V

[1]The present Viscount Kawasé, who was Japanese Minister in London.

In a recent number of theJapan TimesI came across the following account of a speech made by the Marquis Ito in Washington, some thirty-four years ago, when he was there on a mission. The speech gives a very good outline of the great change which had then already been effected in Japan and the broad forecast which was aimed at by her for her future. One who reads that speech would at once perceive what ennobling aspirations Japan had then on the lines of occidental civilisation, and how far she has succeeded in that aspiration, as has been shown by the war between her and Russia. I therefore incorporate the accounts of it, borrowed verbatim from theJapan Times, which may also be regarded in a measure as a supplement to the preceding article.—K.S.

Marquis Ito recently received from Mr. Hioki, Secretary of our legation at Washington, a package containing interesting reminders of his sojourn in the American capital thirty-four years ago, when he spent a few months there for the study of the financial system of the Republic. In his work of investigation he received most valuable assistance from Mr. H.J. Saville, the Chief Clerk of the Treasury, and it was from this gentleman that these interesting relics of the distinguished statesman's visit were originally obtained by Mr. Hioki. Mr. Saville is still living in Washington, and preserves a most vivid recollectionof the Marquis's visit. The documents relate to a farewell dinner given by Marquis Ito at Welcker's, Fifteenth Street, on April 28, 1871. Among the guests on the occasion, we find the names of President Grant, Vice-President Schuyler, Speaker Blaine, Secretary Fish, and other members of the cabinet, and a number of senators and congressmen. Among the Japanese present, besides the host, were the late Count Mutsu, the late Viscount Mori (then our Minister at Washington), the late Baron Nakashima, and Mr. Genichiro Fukuchi. On that occasion the Marquis delivered a speech in English, which, apart from the interest derived from the personality of the speaker, deserves attention on account of the light it throws upon the liberal aspirations of the makers of New Japan—aspirations which have since been so successfully realised. We reproduce below the speech exactly as it stands in the copy before us:—

'Taking advantage of the opportunity afforded me by the assembling here of so many of the gentlemen who have assisted me to accomplish the object of my coming, I desire to extend to them my sincere thanks for the many courtesies received at their hands, and to assure them that I return fully satisfied with the result of my mission, and with an abiding faith that all they have taught me will bear good fruit in due season.

'It seems to me that an examination of the past as well as the present condition of the world will show that civilisation has not reached its highest development, but that progress in that as in other things is possible in the future. As an evidence of this I would instance the fact that this nation, which less than one hundred years ago was unknown, now ranks second to none in civilisation and in importance. This fact tends strongly to encourage the oriental nations to efforts towards a higher civilisation than they now possess.

'The inquiry naturally is: What is the reason the oriental peoples have not reached the same degree of civilisation as the European? Are the material resources of the oriental countries insufficient? Is the native force of the people deficient? No: these questions we put aside, and we find the explanation mainly in the character of the government. You ask whence came this peculiar character? I can only answer, I think from education. It seems to me that all the highestorder in modern civilisation derives its strength from the development of the intellect, and the improvement of the scientific knowledge and accomplishments of men. It is further strengthened by development of the inherent principles of natural law, the encouragement in the people of a high ideal of right and wrong, and the strong political organisation made possible by such a foundation; so that we may conclude that the highest degree of civilisation belongs to that nation which has most developed a high order of general education and broad principles of political liberty.

'I doubt if the question of strength materially influences the destiny of nations. As an illustration of this we know that the civilisation of Egypt, India, Greece, and Rome has not been lost, but has been merely transferred from those countries to the West, as the star of the empire travels. The loss of civilisation in these nations sprang not from the fact that they were physically weak, but from the more subtle one that within themselves they contain an inherent weakness.

'A more modern instance is the late Franco-Prussian war. None of us doubt the strength of the French nation, the skill of its generals and ability of its soldiers, and yet how have our hearts been wrung with sympathy for poor France when brought in contact with the more superior force of Prussia—superior not only in material strength, but in skilful soldiers, in able generals, and in wise counsellors. So I say strength has very little to do with the development of civilisation, strength is merely relative; civilisation is the quality which is never lost, and never can be conquered.

