予戒令

予戒令
Japanese laws and ordinances
Popular name, abbreviated designation	Unavailable
Laws and ordinances number	January 28, 1892 Imperial ordinance eleventh
Effect	The abolition
Kind	The administrative criminal law
Main contents	Punishment for the act to disturb the public law and order
Laws and ordinances concerned	Unavailable
Text link	Modern digital library
I display a template

予戒令 (worth Rei) is abolished Japanese laws and ordinances. It takes effect (1892) on the promulgation, the same day on January 25 in 1892.
This Imperial ordinance was abolished (1914) on January 20 in 1914 by "予戒令廃止 ノ matter" (January 20, 1914 Imperial ordinance fourth).

Table of contents

History

• It is January 25 (1892) for 1,892 years

In the first pine person Cabinet, "予戒令" (January 28, 1892 Imperial ordinance eleventh) is the promulgation, the enforcement

• It is December 20 (1913) for 1,913 years

In the first Yamamoto Cabinet, the draft of "the 予戒令廃止 ノ matter" is referred to the deliberation of the Privy Council

• It is January 20 (1914) for 1,914 years

"予戒令" is abolished by the enforcement of "予戒令廃止 ノ matter" (January 20, 1914 Imperial ordinance fourth)

Summary

予戒令 is an Imperial ordinance established for the purpose of the control of the person interfering a vagrant and a person without property, the sabotage of the meeting, duties of another person. Specifically, for the person who committed a crime prescribed in 予戒令各条項, I authorized Superintendent General who was the head of the Metropolitan Police Department, the Secretary of who was the head of Department of the Interior Hokkaido Prefectural Government Hokkaido Prefectural Government, the prefectural governor of the election for bureaucrats to give off "予戒命令" and punished this.

Relative with the election interference

Approximately three weeks of the promulgation of 予戒令 and enforcement day later, the second member of the House of Representatives general election was held (1892) on February 15 in 1892. In this election, the Department of the Interior is known for what large-scale election interfered led by Sennichi Shirane domestic affairs of states vice-ministers with Home Secretary Yajiro Shinagawa of the first pine person Cabinet. The application of peace and order legislations such as regulations for the preservation of public peace and security or 集会及政社法 was carried out for people party candidate person and a supporter by this election interference, and a situation to start casualties by the rivalry that developed from an election campaign in plural prefectures got up.

The establishment purposes of 予戒令 occur frequently in in recent times; "discourse on politics meeting ヲ interference シ congressist ヲ threat through…I give that it is necessary to perform ノ supervision [¹] in the people ニ vs. シ Police. However, with the opinion that 予戒令 points out from the fact that is most recent, and promulgate it, and was enforced of the election enforcement that the government established a book law as preparations for the election campaign [²]. In addition, a case [³] that use of 予戒令 for people party candidate person and supporters was made by the local government officials such as prefectural governors has happened.

Withdrawal campaign by the people party

I retained 予戒令 for approximately 22 years abolished in (1914) in 1914 from (1892) in 1892 that is a year of the enforcement and the promulgation, but the withdrawal exercise of 予戒令 occurs several times in the period. In this item, I take up a withdrawal campaign of 予戒令 by the people party. Each people party group of the House of Representatives such as Liberal Party or 立憲改進党 aims at the abolition of 予戒令 and, in the fourth, the eighth, the tenth, the twelfth and the thirteenth Imperial Diet House of Representatives, submits "a proposal" of 予戒令廃止 five times and is approved all in the House of Representatives of a lot of each people party group.

Though a proposal of 予戒令廃止 approved it in the past five times in the House of Representatives, I mention it later by "the abolition of 予戒令" about the reason that 予戒令 retained for approximately 22 years and, here, explain it in detail about the property of "the proposal" in the Great Japanese Imperial Constitution.

