made such a course instinctive with him. After one has discerned by experience, it is easy to make allowance for this disposition, and between persons to the manner born it causes no more inconvenience than does our conventional " not at home." I do not for a moment say that the incidents I have re ferred to are of every-day occurrence in Japan. I suggest merely that the spirit of regard for the feelings of another which prompts us to say " not at home " to an ac quaintance, rather than announce that we are at home but (impliedly) do not care enough for him to see him, is much more powerful in Japan than with us, and re ceives a more frequent practical application. It is probable that a Japanese would seldom be deceived in such cases, just as in our own cities the conventional " not at home " de ceives no one. Another characteristic, kindred to all these, is the general peaceableness and happiness of society in Japan. One can see in New York in one night such exhibitions of violence, brawling, and aban doned lawlessness as one would not see in an entire year in Tokyo. Poverty and want are nowhere accompanied by such tran quillity and sobriety as in Japan. These are all more or less direct manifestations of a deep-seated opposition to whatever implies clash, clatter, shock, roughness, strain, in any shape, and an inclination to make everything quiet, smooth, easy, harmonious. In short, the Japanese are confirmed quietists. If I have seemed to digress in illustrating this, it is because this quality in one of its manifestations had so great an influence on the administration of justice. The result, then, was a universal resort to arbitration and compromise as a primary means of settling disputes. It was, and to a great extent still is, an ingrained principle of the Japanese social system that every dispute should, if by any means possible, be smoothed out by resort to private or public arbitration. The machinery of local govern ment, under the old regime, was employed
for this purpose, if friendly mediation failed; but no efforts were to be spared to settle the matter in this way, and in practice the vast majority of disputes were so disposed of. It is true that the interests of the feudal aristocracy in preventing turbulence and open quarrels among the common people led them to foster the disposition to arbitrate, and such procedure was enjoined by law. But the legislation was only cumulative in its effect, and was probably intended to stem a tendency perhaps in towns to break away from the old customs. The consequence was that even where a lawsuit ultimately resulted, a long stage of negotiation had invariably preceded, and it was (in the rural regions) only an irreconcilable difference that ever reached the seat of judgment in Yedo. The principle of arbitration resulted thus. In case of a disagreement between members of a kumi} the five heads of families met and endeavored to settle the matter. All minor difficulties were usually ended in this way. A time was appointed for the meeting; food and wine were set out; and there was mod erate eating and drinking, just as at a din ner-party. This, they thought, tended to promote good feeling and to make a settle ment -easier; for everybody knows, they said, that a friendly spirit is more likely to exist under such circumstances. Even family difficulties were sometimes settled in this way. Thus, if a man abused his wife, she might fly to one of the neighbors for protection, and, when the husband came to demand her, the heads of families in the kumi would meet and consult over the case. If a settlement failed, or a man repeated his offence frequently, he might be complained of to the next in authority, the chief of com panies; or else the neighbors might take matters into their own hands and break off intercourse with him, refusing to recognize 1 Every town and village was divided into kumi, or companies of five neighbors, the members of which, some what as in the Saxon frankpledge or frithborg, were mutu ally responsible for each other's conduct.