'I find very erroneous ideas prevail in America as well as in Europe in relation to my country. The Empire of Japan consists of numerous islands in the Oriental Sea, along the coast of the Asian continent. I think the recorded existence of the nation extends over something more than two thousand five hundred years, during which time its intercourse with foreign nations has been exceedingly limited. In the seventeenth century intercourse began with the Portuguese, Spanish, and some other European nations, but the decline of these led to its decay. Our people have not been ambitious. They have been satisfied when they have reached that competency which gives support, and as a result they have not sought foreign intercourse.

'Seventeen years ago the American Government sent an envoy to our country, with instructions to advise us to open our ports to foreign intercourse, and this advice so kindly given was acted on. Since that time our intercourse with foreign nations has been growing, until at present Japan bids fair to be as well known as America.

'With the commencement of this intercourse, the Japanese people began to realise that they had not reached the highest stage of civilisation, and they began the investigation of what constituted European and American civilisation. Beginning by the introduction of some of the most useful of the foreign arts, sciences, and mechanical inventions into their country, they have so far progressed as to have at this time reached the necessity for sending missions abroad to obtain a knowledge of the foreign systems of finances, and we have come to America to study your financial system as well as to obtain additional knowledge in other branches of civilised government, which will be of benefit to us in our efforts to reach that high estate which you have already attained. And this we hold as strong evidence of the progress of Japan in civilised ideas. I wish I could express to you how great that advancement has been.

'But to return to the history of my country. About seven hundred years ago the power of the commanding general became so great that he was enabled to usurp the authority of the emperor proper; and from that time, descending through father and son, this power became stronger, until at last the government of Japan had virtually fallen into their hands; and instead of the Government being spoken of as the Mikado's government, it came to be known as the government of the Tycoon, who was in reality the powerful ruler of the people.

'But no one family enjoyed the power of the Tycoonety in peace. During the existence of what is known as the Tycoon's government six of the principal ducal families of the empire contended for the position of Tycoon, and each in his turn came into possession of the reins of government.

'Out of the quarrels of these ducal families grew a system somewhat resembling the feudal system of Europe. The constant fighting of these antagonistic elements made this possible. About three hundred years ago the Tokugawa family came into possession of the power and dignity of the Tycoon. Fromthis time the feudal system founded in the necessities and strengthened by the wars of the many as aspirants for power came to be a fixed institution, and the reign of the Tokugawa family proving to be a peaceful one, its hold on the country became thoroughly well established.

'Before the usurpation of the Tycoon the form of government was absolutely monarchical, with no independent princes or powers.

'As a result of the Tycoon's rule, not alone the Tycoon's position became hereditary, but also all the highest governmental positions—generals, ministers, and princes, the latter being originally merely governors. With the establishment of intercourse with foreign countries, and the consequent development of the progressive people of Japan, they began to realise their unsatisfactory form of government under which they were living. They became dissatisfied with the rule of an authority which did not encourage ability, and whose strength lay in hereditary claims to power. This sentiment growing stronger and stronger, they at last resolved to abolish the power and office of the Tycoon and return the real power to the hands of the emperor. This resolution on their part has given rise to the stories of revolution in Japan, the revolution being in reality only the efforts of the better people to form a stable and reliable Government with the proper and respected power at its head, assisted in its control of affairs by ability, integrity, and faithfulness wherever found.

'This came to be an accomplished fact four years ago, and to-day, as a result, we have the former vassal and servant of the prince sitting in the high seats by his side, and counselling with him in the affairs of the nation.

'But the Japanese people do not mean to stop here. There is now a growing sentiment in Japan which strongly favours constitutional monarchy, a growing feeling against hereditary power, hereditary rank, and hereditary possessions. It may be that the bright hopes of some of my people will not be realised at once, but if the past is taken as an index of what is to come, I am encouraged to say that the progress of the future will find Japan, in a very few years, in the front rank of advanced and civilised nations, with a Government as liberal in form and generous to its citizens as that of any monarchy under the sun.