In Great Japanese Imperial Constitution Article 40, I set authority to submit "a proposal" to of one of the authority of the House of Representatives and the House of Peers as means to express an opinion of the Diet about a law or the case for the government. However, this proposal did not have authority more than the means as an opinion expression and the problem investigation of the Diet for the government because there was not some kind of legal binding force to let you take measures in "the proposal" submitted to the government for the government. In other words, the effect retained 予戒令 because a resolution approved in the House of Representatives did not have effect direct, to abolish 予戒令 until an Imperial ordinance to abolish this in (1914) in 1914 was emitted.

Problems of 予戒令

"Unconstitutionality ノ method"

In a stage to discuss this Imperial ordinance plan in Privy Council, I pointed out the "engaging in legitimate occupation or duties" (Article 2 first) possibility that it conflicted with words of the residence that Great Japanese Imperial Constitution Article 22 established and move ノ freedom [⁴], business ノ freedom to come from law Article 27 Clause 1, the meeting ノ freedom of law Article 29 "to let you prohibit the sabotage of the meeting" (Article 2 second) that the Miyoji Ito Privy Council clerk administrator was effect of 予戒命令 before 予戒令 promulgated it (1892) on January 25 in 1892 and it was taken effect.

Since the meaning of "the law" of "ニ 於 テ in the law ノ range" in each articles meant "the law" that the Imperial Diet which was a representative nation assembly established or "an order entrusted with by the law", and 予戒令 was "the Imperial ordinance" that empire constitution Article 9 established (order of independence), this was because the possibility that it was unconstitutionality to limit the claims and obligations of the people by the authority of the administration had it pointed out [⁵]. However, as for the limit that 予戒令 determined, Miyoji Ito referred an affirmative opinion to the establishment of the Imperial ordinance as "original bill ノ main point ナレハ 之 ヲ removal スルコトヲ profit" [⁵].

In addition, German Hellman ロエスレル which played an active part as an advisor at cabinet leaves 答議 as the reference opinion in the deliberation of 予戒令. While ロエスレル presents a question about the legality of letting engage in occupation or an occupation forcibly about a rule of 予戒命令 of 予戒令第 2 条各号; "is ニ for public regular ニ nation ノ profit…I took it as 禁遏 (きんあつ) スルヲ profit ヘシ [⁶] and gave the legitimacy of the Imperial ordinance establishment.

The people party side had recognition that each articles of 予戒令 conflicted with an empire constitution and, by "予戒令廃止 ノ proposal [⁷] submitted to the fourth Imperial Diet," added criticism that it was "the unconstitutionality ノ method" to look down upon "the residence and move ノ freedom" of empire constitution Article 22 about the house change report duty of the person who received 予戒命令 of 予戒令第 Article 3 and insisted on the real time abolition of 予戒令.

Structure of "laws and ordinances"

I consist of two of "the order" that is the law example that "a law" and the administration of the country which "the laws and ordinances" greatly separate you, and the representative assembly of the nation establishes establish. A national organization and authority, "the constitution" that prescribed a foundation stone about rule and "the law" that a representative nation assembly establishes are included in "a law". "The order" that is the law example that an administration establishes is comprised of "the administrative regulations" such as orders ("official order" "notification") to be concerned with "a legal order" and duties order, the paperwork for the staff in the administration that it prescribed about a matter affecting the claims and obligations of the nation directly. The details refer to laws and ordinances

"Imperial ordinance" in the Great Japanese Imperial Constitution

In Great Japanese Imperial Constitution, a special "order" prescribed other than the above "legal order" and "administrative regulation" existed. It is a law form called "an Imperial ordinance".
"The Imperial ordinance" was established in Great Japanese Imperial Constitution Article 8 and Article 9, and, as for Article 8, "order in council" (emergency order), Article 9 to be emitted as a thing for the laws in emergency prescribed "Imperial ordinance" (order of independence) to be emitted by the authority of the administration as an exception of the legislative power.

Great Japanese Imperial Constitution Article 8

When "the order in council" had authority to give off an Imperial ordinance in substitution for a law when there was, "the emergency is necessary", the Emperor "maintained public tranquility" or "I avoided an accident" and Imperial Diet closed it, I established it. The effect said that it could continue for the future only when I got the consent of the assembly in the next session.

