correct and that we should follow his recommendations. I also believe that there is no evidence to support your judgment about his motives. Ideally speaking, a person first of all conceives the idea of giving up his stipend and then he petitions the government. And the ideal position to be taken by government officials is neither to encourage the shizoku nor to reject their petitions. But the reality is that there are only a few shizoku in your jurisdiction who know that it is not right to continue receiving their stipend, and so it is your duty to persuade and induce them to hand it back. And so Mr Shibahara’s actions are completely appropriate to the present situation and circumstances. The proper role of the government [after it has done what Mr Shibahara has done to persuade and induce the shizoku] is to leave the matter up to the shizoku [as to whether or not they submit petitions]. I have not said the above in an attempt to ingratiate myself with Mr Shibahara. Although the people and administration in Fukushima are different from those in Chiba, still, the truth is the same for the people and administration of both places. And so, do not doubt me for a moment when I say that if I were occupying Mr Shibahara’s post, I would do exactly what he is doing. Last December I discussed with the kucho, Kubo Sen,62 at the meeting place the pros and cons of giving up the stipends. I later put down my principal thoughts in writing and sent them to him. I said in the letter that his views and mine differ, that is, the basic rights and duties of officials and people should be made clear. If not, we will not be able to understand the stipend issue well. It is clear that both officials and the people must contribute to the development of our country by carrying out their respective rights and duties. Depending on the issue at hand, either the officials or the people must take the leading or the secondary role. Let me offer some concrete examples. In the case of law, the officials have the right to issue orders to the people and the people have the duty to obey. But 62 XR

[[326]]

when it comes to admonitions, the people have the right to choose whether to follow them or not, and officials should leave them to decide for themselves. Accordingly, to reject the petitions of those who wish to give up their stipend means that officials are suppressing people’s rights, and in such a case the people should not docilely obey. It is well known that philosophers have said that people are the basis of society-government alone is not the basis. Of course, what I have just said may be considered the words of a frog in a well who sees but a small part of the sky. I wonder what Kubo thinks of what I have said? The main argument in my letter to Kubo is the same as my argument against your criticism of Mr Shibahara. This is why I have repeated the whole letter here. The fundamental structure of the government has been created and is now in place, but there are some policies that are still not being carried out well, and there are gaps between policies and the actual situation. Let me discuss this point concretely by taking up some crucial matters relating to the prefectural government. The government has abolished the feudal military system and has established a national conscript army. It earlier created a tax system, levying a 3Wo tax on land, but the prefectural officials have still not carried out this new tax system. As a result, the prefectural government has added miscellaneous taxes to the traditional tax. So we see the prefectural government making the people bear military duty on top of paying these two kinds of taxes. Although the people are stupid and do not voice complaints, how can you justify to them this kind of administration? I will try to imagine how you would justify the present state of affairs. You would probably say, ‘All four classes are citizens, and therefore all four classes have to share alike in society’s happiness and anxieties, and so they cannot escape the duty of military service. But there still has not been enough time to carry out tax reform. This is why the new miscellaneous taxes must be collected to carry out the government’s policies.’ Is this what you would be trying to tell us? If so, then you are maintaining that the people must bear the burden of military duty, that it is proper to delay enforcing the new tax system, and that it is legitimate to levy new miscellaneous taxes on the people so as to carry out government policies. But all this is nothing but a one-sided approach to government. If we look at government from an overall point of view, is it proper to levy new miscellaneous taxes without reducing the land tax? Is it proper, on the one hand, to conscript the young to make them work for the country and, on the other, to continue to give stipends to kazoku and shizoku for not doing anything? You will rebut my arguments by saying, ‘The reason why the prefectural government has levied new taxes without reducing the old ones is merely due to the practical limitations of administration. So why do you bring up this matter of a temporary delay? The military is necessary for the country’s domestic

[[327]]

• • • • • -……..“Al~~ ~~~ /1~~~~1 A ag ro be’ cp o iskngnho orepod ingto\at fp.36&32ftetasain

