changes in the quantity of goods exchanged, the extent to which other
credit instruments take the place of money in such exchanges, and the
activity of money, or the extent to which it is hoarded, all of which
are entirely beyond control. The _supply_ of money, however, can be
controlled, and to maintain money at a constant value the supply must
be constantly adjusted to the ever-varying demand, so that its
general purchasing power may remain the same. The test of a constant
money must be a constant general level of prices; and this must be
judged by the prices in the open market of those principal commodities
which would be selected to constitute the standard of value, the
quantity of each being proportioned to its importance in trade.
The only function of gold and silver in a monetary system is to _limit
the volume of the money_, either by their scarcity when freely coined,
or by the laws limiting their coinage. And as this limitation of the
supply bears no definite relation to the demand for money, the value
of the money necessarily fluctuates. Our industrial system is
constantly growing more sensitive to even slight changes in money
value, owing to the greater diversification of industries and the
greater division of labor, and the need for preventing such changes is
constantly growing more imperative.
When the people arrive at a clearer perception of these facts and
principles they will understand that the chance production of gold and
silver is too clumsy a contrivance to properly control so delicate a
matter as the value of money under modern industrial conditions, and I
believe they will substitute for the present system a circulating
medium of paper money, properly guaranteed, and susceptible of prompt
and certain increase or decrease of volume to meet every possible
variation in demand, and rigidly controlled to conform in value to a
true standard of value, a standard composed not alone of gold or
silver or both combined, but of all the leading commodities.
In short, they will separate the standard of value from the medium of
exchange, demonetizing both gold and silver as to the latter function,
but using both and many other things in conjunction therewith for the
former function.
V. BY A. J. WARNER.
From whatever side the question is approached, in the last analysis
the value of money of any kind is found to depend upon its quantity,
and not upon color, or ductility, or malleability, or any other
particular quality of the thing upon which the money function is
impressed. There can be therefore, in fact, no other standard of
value, or money standard, except the quantity of whatever is used as
money. When gold and silver are used, the value of each unit of money
depends upon the number of such units, and these in turn depend upon
the quantity of the metal from which the money is made. Any cause,
therefore, which restricts, limits, or contracts the quantity of any
kind of money, increases the value of each unit. On the contrary,
causes that operate to increase the supply of money have the opposite
effect.
Hence, only that currency can properly be called "sound" currency
which is made to maintain stable relations to things to be bought and
sold. In other words, general prices are determined by the proportion
between money on the one side, and things offered against money on the
other side. Such money only is "honest" money.
The whole question, therefore, of money standard is a question of
money supply; for, as the price of single things, money being
constant, depends upon supply on the one hand, as against demand for
it on the other, so, in general, prices depend on money supply on the
one hand, and things to be bought and sold on the other. This I
believe to be the fundamental law of money.
THE NEW CIVIL CODE OF JAPAN.
BY TOKICHI MASAO, M. L., D. C. L.
Ever since the establishment of the present imperial government in
1868, the one unceasing aim of Japan's foreign policy has been the
abolition of the extra-territoriality régime, under which certain
quasi-judicial functions are exercised on the Japanese soil by the
ambassadors and consuls of the Occidental nations. This anxiety on
Japan's part to rid herself of this shameful régime imposed upon her
against her will, will not appear surprising when the fact is learnt
that one Occidental nation went so far as to call her consul at
Yokohama, "Her Britannic Majesty's the Most Honourable Court for
Japan"--a name almost enough to imply that Japan was a British
province. Extra-territoriality rests upon the assumption that the laws
and procedure of the non-Christian nations are so unlike to and
different from those of the Christian nations that without the
protection of this system the safety and well-being of the subjects of
the latter sojourning in the territory of the former would be placed
in constant jeopardy. Accordingly in the early seventies Japan came to
the conclusion that the only possible way of emancipating herself from
the disgraceful yoke of extra-territoriality was to adopt one of the
systems of law obtaining in the Christian world and compile a code of
law based upon that system, and applicable alike to the Japanese and
to the foreigners residing in Japan.
There were three such systems--the Anglo-American, the French, and the
Germanic Roman--each offering itself for adoption. Mr. Yeto
Shimpei,[2] who became the Minister of Justice in 1872, seems to have
had a personal preference for the French system. He called to his
assistance some of the most eminent jurists of France and entered upon
the work of drafting a code. At the same time he established in Tokio
a law school known as the "Department of Justice Annex Law School," in
which French law was taught by those same jurists whom he had called
from France. About this time there was also established in the
University of Tokio a law school in which instruction was given
chiefly in English law. It was while teaching in this university law
school that Mr. Henry T. Terry (a New York lawyer and an alumnus of
Yale College) wrote his memorable book on English law, designed
especially for the use of Japanese law students. From henceforth
"Terry's Leading Principles of Anglo-American Law" became as familiar
to them as are "Blackstone's Commentaries" to the law students of this
country.