Examples of "the orders in council" based on empire constitution Article 8 include "revised ノ matter (June 29, 1928 Imperial ordinance 129th) [⁸] in the Maintenance of the Public Order Act" that is full-scale revised law of the Maintenance of the Public Order Act (April 22, 1925 law 46th) promulgated in the Yoshikazu Tanaka Cabinet.

Great Japanese Imperial Constitution Article 9

When "the Imperial ordinance" had authority because the Emperor "carried out a law" or "held public law and order" and to give off an order necessary for "to increase the happiness of the subject", I established it.

The legislative powers such as a law or the Imperial ordinance came from the Emperor, and the Emperor let the cabinet draft a draft of a proposed law or it was told to be able to perform a legislation after the agreement of your a large number of people both Houses by the suggestion of the assembly (Great Japanese Imperial Constitution Article 5). In addition, the establishment of the real Imperial ordinance adopted procedures to need the adviser to the Throne (virtual approval by the minister having responsibility about the office work of administrative all parts, countersignature of the minister) of the cabinet.

Execution situation of 予戒令

予戒令受命者数 [table 1] [⁹]
(from January 25, 1892 to February 15)

Execution time	The prefectures name	The target number of people (person)
February 2	Yamanashi	7
February 6	Ishikawa	20
February 6	Fukushima	16
February 6	Nara	10
February 9	Niigata	3
February 10	Ibaraki	1
February 10	Kagoshima	7
February 12	Kyoto	13
February 13	Hiroshima	6
February 13	Nagano	8
February 14	Tochigi	2
計	11 prefectures	93

I it until House of Representatives general election in the second in 1892

予戒令 is carried out (1892) in 11 prefectures of the whole country during approximately three weeks until the second House of Representatives general election held on February 15, the same year in 1892 by the promulgation of 予戒令 of January 25 and the enforcement, and the number of people that received 予戒命令 is estimated with 93 [¹⁰]. The situation that the candidate of the people party and a supporter receive an application of 予戒令 soon by an election enforcement day occurs. It is reported that 立憲改進党員 one of Ibaraki caught the application of, ordering on county ealdorman and village mayor, February 11 of the people party of Kahoku-gun, Ishikawa on 16 Liberals of Fukushima, February 7 on February 6, the same year [¹¹].

I it to 年予戒令廃止 in 2 in - Taisho era in 1892

For approximately 22 years before being abolished from a promulgation of 予戒令 and enforcement day, approximately 2,102 people received punishment by 予戒令 in 46 prefectures. From the Meiji late 40s, the number of applications of 予戒令 decreases, and a pivot leg moves from the rivalry that the contents are concerned with an election campaign to the punishment of "an act to damage the trust of the person" and "the act to interfere duties act of another person, and to require money" [¹²].

The application case of 予戒令 exists the period of the second member of the House of Representatives general election later particularly increase of 予戒令適用 is founded in the Meiji 30s [table 2-1]. The reasons include the following points [¹³].

Revised of the local government system

"Prefectures system" (March 16, 1899 law 64th) which was revised law of "prefectures system" (May 17, 1890 law 35th) which formed local government system of the Great Japanese Imperial Constitution (1899) on March 16 in 1899 was promulgated. In the revised prefectures system, I lived in the cities, towns and villages in the prefectures and it was established having the right to vote of the representative from assembly of cities, towns, and villages when I had the right to vote of the Representative prefectural assembly for the citizen who paid higher than direct national tax 3 yen. The details refer to municipal organization and a prefectures system

The prefectural assembly member of the Diet would be elected for the first time by the direct election of inhabitants, but the election interference by the local government official was performed in the Representative prefectural assembly election carried out (1899) in October from September in 1899 in a plural number prefecture by the enforcement of the revised law [¹⁴]. But said that the object of this election interference was not limited to each people party group like 1892, and to plan a payoff, and the election by a local public worker and the police officer interfered the Kensei party and the free group political party which the prefectural governor supported for other political parties which fought [¹⁵].