[[328]]

and foreign security, and so we cannot afford to neglect this duty even for a day. The government is responsible for the stipends, so how can we prefectural officials change the system?’ Is this what you would want to say? If so, it clearly shows that the government today defends only its own rights and that governance has not been fully developed. Today, in theory, all the four classes are equal. This is not the result of laws raising the status of the three non-shizoku classes, but only because the shizoku has lost its former status and has fallen to the level of the other classes. So can you say that the four classes are really equal? Let me discuss the reasons why this is not so. All the people have been living under despotism for a long time; they are therefore inured to it and even feel secure in this evil, slave-like state. They do not know what are rights and duties. And so, even while Japan is now entering a new, enlightened age, people are still unable to possess and foster a spirit and sense of autonomy, freedom, and independence. It is understandable that some people lose their position in society. And although there may be some who do not do so, most people in general are not able to find new ways to cope. Their spiritual energy is dissipated aimlessly and they passively accept the condition in which they find themselves. But the prefectural government does not criticize the mean conditions of the past, even while the central government is trying to destroy the chains of the past. And so the people of the four classes are inclined to go their own way, and progressively they lose their self-respect and tend to lead meaningless lives. The present state of affairs is worse than the situation under the feudal regime that bound the people and deprived them of their freedom. This situation differs greatly from the intentions of the central government’s policy. As a result the prefectural administrations are everywhere faced with extremely heavy and difficult tasks. Therefore, whether prefectural administration succeeds henceforth depends entirely on whether the spirit and sense of freedom of all the people of the four classes are high or low, flourishing or declining; and whether the prefectural governments are acting properly or not is measured by whether they are prompt or slow in carrying out the government’s policy. And so you should be aware that the way in which you are carrying out the duties of your office does not fully implement government policy and that the present state of affairs here in Fukushima is in direct opposition to the government’s intention. In spite of this, you not only fail to awaken the shizoku from their dreams of the past feudal age, but you also advise and encourage them to be content to receive their parasitical stipends for another fifteen long years. This is like offering water to a drowning man. Do you consider this brilliant thinking on your part? If I may say so, you not only discriminate in favor of the shizoku but you also do not deeply consider the divergence between government policy and the situation as it exists here. If you continue to exercise your jurisdiction in this

[[329]]

manner, can you hope for any success in your administration in the future? I have thought about this repeatedly for about a year and I can only conclude that what you are doing will never succeed. The westward movement of enlightenment from Europe finally crossed to the United States, while the eastward movement reached Japan more than a few years ago. The whole situation is changing as a result, and so can officials be called government authorities if they fail to do their best to encourage enlightenment, to keep it alive and lead the way, and thus to create free and independent new men? And if the people fail to change their old ways and to step forward into civilization, can they be called citizens? If government authorities do not act as government authorities, if people do not act as citizens, can we then say that the nation exists? If the nation does not exist, how can Japan permanently take its place-independent, happy, and secureamong the other nations in the world? What I therefore request of you is that you demand of your subordinates that they exert themselves to free the people from their old ways and to spread civilization. In this way you will make them aware that they share the duty to uphold the country. Unfortunately I am chronically ill and, as I am a rustic, I am unaware of what is going on. Moreover, I am inherently stupid and cannot distinguish between worthwhile and useless knowledge. This is why I am not able to discuss and criticize what the world should be like. How then can I spread my ideas widely? But I do have some pride. In other words, I am aware that if a person receives an unearned income for even one day, he deprives someone in his country of a day’s labor. And if ten men are idle for ten days, they mock the labor of ten men for ten days. Those who are anxious about our country’s future should be concerned about this state of affairs, and my own anxiety knows no bounds. And so, in the name of my sense of freedom, I appeal to you, in the first place, that I cannot tolerate my unearned income; and secondly, that I desire that my opinion may contribute to the progress of our country. The reason why I have spoken so frankly and strongly without considering the dignity of your office is because my anxiety is not limited merely to my own affairs. I would be greatly pleased if only you would read this position paper despite my harsh and strong words. Unworthy though I am, I have no thought for myself, but I humbly submit this position paper in my desire to contribute to our country. Sincerely, ABEI IWANE [seal] 7 March 1875 To the Honorable Yasuba, Governor, Fukushima Prefecture

[[330]]

Governor Yasuba’s Reply I accept your petition, but I will inform you later about handing over to y the bonds in exchange for your giving up your stipend. YASUBA YASUKAZU Governor, Fukushima Prefecture 12 March 1875 Abei’s Reaction I resubmitted my petition on 7 March 1875 together with my position paper submitted the petition to the subdistrict office, but mailed the position paper. I therefore presume that the position paper has reached the prefectural gover ment office. The petition was kept in the subdistrict office for three or fo days and was then mailed on the 11th. As the 11th was a holiday, it reached prefectural office on the 12th, where it was approved on the same day. T prefectural office’s decision was speedy indeed.