[2] Those who have followed the course of events in Japan
since the beginning of the new era will remember that upon
the return of Prince Iwakura, in 1873, from his
around-the-world embassy, Mr. Yeto had to withdraw from the
cabinet, owing to a difference of opinion between him and
the Prince with regard to the Corean problem then pending.
Returning to his native province, Saga, he tried to raise
troops against the government (to carry out, of course, his
own convictions in regard to the Corean problem), resulting
in the famous "Saga rebellion" of 1873. Defeated by the
government troops, he betook himself to the interior of the
country in disguise, was arrested, found guilty of treason,
and executed according to law. It is a familiar saying in
Japan that Mr. Yeto died a criminal at the hand of his own
Penal Code.
Thus, side by side there existed in Tokio two law schools in which two
distinct systems of law were taught--the English and the French. The
primary object of the Department of Justice in establishing the French
law school being to make it a training school of judicial officers,
the students of that school were, upon graduation, to render, for a
limited number of years, an obligatory service to the government in
the various capacities of judges, magistrates, and prosecuting
attorneys. On the other hand, the University of Tokio being a strictly
independent institution in which learning is pursued for the sake of
learning, the graduates of the university or English law school were
at entire liberty in their choice of professions. Naturally enough the
majority of these did not wish to enter the same service which the
graduates of the other school were obliged to enter as a matter of
fulfilment of contract. Thus it happened that the bench was recruited
from the French law school, while the bar was recruited from the
English law school. This state of affairs lasted for about twenty
years, during which time there was also established a German law
school in the University of Tokio. Those who know something about the
rivalry that existed in ancient times between the Sabinians and the
Proculians, or even about the rivalry which exists to-day between the
Yale method and the Harvard method, between the Waylandians and the
Langdellians, can readily imagine what intellectual competition was
carried on between these three Japanese law schools representing three
distinct systems of law.
After twenty years of assiduous labor the Code Commission submitted a
draft of a Civil Code to the two Houses of Parliament in 1890,
accompanied by the recommendation from the Bureau of Legislation that
the draft might receive the parliamentary sanction in such a manner
that it might be possible for it to be put in effect by the year 1893.
As might have been expected from the personnel of the Commission,
consisting, in its conception, of Mr. Yeto Shimpei and the eminent
French jurist Prof. Boissonade, etc., the draft was a genuine French
code, being almost a literal translation of the Code Napoleon in all
its parts excepting the part dealing with the Law of Persons. The
question may well be asked why it took the Commission twenty long
years to produce this imitation draft code when we know that the draft
of the Code Napoleon itself was completed within the short period of
four months. The answer seems to be that the Commission spent almost
this entire time in their efforts to reconcile the principles of the
French Law of Persons with the Japanese laws and customs bearing on
that subject.
As has been the case with many other draft codes this draft Civil Code
of Japan was destined to go into oblivion. As soon as it was submitted
to the Parliament there ensued a most desperate fight against its
adoption. As figuring most prominently among the champions of the
opposition I may mention the names of Mr. Kazuo Hatoyama, the present
Speaker of the House of Commons of the Imperial Japanese Parliament,
and His Excellency Mr. Toru Hoshi, the present Japanese minister at
Washington.[3] Inspired by these and other eminent jurists of the
English school the entire bar was set against the adoption of the
draft code. This was not a case of a bar accustomed to one set of
rules and formulas opposing the adoption of a new code for fear that
they might be compelled to learn a new set of rules and formulas. On
the contrary, the bar was composed of men who had studied law as a
science, and science for the sake of science. The spirit of their
opposition was very plainly shown by the objections they raised
against the code. They said:--"The draft Code was a blind imitation of
a foreign Code which itself was far from being free from defects. It
abounded in definitions, illustrations, and examples, and presented an
appearance more becoming to a text-book of law than the Civil Code of
a great nation. It went into too minute details and left too little
room for voluntary development of jurisprudence. It incorporated, like
the French Code, the law of evidence into the body of the Civil Code,
which was totally at variance with the modern theory of evidence,
being a failure on the part of the Commissioners to distinguish
adjective from substantive law. It made too many innovations upon the
Law of Persons hitherto obtaining in Japan. It changed the Family Law
of the Japanese from the foundation, which was a gross disregard of
the historical principle of jurisprudence," etc., etc., etc. Such were
some of the grounds upon which they opposed the adoption of the draft
code, reminding one of the fight in Europe between the historical
school and the analytical school, between the jurists of France and
those of Germany; of the fight in Germany between the Code party and
the anti-Code party, between Savigny and Thibaut. Who can say, then,
that the Japanese are childish imitators of anything that looks well?
The fact is that this sort of conflict between the more conservative
and the more radical, the more scrupulous and the more unscrupulous,
the more positive and the more speculative, is going on all the time.