An election campaign heats up, and the scale is guessed by enforcement of the prefectural assembly member of the Diet election with the revision of the local government system because the rivalry by a political party candidate and the supporter increased unlike it of the election interference limited to the former people party when the number of applications of 予戒令 increased.

地方別予戒令受命者数 [table 2-1] [¹⁶]
(from 1892 to 1903)

	1892	1893	1894	1895	1896	1897	1898	1899	1900	1901	1902	1903
Hokkaido	-	-	-	-	8	-	-	5	-	10	11	1
Tohoku	28	-	-	-	-	1	-	6	3	-	40	61
Kanto (Tokyo is excluded)	9	17	47	10	9	1	-	4	15	55	69	29
Tokyo prefecture	102	78	55	49	25	30	11	18	10	43	36	36
Hokuriku	40	2	1	1	-	4	3	-	1	6	8	29
Koshin	17	-	30	-	-	-	-	4	-	1	14	3
Tokai	-	7	-	-	5	2	-	2	21	9	10	6
Kinki	13	-	4	14	5	4	-	12	17	40	17	7
China	7	-	-	1	-	-	2	-	-	-	8	3
Shikoku	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	11	2	9
Kyushu	212	13	15	4	3	-	-	2	1	41	22	6
The total	428	117	152	79	55	42	16	53	69	216	237	198

地方別予戒令受命者数 [table 2-2] [¹⁶]
(from 1904 to 1913)

	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908	1909	1910	1911	1912	1912	1913	The total according to the district
Hokkaido	4	4	6	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	49
Tohoku	16	6	11	12	-	2	4	-	-	-	-	190
Kanto (Tokyo is excluded)	22	11	15	9	7	5	-	-	-	-	-	334
Tokyo prefecture	29	7	2	-	3	2	-	-	-	-	-	536
Hokuriku	-	1	5	2	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	104
Koshin	6	6	10	22	12	-	-	-	-	-	-	125
Tokai	1	7	1	1	4	-	-	-	-	-	-	69
Kinki	8	9	3	12	8	8	-	-	5	-	-	193
China	8	2	-	6	4	-	1	-	8	-	-	50
Shikoku	2	3	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	29
Kyushu	10	4	9	9	-	-	1	-	3	-	-	355
In total [17]	107	69	78	88	42	18	6	0	16	1	15	2102

Abolition of 予戒令

It is thought that a crime prescribed by 予戒令 lost the reason for being by the legislation such as other peace and order legislations in the background of the abolition of 予戒令 [¹⁸].
When Imperial ordinance plan of "予戒令廃止 ノ matter" (January 20, 1914 Imperial ordinance fourth) to become the grounds of the abolition of 予戒令 is examined by Privy Council, minutes [¹⁹] are recorded.

According to the record,

"	…然 ルニ;, as for the Security Police Act police criminal punishment law and the administrative execution law, as for the ノ establishment member of the House of Representatives election laws criminal laws, is ノ revision アリテ since enforcement to give it an order to start (a quoter note: 予戒令)… It is リタリ in 将来必 Shimo book law ヲ retaining スルノ necessary ヲ 認 メサル in a solstice	"
—Privy Council meeting writing "予戒令廃止 ノ matter"

With と mention [¹⁹].

"Security Police Act" (January 10, 1900 law 36th) is the laws and ordinances that "police criminal punishment law" (September 29, 1908 domestic affairs of states departmental order 16th) was established as for "administrative execution method" (June 2, 1900 law 84th) (1908) (1900) on September 29 in 1908 on June 2, the same year on February 23 in 1900, and, in the text of these laws and ordinances, there is the common point with that of 予戒令.