'In Japan, as in other parts of the world, there must necessarilybe differences of opinion. We have among our people radical and rapid progressists; conservatives, always making haste slowly, always studying the situation, always moving with great caution and circumspection, often unwisely wasting their opportunities for advancement by too great caution or timid fear; others timid because of the fear that they will lose their property or position by any change; others, the selfish Utopian, who builds an impossible castle, hoping that the foundation stones may be precious jewels, resting in his land only; and, lastly, there are yet a few who are opposed to foreign intercourse, and who believe that its strength lies in closed ports and selfish sufficiency unto themselves.

'To the outsider in Japan all these differences may appear as elements of weakness, when in fact they are elements of strength; and, perhaps, in no country can this be so well appreciated as America, where the strength and success of the Government depends so much on the agitation of questions by the people. The time is coming when Japan will stand among the first in its civilisation and progress. The question with us is: "How can we most rapidly reach this high state of development?" To my mind the best answer is by educating the people and developing the country.

'We are grateful to realise that the American people understand our efforts, and more especially that the distinguished company of gentlemen here assembled understand them. The prevailing sentiment in America, it seems to me, is in favour of the brotherhood of nations; and feeling this when we left Japan, we felt that we were coming among a people who would encourage and assist us in every way possible. We have not been deceived. Every assistance has been rendered us; every facility for study afforded us, and we will return to our country freighted with knowledge, and, as we hope, equal to the test, which we confess is a great one, of putting in motion such reforms and improvements as shall place us upon a footing equal to the best of nations.

'In the years to come it is to be hoped that the intercourse between Japan and America, the sister nations on each side of the great Pacific Ocean, may be founded upon that strong feeling of brotherly love which so unite distant peoples, that through storm and sunshine they will ever be true friends and earnest assistants—co-workers in the great cause of humanityand the development of the world in its moral, social, intellectual, and material aspects.

'In conclusion, I desire to extend to all of the gentlemen here present, and to thousands who are unavoidably absent, my sincere thanks for the great courtesy and kindness which I have received at their hands; and if it shall ever be my pleasure to meet any of you in my country, it will afford me the greatest happiness imaginable to extend to you the warm hand of fellowship, and to give you such a reception as will prove how entirely and truly I appreciate all you have done for me.'

In accordance with your request that I should write an answer to Mr. Joseph H Longford on the commercial morality' of the Japanese, which has appeared in theContemporary Review, I venture to write these lines for your perusal. I do so rather hesitatingly, as I have no desire to enter upon a dispute with that distinguished writer.

There is, it seems to me, a great deal of truth in what Mr. Longford says; but, at the same time, it is, I think, painted blacker on the side of the Japanese and brighter on the side of the foreigners out there than the facts warrant.

To begin with, it is true that in Japan we had the classification of the people into four, viz. soldiers, farmers, artisans, and traders, and thus traders stood the last. From this fact ordinary critics make a hasty conclusion that Japanese traders—in which term big merchants are included—occupied in every respect a position which was inferior even to that of common peasants; but this is not fair. In social matters they often occupied very good positions; in fact, there were many to whom special considerations similar to Samurai were accorded. The above classification has much deeper meaning than a mere social caprice, and it is derived from a theory of political economy of the classical China.

According to that theory, agriculture is considered thefoundation of a nation, and commerce is a mere act of transportation of things already made, and, therefore, comparatively of little value. That such a theory should have existed in China is a matter of no surprise, for even in the Europe of a little more than one hundred years ago there flourished physiocracy, the doctrine of which was almost identical with that of the Chinese. The Japanese classification of the former days was considerably due to the influence of that theory, and therefore the relative positions of the Samurai, farmers, artisans, and traders were more of theoretical notion than a social fact. This is a distinction very important to be kept in view when one discusses things Japanese.