[3] I make mention of these two gentlemen as representative
of two classes of a fairly large number of Japanese lawyers,
viz., those who have been educated in the United States, and
those who have received their education in England. Mr.
Hatoyama is a D. C. L. of Yale. For nearly ten years
(1880-1889) he was a professor of law in the University of
Tokio Law School, and during most of this time he was also
Dean of the school. Mr. Hoshi is a barrister-at-law of one
of the English Inns of Court. For many years he was regarded
as the leader of the Japanese bar. Like many distinguished
members of the English bar, he is more of a lawyer than of a
jurist.
At last in 1892 the Parliament passed an act deferring the taking
effect of the code till 1897 and ordering in the meantime a careful
revisal of the draft. A new Commission was appointed which consisted
of three most eminent professors of law in Japan, each representing
one of the three systems of law recognized there.[4] These
Commissioners, aided by a number of efficient assistants, looked into
the codes and laws of some fifteen leading American and European
states. As representing the French system they consulted the codes of
Louisiana, Belgium, France, Holland, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. As
representing the German system they consulted the codes and laws of
Austria, Montenegro, Prussia, Saxony, Switzerland, and the draft Civil
Code of the German Empire. As representing the English system they
consulted the leading American and English reports and treatises, the
draft Civil Code of New York, and the codes of California and British
India.[5]
[4] I refer to Professors Hodzumi, Tomii, and Ume. Prof.
Hodzumi is a barrister-at-law of the Middle Temple, and is
one of the ablest representatives of English law in Japan.
Prof. Tomii is a _Docteur en Droit_ of the Facility of
Lyons, and is by far the ablest expounder of the French
codes in Japan. Prof. Ume, though a bearer of the same
degree from the same Faculty as Prof. Tomii, has attended
several German universities, and is more of the German
school than of the French. The Commission itself consisted
of several other distinguished personages, with the Prime
Minister at the head. But these three professors composed
what was called the "Compilation Committee," so that
practically they were the Commission.
[5] Prof. Ume, a member of the Commission, is responsible
for these statements so far as they relate to the codes and
laws consulted. The classifications, however, are my own.
After four years of the most constant application the Commission
submitted in 1896 a revisal of a part of the original draft. Had the
Commission had the entire code revised they could not have shown
greater wisdom. For the parts incomplete were those dealing with the
Family Law and Successions, and the Commission remembered that these
were the parts that occasioned the most vital objections to the old
code. The Parliament referred the revised draft code to a Committee of
their own, of which Mr. Hatoyama, the present Speaker, was made the
chairman. After making a careful examination and some important
modifications, Mr. Hatoyama reported favorably to its adoption. The
Parliament acted according to his advice, and the draft became the
law.
In its general arrangement the new code follows what the German
jurists call the Pandekten system. It is divided into five general
parts. Part I is called "S[=o]soku," or General Laws, and deals with
persons, natural and artificial, as the subjects of rights; with
things as the objects of rights; and with juristic acts as setting
rights in motion. One cannot help being astonished at and gratified
with the remarkable extent to which Prof. Holland's views as expressed
in his book on jurisprudence seem to be adopted in this part of the
code.[6] Part II is called "Bukken," or _Jus in Rem_, corresponding
to the Sachenrecht of the German code, and dealing with Possession,
Ownership, etc., etc. Part III is called "Jinken," or _Jus in
Personam_, corresponding to the Forderungsrecht of the German code,
and dealing with General Law of Obligations, with Obligations arising
_ex contractu_, _quasi ex contractu_, and _ex delicto_. The General
Law of Obligations is taken largely from the Forderungsrecht of the
Swiss code. The law of Contracts and Torts is taken entirely from the
English law. Parts IV and V, dealing with the Family Law and the Law
of Successions respectively, have not as yet been published, for
reasons already indicated.
[6] This may be a mere conjecture on my own part. It is
possible that the Commissioners never consulted his book,
though to assert such a thing of them would be an insult to
their scholarship. Be it as it may, it is a fact beyond
question that their arrangement of these topics presents a
remarkable coincidence to that of Prof. Holland's, and this
is a matter upon which every thoughtful Japanese may well
pride himself.
Such is the new Civil Code of Japan, adopted by the Imperial
Parliament in its session of 1896. Truly, the year 1896 has been an
eventful year for Japan. The war with China had brought glory to her
arms. Formosa and numerous other islands had been added to her
possessions. The insurgents of Formosa had been pacified. The treaties
with the leading nations of the world had been revised, providing for
the abolishment of the disgraceful extra-territoriality régime in
Japan, to take effect, however, upon the taking effect of the new
Civil Code. The last and greatest event of all, the new Code was
adopted. With equal propriety, then, the Emperor Mutsuhito might have
joined Justinian, in proclaiming:--"Imperatoriam Majestatem non solum
armis decoratam, sed etiam legibus opportet esse armatam, ut utrumque
tempus et bellorum et pacis recte possit gubernari!"