Rule about the vagrancy loitering

予戒令第 Article 2 first "ニ legitimate ノ occupation ヲ 求 メ 之 ニ engagement スヘキコトヲ lives in the constant ノ period"

Police criminal punishment law Article 1 third "uniformity ノ house again ハ occupation no クシテ all over the place ニ loitering through person ハ" [ノ custody ニ 処 less than 30 days]

Rule about the interference with a person's duty

予戒令第 Article 2 second "total テ another person ノ establishment through meeting ニ entrance re-interference ヲ 為 スヘカラサルヲ lives"

"ハ a great number of people motion ノ case ニ 於 テ late (a thing) Lanny noise シ gets person from ハ furious ニ 渉 ル Al Tokiha police officer ハ 之 ヲ control シ it ノ life ニ 従 ハサルトキハ spot twist withdrawal セシムルコトヲ a meeting Security Police Act Article 12 again again"

Administrative execution method Article 1…Administrative office ハ …Assault, struggle it ノ other community ヲ harm スルノ fear Al person ニ vs. シ 之 ヲ prevention through 為" [necessary null 検束 ヲ 為 スヲ profit]

In addition, I point to "criminal law" (April 24, 1907 law 45th) of the existing law that is "member of the House of Representatives election laws" (March 29, 1900 law 73rd) that "the member of the House of Representatives election laws criminal laws are full-scale revised law of "member of the House of Representatives election laws" (February 11, 1889 law third) with ノ revision" of the citations and full-scale revised law of the former criminal law. The comparisons between 予戒令 and said laws and ordinances are as follows.

Rule about the threat act

予戒令第 Article 2 third…Re-ヒ letter missive ヲ 送 for property ヲ extortion シ injustice ノ demand ヲ 為 シ strong テ meeting ヲ 求 メ threat ニ 渉 ル document ヲ; is ハ again…Great violence ヲ 示 protagonist another person ノ advance or retreat opinion ヲ change セシメントシ it ノ other another person ノ duties act ヲ interference シ again ハ interference セントスルノ behavior ヲ 為 スヘカラサルコトヲ lives"

刑法第222条「生命、身体、自由、名誉又ハ財産ニ対シ害ヲ加フ可キコトヲ以テ人ヲ脅迫シタル者ハ一年以下ノ懲役ニ処ス」

刑法第223条「生命、身体、自由、名誉又ハ財産ニ対シ害ヲ加フ可キコトヲ以テ脅迫シ又ハ暴行ヲ用ヒ人ヲシテ義務ナキ事ヲ行ハシメ又ハ行フ可キ権利ヲ妨害シタル者ハ三年以下ノ懲役ニ処ス」

衆議院議員選挙法第88条「左ノ各号ニ該当スル者ハ二月以上二年以下ノ軽禁錮ニ処シ五円以上百円以下ノ罰金ヲ附加ス」

第一号 選挙ニ関シ選挙人ニ暴行脅迫ヲ加ヘ若ハ之ヲ拐引シタル者

第二号 選挙人ニ対シ往来ノ便ヲ妨ケ又ハ詐偽ノ手段ヲ以テ選挙権ノ行使ヲ妨害シ若ハ投票ヲ為サシメタル者

第三号 選挙ニ関シ選挙人又ハ其ノ関係アル社寺、学校、会社、組合、市町村等ニ対スル用水、小作、債権、其ノ他利害ノ関係ヲ利用シ選挙人ヲ威遍シタル者

犯罪の共同行為に関する規定

予戒令第2条第4号「人ヲ使用シテ総テ他人ノ開設スル集会ヲ妨害シ又ハ妨害セントシ又ハ他人ノ業務行為ニ干渉シテ其ノ自由ヲ妨害シ又ハ妨害セントスルノ所業ヲ為サシメ…予戒命令ヲ受ケタル者ヲ扶助シ…使用スヘカラサルコトヲ命ス」

刑法第61条「人ヲ教唆シテ犯罪ヲ実行セシメタル者ハ正犯ニ準ス」

刑法第62条「正犯ヲ幇助シタル者ハ従犯トス」

刑法第63条「従犯ノ刑ハ正犯ノ刑ニ照シテ減刑ス」

複数個の改正法の中で、特に改正刑法においては、「脅迫の罪」（改正刑法第222条、223条・旧刑法第326-329条）の非親告罪化、「強要」の規定を新たに設けたほか、「信用及び業務に対する罪」（新刑法第233条、234条・旧刑法第267-272条）では、「業務」の範囲の拡大、信用を毀損する罪の新設する点が強調される。

