740.00119 Control (Japan)/1–2146
The Acting Political Adviser in Japan (Atcheson) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 1.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to this Mission’s telegram No. 171, November 29, 1945,52 despatch No. 105, December 15, 1945,53 and other correspondence regarding the revision of Japanese fundamental law, and to enclose a translation of an outline, approved by the Cabinet [Page 116] January 8, 1946, of a draft bill for the revision of the House of Peers Ordinance.54
It was the original intention of the Government to obtain legislative approval of this bill at the next session of the Diet, reorganize and reform the House of Peers in accordance with the provisions of the bill, and shortly afterward convene a special session of the newly selected House of Representatives and House of Peers to revise the Constitution. Minister Without Portfolio Matsumoto Joji, Chairman of the Cabinet Constitution Revision Committee, announced on January 16, however, that postponement of the elections until the latter part of March had led the Government to alter this plan, and that it is now preparing to submit its proposals for the revision of the Constitution to the next session of the Diet in advance of the House of Peers Ordinance revision bill. While this arrangement, which of course may be altered by the government which assumes power after the elections, would have the possible advantage of advancing the date of parliamentary consideration of Constitutional revision from late May or early June until mid-April, it has the obvious disadvantage that the Constitution revision bill would be acted upon by the present, war-time House of Peers.
The principal changes proposed in the attached outline are (1) reduction of the total membership of the House of Peers from the present number of 408 to slightly over 300; (2) reduction of the number of noble members from approximately 200 to 30; (3) inclusion of occupational and regional representatives, the latter nominated by the prefectural and regional assemblies; and (4) provision that any future revision or amendment of the House of Peers Ordinance shall require the approval of the House of Representatives. Public reaction to the proposed changes has been generally favorable (See our Political Summary Telegram No. 42, January 17, 1946), always on the assumption that more fundamental reforms, relegating the House of Peers to a definitely subordinate role in the legislative process, will be effected through revision of Chapter III of the Constitution. The view is fairly widely entertained, however, that the number of regional representatives stipulated is too large and the number of occupational representatives too small, and that princes of the blood and peers might better be excluded entirely. It is held that while the peerage in Great Britain and some other countries includes a considerable proportion of able, public-spirited men, this is not the case in Japan. Those of this view accordingly propose that princes of the blood and peers no longer be included among the membership of the House of Peers, which would of course then be renamed, [Page 117] and that their places be taken by additional occupational representatives.
There has been no indication yet whether the Emperor’s renunciation of divinity in his New Year’s Day Rescript has led the Government to revise its view that Articles I through IV of the Constitution require no important change.
Respectfully yours,
- Foreign Relations, 1945, vol. vi, p. 870.↩
- See ibid., p. 882, footnote 48.↩
- Not printed.↩