JOHN RUSKIN:
A TYPE OF TWENTIETH-CENTURY MANHOOD.
BY B. O. FLOWER.
The name John Ruskin is justly entitled to a foremost place among
those of the builders of twentieth-century civilization. In him we
find a rare combination of genius, culture, and refinement, blended
with a tender concern for all earth's unfortunates. He is at once
artist, philosopher, and philanthropist; but he is more than these;
there is much of the austere religious reformer, giving a serious
gravity to all the utterances of the glad-souled artist, a mingling of
the spirit of a Savonarola with the imagination of a Turner.
John Ruskin, more than any other man of our time in like station of
life, stands for the civilization which we believe is destined to
glorify the coming century, for in his life all thought of ease, fame,
and preferment,--all consideration of self,--is overmastered by his
love for others. Endowed by nature with the imagination of a poet, the
eyes of an artist, the brain of a philosopher, the soul of a prophet,
and the heart of a man, he has conscientiously employed all his gifts
as a sacred trust given to him that he might bless and enlighten his
day, and ennoble his civilization for all time.
He was born amid affluence, and received the best educational
advantages the age afforded. After graduating from Oxford in 1842, he
studied painting under Copley Fielding and J. D. Harding. Subsequently
he spent some time in Italy, finishing his art education in the land
of earth's greatest painters.
While in college he composed many poems, but on leaving the university
he turned his attention to art and prose composition. His "Modern
Painters" was justly hailed as one of the noblest works of the
century, and instantly placed its author in the ranks of the foremost
art critics of the world.
Few if any of his admirers will agree with all his critical views. He
not infrequently falls into those errors which we naturally expect to
find in a man of intense feeling, of strong conviction, and of vivid
imagination. If a positive idea takes possession of his mind, it is
liable to give a strong bias to his thought, and in a degree
interferes with that nice sense of proportion so essential to a great
critic. On more than one occasion Mr. Ruskin has frankly admitted that
his views and opinions were erroneous owing to being based on a
partial appearance or influenced by pernicious ideas. A notable
illustration of his thought being biassed by preconceived ideas is
found in the religious opinions put forward in the early edition of
parts I and II of "Modern Painters." And in a preface written in 1871
for a revised edition of his works, the philosopher calls attention to
his early views, declaring that he was "wholly mistaken" and
continuing: "I had been educated in the narrow doctrine of a narrow
sect, and had read history obliquely, as a sectarian necessarily
must."
Such are the blemishes which occasionally creep into the works of this
master mind. They are, however, merely spots on the sun, which do not
appear frequently enough to seriously dim the splendor of a critical
work which in my judgment surpasses in real value that of any English
scholar of the century. "Modern Painters," "The Stones of Venice,"
"The Seven Lamps," and his other works dealing with art are far more
than criticisms; they touch the sleeping soul, they fire the spirit
and awaken the conscience. They make the reader feel a new love for
nature and art alike, and with this pure and inspiring love comes the
desire for more knowledge. They appeal to the spiritual aspirations
even more than to the artistic impulses or the intellectual
apprehension. The moral exaltation which pervades his writings springs
from his profoundly philosophical and religious nature. In all his
work, as in his noble life, he has ever been moved by an intense
desire to uplift and dignify humanity and to impress upon the public
mind the subtle but positive effect for good exerted by true art. "I
have had," he tells us in "The Two Paths," "but one steady aim in all
I have ever tried to teach, namely, to declare that whatever was great
in human art was the expression of man's delight in God's work."
With Ruskin, life is august; its possibilities for good and evil are
never forgotten.
"Remember," he urges, "that every day of your life is ordaining
irrevocably for good or evil the custom and practice of your
soul; ordaining either sacred customs of dear and lovely
recurrence, or trenching deeper and deeper the furrows for seed
of sorrow. Now, therefore, see that no day passes in which you do
not make yourself a somewhat better creature.... You will find
that the mere resolve not to be useless, and the honest desire to
help other people, will in the quickest and delicatest ways
improve yourself."
The pleasure which springs from loyalty to duty is strenuously
insisted upon by Ruskin, and he, more than any other illustrious man
in our time, has reached such heights of unselfishness as to enable
him to fully appreciate the unalloyed pleasure which flows from a life
of sacrifice. If he is austere, he is also very humane. The fountains
of pleasure that he would have us drink deeply from would leave no
bitter aftertaste. He delights in no pseudo-pleasure; faithfulness to
the highest ideal, untiring effort at complete self-mastery, a settled
determination to work for the good of all and to be ever on guard lest
by some inadvertence we injure some other living creature,--such are
some of the lessons upon which our philosopher insists as essential to
man's happiness.