Page:Constitutional imperialism in Japan (IA constitutionalim00clemrich).pdf/47
For the Cabinet has “almost sole control” over the Court of Administrative Litigation, whose “scope is extensive”, for it
adjudicates in all cases relating to the assessment of taxes, with the exception of custom duties, [and to] the punishment of defaulting taxpayers; the prohibition of withdrawal of permission to engage in business; water rights and works (matters mostly concerning irrigation); and disputes between the State and individual concerning the ownership of land.[1]
One is tempted to enter upon a discussion of the modern Japanese judiciary system, which has been subjected to a great deal of severe criticism. It will however suffice in this connection to state that, in general, the system is a marked improvement over the so-called administration of law in feudal days, and that justice and equity generally prevail. The famous Korean conspiracy trial was not carried on according to Anglo-Saxon ideas of judicature and seemed to be a miscarriage of justice; so that when Imperial Amnesty was granted, in February 1915, to those who had been declared guilty and had served part of their sentence, it was a cause of great rejoicing. The Japanese system, modeled after the systems of the continent of Europe, including a preliminary examination, with methods amounting practically to torture in some cases; the delay in granting bail, if it be granted at all; the apparent idea that a man is considered guilty until he is proven innocent—these and other minor points are counter to Anglo-Saxon ideas of justice and equity. They have all been the object of severe criticism, not only by foreigners but also by Japanese; and they are likely to be modified in a way to give the police less power and the accused greater protection. And only lately there has been a lively discussion whether the system of trial by jury should be adopted in Japan.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 141.
(357)