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 the _Contemporary 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 the foundation 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 commercial occupations 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 of articles 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 and cunning 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 rate he
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]