That the Samurai as a class despised dealings in matters of profit is an undoubted fact, but a trader's position was not so degraded as Mr. Longford represents. He says:—

'Just as the training and social precedence of his ancestors for hundreds of years and of himself have made the Japanese soldier a model without flaw of loyalty, devotion, and courage, ready to sacrifice at any time life or property for his sovereign and his country, so have oppression and social degradation combined to make the merchant a no less striking model of dishonesty and timidity, unwilling and unable to make the smallest monetary sacrifice for his own or his country's fair fame.'

Surely this is sweeping assertion. If we take individual cases into account, striking characters in the ranks of merchants are abundant in records and in memory. Even in the movement which resulted in the restoration of the present Imperial régime, countless men whose origin belonged to mercantile circles may lay their claim of participation to it. True, they were men who generally cast off their original occupation and enrolled themselves in the ranks of patriots, so that they may be considered as exceptions. But even as a class in the ordinary sense of merchants they scarcely deserve that kind of condemnation. Osaka in former days had some resemblance to free cities of the West, and every one well acquainted with things Japanese knows what a well-developed mercantile system it possessed. So also the so-called Omi merchants. Even with regard to merchants and tradesmen of all parts of the country there was little room for them to be so dishonest as the writer describes. Under the feudal system commercialoccupations were almost hereditary. They had almost no freedom of removal from their accustomed abode. Their customers were the children or grandchildren of those who were customers of their fathers or grandfathers. If a merchant under such circumstances made dishonesty his customary trade, and expected prosperity, he would surely be totally disappointed, and would suffer a deserving penalty. Besides, in those days social sanction, from the very nature of the conditions under which they found themselves situated, was most severe. Yes! Merchants and traders of those days were honest, far beyond one can imagine. If any dishonesty or any shortcomings in respect to commercial probity have become observable, it is necessary evil produced by the changed circumstances of the time, chiefly on account of foreign intercourse.

Mr. Longford speaks of the early Japanese traders who flocked to the newly opened ports as being 'without exception adventurers with neither name nor money to lose, with keen wits and the determination to exploit to the utmost.' This is, in a measure, undoubtedly true, and accounts for the lamentable condition which for a long time existed in the trades at the open ports. But this is not the only cause. On the parts of foreign merchants who came out there to trade, there was much to be criticised; I mean to say, they were also mostly adventurers in a measure; they were also inconsiderate, even arrogant. A Western merchant who, leaving China, was passing through Japan, violated intentionally time-honoured etiquette against one of the most powerful 'Daimio,' saying, 'I know how to manage these Orientals,' and was murdered in consequence. It is a good illustration of the kind of conduct of the Europeans of those days towards us; hence no sympathy existed between them and our traders—the dealings were viewed, naturally, very differently from those which they were wont to carry on with their native customers of several generations' standing. Business is business, so the common saying goes, but even in business mutual respect and friendly feeling go a long way. How can a model trade be expected to be created under such circumstances?

