ody 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