Then, again, in Japan commercial goods were, and are still, to a great extent made by hand on small scales. No big industrial factories existed where one could order a large number ofarticles identical in every respect as one could do in Europe. Foreign traders, not taking these conditions into their serious consideration, often gave similar orders as they were used to do in Europe, and when articles delivered to them were found to be not perfectly identical, they often took advantage of that fact, and gave much trouble to the native contractors, who did not expect to meet with so much severity. There existed also very bad customs among foreign traders; the essence of those customs was known by the name of 'Haiken,' or 'Kankan.' These terms, literally meaning 'to see,' were used to veil the facts of detaining goods at their storehouses, often for an unreasonable length of time; in the meantime ascertaining the commercial conditions of their home, and returning the goods when they found the transaction was not likely to be beneficial to them. Native traders had serious grounds of complaint against those customs. As a matter of fact, at one time the matter was brought to a very acute state, and the native traders began to try to get rid of them by combination, but with little success. I imagine Mr. Longford will remember the incidents which occurred in connection with that matter in Yokohama years ago. I can also state on good authority that there were even some cases wherein foreign traders themselves practised, toward their compatriot at home, some actions which appear not to have been in unison with Western honesty, and taking advantage of our unfortunate reputation attributed the fault to the Japanese when matters were discovered. The notorious case wherein a large foreign firm dealing in silk, who took off the labels of native manufacturers and changed them into a single kind which he liked, was boycotted by them when the matter came to broad daylight, may also be recollected by him. Another thing which foreign traders were wont to do was that they often ordered things direct from small manufacturers at a cost far less than their real value. Japanese merchants often said that they could not compete with foreign traders, inasmuch as foreign merchants often got things at less expense than they themselves could. This is surely an extraordinary phenomenon. But the fact was that those foreign traders often succeeded in making that kind of contract either by giving some tempting inducement at the beginning or canvassing several manufacturers one after another, always showing the last most advantageous offer, and bringing down the price by bargaining in a skilful andcunning manner. Under such circumstances it was not surprising if those contracts were often unfulfilled, simply on account of the inability of fulfilment by the contractors. There was also another circumstance which caused commotion and disorder in all commercial dealing in Japan. It is to be remembered that the new order under the new system of government, especially the abolition of the feudal system, widely changed the accustomed occupations of the Japanese at large. Chances for making wealth and for entering upon various enterprises almost entirely changed their hand. Besides, four hundred thousand families (2,000,000 capita) of Samurai, who gave up their hereditary allowances, now had to make their earnings chiefly by becoming traders or sometimes agriculturists, occupations to which they were entirely unaccustomed. They naturally experienced failure after failure. It was then that a new term, 'Trades of Samurai,' meaning thereby an undertaking which is precarious or even doomed to failure, came into existence. In one sense it was sad to think about, but the fact was so. Under such circumstances one can well imagine that dishonesty, or rather failure of fulfilment of promise, although against one's conscience, it maybe presumed, was often experienced even among our own community. This also might have had some indirect effects upon foreign trade.

Critics say that commercial probity in China is better than in Japan. It may be true; I shall not dispute. The Chinese are excellent traders, and besides, as every one knows, no such social revolution, as was the case with us Japanese, has ever taken place. That accounts for the difference between Chinese and Japanese traders in the first place, but that is not all. The Chinese are, individually speaking, very docile; they would not think of quarrelling with foreign traders, under whatever humiliating circumstances they might find themselves placed, so long as they could make some profit. But this is very different with us Japanese. Take, for instance, the case of a 'Rikisha' man; if he were a Japanese, and suppose a foreign rider whipped him, as they often do, because he did not run quick enough, the probability is, he would ask to be excused carrying the rider any further, or turn round to the rider and ask for an explanation. He would do so no matter whether or not he would get his fare; but if it were a Chinaman, the probability is that he would calmly suffer the treatment, and proceed just at the ratehe could run, his thoughts being concentrated on obtaining as good a fee as he could get, and would be looked upon as an honest man in consequence. This state of things exists in the matter of trade at large. Chinese tradesmen would suffer without anger, any arrogance or unreasonableness of foreign traders, and exert such wonderful patience in order ultimately to attain their objects, whilst Japanese merchants would sooner break the contract than suffer such treatment with such patience. The consequence is that Japanese merchants are viewed in rather a bad light.

The effects of the Great Change, both political and social, have been subsiding already for some time, and the order of things at large has also begun to settle down. The condition of our mercantile circle is, in consequence, much changed; so also the attitude and characters of foreign traders have begun to alter considerably. I am, therefore, most sanguine that all complaints of foreigners against our commercial probity will soon become a thing of the past.

I am sorry to speak about foreigners in this manner, but I am sure impartial observers will admit that what I say is not far from fact. At all events, their conditions were not so bright as Mr. Longford pleases to represent them to have been. Unfair criticisms are not calculated to promote the friendly feeling of nations, and my statements, which I believe no other than those of true fact, are hereby made more for promoting in future the goodwill which has already begun to exist between us and the Western traders of late years.[2]

[1]The Magazine of Commerce, August 1905.

[2]See the note at the end of the volume.

There appeared an interesting letter, written by the Manager of the Publication Department of theTimes, in the columns of that paper, October 7, 1905. As it has important bearing on the preceding subject, I take the liberty of subjoining it in full.—K.S.

Sir,—In last Monday's issue of theTimesthere was a long letter from the Right Rev. William Awdry, Bishop of SouthTokio, Japan, in which he says that 'in general a Japanese would value the promise of an Englishman more than the bond of a Japanese'; and that the Japanese are deficient in a certain group of qualities, including honesty in trade. It seems to me that it would be unfair for theTimesto allow such a charge against Japanese integrity, endorsed by a bishop, to go unchallenged, when theTimeshas, in its own office, records that prove a promise made by a Japanese to be at least as trustworthy as a promise made by an Englishman. During the past eight years theTimeshas sold, in almost every country in the world, sets of the Encyclopædia Britannica on the instalment plan, giving credit for periods of two, three, and four years. The regularity with which such payments are made is certainly a fair test of the average honesty of any nation, and a much more severe test in the case of Japan than in the case of England, because it is more difficult there than here to enforce payment by legal proceedings. Ninety-five per cent. of the encyclopædias sold in Japan were sold to Japanese, not to foreign residents, and the statements I am about to make refer exclusively to purchases made by the Japanese themselves. In Japan, as elsewhere, each purchaser, when he signs his 'order-form,' promises to pay, on certain dates, certain sums of money. In Japan the monthly payment was 10 yen, equal to about a sovereign, while in this country the amount was a guinea. In Great Britain less than half the payments arrived on the day promised. In Japan less than 1 per cent, of the payments were even one day late, and more than one-half of the payments were made the day before they were due, because the Japanese did not like to run the risk of any accidental delay that might make them even one day late. The cost of collecting these instalment payments in Japan is less than half as much as in England, simply because the Japanese are so punctilious that clerical labour and postage are not expended in reminding them that their payments are overdue. They seem to look upon every debt as a debt of honour, which must not be forgotten for even a day. There is certainly no such delicacy of feeling in this country about commercial transactions.

I find it difficult to believe that the Bishop of South Tokio is right when he says that the Japanese do not trust one another; and I know that he is wrong if he in himself believes,as he implies, that the Japanese are not 'honest in trade.' But I quite admit that Englishmen who have long resided in Japan did not believe that it would be prudent for theTimesto adopt in Japan the instalment system of selling books, previously unknown there. When the representative of theTimesarrived in Japan to sell theEncyclopædia, he naturally asked English residents there what they thought of the project. With one exception the answer was: 'You cannot sell theEncyclopædia Britannicahere because almost every English and American resident has already obtained a copy from England, and, of course, the Japanese will not buy—fortunately for you, because if they did they would not pay.' The only English resident who did not say this said: 'Of course you can sell any number ofEncyclopædiasto the Japanese, but you will never be able to collect the payments when they have once got the books. No Japanese will pay for theEncyclopædiawhen he finds he can get it without payment.' In the face of this advice, the instalment plan of sale was adopted, with the results above described. I many add that the Japanese bought five times as manyEncyclopædiasas were sold in France and Germany combined, fifty times as many as in Russia, more than in any other country except India, Australia, and the United States.

When I see a bishop of the Church of England, who has lived in Japan since 1898, write with so little appreciation of the Japanese, I wonder whether some of our countrymen are not as blind as the Russian statesmen who, in the early days of the war, described the Japanese as 'yellow monkeys,' and as blind as the Ambassador of the Tsar who made the statement in Tokio, before the war, that the mobilisation of one army corps in Russia would frighten the Japanese into immediate submission. No one in theTimesoffice, at any rate, can doubt that the standard of integrity among the Japanese is so high that when young men, who have bought the Encyclopædia, abandoned their employment to go to the front, their families promptly paid the instalments due, under circumstances of the utmost difficulty.—I am, sir, your obedient servant,

The Manager of Your Publication Department.

Printing-house Square, E.C.,October 5.

Japan, far from becoming antagonistic to the occidental nations, as it was prognosticated by some of the Continental journalists, has given another proof of her readiness for the identification of her economic interests with those of the occidental people.

Hitherto in Japan there has been no law which regulated the mortgaging of a railway, or a mining enterprise, or a factory, together with its working system, as a corporation, that is to say, mortgaging the whole system of a railway, a mining enterprise, or a factory as an economic whole, comprising not only each particular material object but also all the organic components of its working system as the subject matter of mortgage. A radical change has now been effected in the matter.

According to the Japanese laws there are two methods for a commercial company in contracting a debt. One is the ordinary borrowing of money from a creditor, and the other is borrowing in the shape of debentures by public subscription. Now in ordinary borrowing of money the liability may be secured by mortgage, but the debentures could not be secured by mortgage, although of course the liability extends to the whole property of the company.

The first effect of the new change is the provision which enables companies to guarantee debentures by mortgage, and the second effect is the provisions which relate to the creations of economic corporations of railways, mining works, or factories for the special purpose of instituting mortgages of their economic entity.

To make the matter easier to comprehend, I will first explain it with regard to railways.

The permission of the Government originally given to the company is in the nature of a licence or concession which is to be viewed more in the light of a personal matter of the original company, and therefore it could not be a subject matter of a public auction, and therefore according to the old law, if a railway company becomes bankrupt, all the materialproperty, either movable or immovable, would go to new hands, but the licence itself cannot but become extinct with the dissolution of the original company, viz. the original grantee.

This being so, if a railway company fails to fulfil its liability for debenture and goes into bankruptcy, the ultimate result would be that the railway system would be broken up, and the creditors would get their satisfaction only from the sale of each piece of the material property sold by public auction. Even in the case of ordinary debt, whereby all the material property can be mortgaged, the result would be practically the same.

All these inconveniences have now been removed by a series of new laws passed by the last session of the Imperial diet and promulgated on March 13, 1905, by the Imperial Government. The articles of the laws are very numerous and minute, so that it would be unnecessary to dwell upon them here in detail, but the more important parts may be summarised as follows:

(a)The economic entity of a railway company may be constituted a special economic corporation for the purpose of mortgage.[2]

(b)In default of payment of the mortgage liability, the whole,i.e.the corporation, may be subjected to auction. This provides the means for transferring, together with the material properties, the original permission of the Government, namely, the licence, to the purchaser, viz. a new company.

(c)A company, which in reality may be taken as a syndicate, may be formed for advancing money by means of debentures. Such company may acquire legal recognition and may represent the creditors of debentures. It forms a particular kind of commercial company, and is called 'trust company.'

(d)At the option of the creditors, means of compulsory control of the railway in the interest of creditors are also provided for in the laws.

(e)Special provisions are made to meet the cases where the syndicate and investors are of foreign nationality: namely, the means of recognising foreign syndicates by the JapaneseGovernment, and also the means of affording convenience for foreign investors.

(f)Further provisions are made for facilitating the registration of constituting the said corporation, and the registration of the mortgage thereof, for these affairs, as far as railways are concerned, are now entrusted, by the new laws, to the Minister of Communications, to whose control the railways belong, and not to the local courts of law, as is the case with all other kinds of mortgages.

This change of our laws gives very great facility to foreign investors who may be willing to lend money on railway securities.

The case of mining enterprises were similar because they are also based on licences. For them also much the same changes have been effected by the new laws, so that their economic entity may now be mortgaged in the interests of either an ordinary creditor or investors in debentures.

The cases of ordinary factories differ in origin from those of the railways or mines, they not being based on a concession or licence like railway or mining enterprises. But for them also the new laws have made provisions for the means of constituting corporations for the purpose of guaranteeing debenture by mortgage. Provisions have also been made for guaranteeing debenture by mortgaging ships, any definite property either immovable or movable, or any legal claims which are secured by written instruments.

[1]TheOutlook.

[2]The law also permits the companies constituting such a corporation of a part of the whole for a similar object. But as its general purport does not materially differ, I omit its account in order to avoid confusion.—The Author.

People often ask me if there is any affinity between the Chinese language and ours. I can at once say there is no affinity whatever, but this requires much explanation before I can clearly show it.

The written language of China, viz. ideographs, is the same all over the extensive sphere of China proper, but its pronunciation is different almost in every province. The spoken language of the Chinese is, roughly speaking, the same as the written language, as is the case in the Western nations. Therefore, the Chinese residing in different provinces do not understand each other colloquially, except those educated in theMandarine Chinese, which is in fact the pronunciation used in Peking amongst the Mandarins and studied by all Mandarins in provinces as well as those in Peking.

The first difference between Chinese and Japanese is that the former is monosyllabic, whilst the latter is polysyllabic. The second difference, which is a natural consequence of the first, is that in Chinese there is no declension of nouns or conjugation of verbs, whilst in Japanese there are conjugations of verbs and a method of the formation of the cases of nouns which is in purport similar to declensions. The third difference is the position or order of words in sentences. The fourth difference is the difference of pronunciation of the Chinese ideographs, viz. characters, even when they are used in our writing in their original shapes.

I will now explain in detail all these points in the succeeding pages.

To begin with, Chinese is monosyllabic, as I said. Each word, which always has one signification, be it a noun or a verb, has only one sound. Thus a harbour in Chinese iskong, whilst it isminatoin Japanese; and a man in Chinese isjen, whilst it ishitoin Japanese. It is the same with verbs. The sound of each word of Chinese never changes, whatever position it may stand in relation to other words in the same sentence, that is to say, there is no declension and no conjugation. Each word is represented by a distinct ideograph, and, from what I have just said, it follows that the form of the ideographs also never changes, in the same way as the sounds do not change.

In Chinese different shades of meaning as to the actions and agents are expressed by the position of the words, by addition of some other words. In simple sentences, therefore, it resembles English very much; thus, for instance, when a Chinese says: 'John likes Paul,' it is plain, like English, that he who likes Paul is John, and he who is liked is Paul. When a Chinese wishes to express the same idea in the passive voice, he would say, 'Paul by John is liked,' which is the same as 'Paul is liked by John,' Neither has Chinese any preposition like English or French, nor any post-position like Japanese, to designate the cases, except a few which resemble prepositions meaning 'from,' 'to,' and 'by,' but even these are very sparingly employed and by no means with any regularity. When a verb is used as a substantive the form is still identical; thus oneidentical ideograph, 'like,' may represent a verb 'to like' or a substantive 'liking.' Of course there are many terms designating one thing or one action consisting of more than one sound; such are, however, combinations of two or three distinct words, like the English word 'firearms' or 'seesaw,' and therefore none of them could properly be called one distinct polysyllabic word.

In Japanese, unlike Greek, Latin, or German, there is no proper declension in nouns. In this respect it is more like English or French, but it has a method of forming the cases, so that in this respect it differs from Chinese. Our cases are formed by putting after them the so-calledga—no—ni—wo—thus:

Hana ga saku-Flowers blossomHana no Kage-The shade of flowersHana ni chikazuku-Approach the flowersHana wo Miyo-See the flowers (imperative).

Gais generally omitted in writing. It is more like the GreekGe, which is often suffixed to the nominative substantives.Niis equal to the Englishtoand the Frenchà; but such ideas as the Englishbyorin, or the Frenchenorpar, are generally expressed by it. There is another particlewafor the nominative, its position is the same.

Made(until, jusqu'à) andyoriorkara(from, de) are also put after the substantives. In fact, all equivalents to English or French prepositions are put after the substantive, and therefore they are more appropriate to be called the post-positions.

In Chinese the idea of time is generally very vague, it is mostly left to the conjecture of the hearers or readers, as the case may be, from the context of the whole sentence. But when it is necessary to express it, it is also done by addition of some words, such as 'already' or 'once.' Thus a Chinese would say, 'John once like Paul,' meaning 'John once liked Paul,' or 'John already come,' meaning 'John has already come.' But this is very different in our language. We have regular declensions of verbs in both the active voice and the passive voice and their form is accordingly changed. Thus, for instance:

Back to Index Next