内容

予戒令は、警視庁の長である警視総監、内務省北海道庁の長である北海道庁長官、府県知事が公共の安寧秩序を乱す行為を行った者に対して、「予戒命令」を発する権限を与えていた。

第一条 定義

「公共ノ安寧秩序ヲ保持スル為」

予戒令が定める「公共の安寧秩序」を乱した者とは、

1. 「一定の生業を持たず平常から粗暴な言論を常とする者」
2. 「他人の開設した集会を妨害し、または妨害しようとする者」
3. 「脅迫して他人の財物を取得し、面会を強要し、暴威によって他人の意見を変更させ、その他、他人の業務行為に干渉し、その自由を妨害し、または妨害しようとする者」
4. 「『2.』『3.』の目的を達するために人を使用した者」

の4類型に定義される。

第二条 予戒命令の効力

そして、公共の安寧秩序を乱した者に対して発せられる「予戒命令」は、前述した違法行為に対する中止命令としての性格を有していた。
具体的には、「一定の期間を定め、適法な生業や業務に従事すること（同条第1号）」「集会の妨害行為に対する中止（同条第2号）」「他人の業務行為に対する干渉の中止（同条第3号）」を記載した予戒命令書が違反者に対して交付される手続きをとった。なお、「予戒命令を受けた者を扶助、使用する行為（同条第4号）」も罰則の対象とされていたが、予戒命令を受けた者とこれを扶助した者が親族関係にあったときは、扶助者を罰しないという例外規定があった。

第三条 予戒命令を受けた者の住居変更報告義務

予戒命令を受けた者が現在の住所を変更しようとする時は、転居の前24時間以内に、現住所を管轄する警察署に報告し、転居後24時間以内に新しい住所地を管轄する警察署に届出を行う義務を負わせた。

第四条 罰則

予戒命令を受けた日より3年以内にその命令に違反した者、または第三条の報告義務を怠った者に対して罰則が設けられ、拘留、禁錮などの自由刑のほか科料、罰金の財産刑が課せられた。詳細は以下の通り。

• 「一定の期間内に、適法な生業や業務に従事すること」を命じた予戒命令違反（第2条第1号違反）

3日以上10日以内の拘留、又は、1円以上1円95銭以下の科料

• 「他人の集会の妨害行為」の中止を命じた予戒命令違反（第2条第2号違反）

11日以上2月以内の重禁錮

• 「他人の業務等に対する干渉行為」の中止を命じた予戒命令違反（第2条第3号違反）

1月以上4月以下の重禁錮、ただし、公務に対する干渉行為であるときは刑期の4分の1を加算する

• 「第二条第二号から第三号の目的を達成するために人を扶助、使用する行為」の中止を命じた予戒命令違反（第2条第4号違反）

2月以上6月以下の重禁錮、又は、20円以上200円以下の罰金

• 「住居変更義務」に対する違反（第3条違反）

2円以上20円以下の罰金

第五条 予戒命令の効力要件

予戒命令がその効力を発するためには、以下の要件が要求されていた。

1. 予戒命令書の作成
2. 命令を受ける者の氏名・年齢・職業・本籍・住所等の記載の事実
3. 予戒令の適用条項の記載
4. 予戒命令書の交付の年月日、予戒命令権者の官名および氏名の記載
5. 命令を受ける者に通知し、かつ、その者が居住する地方において告示すること

第六条 予戒命令の解除

予戒命令を受けた日から1年を経過し、かつ、命令を受けた本人に改悛の状が認められるときには、予戒命令権者である警視総監、北海道庁長官、府県知事は予戒命令を解除することができる、と定められていた。

第七条 予戒命令を受けた者の同居人等の報告義務

予戒令では、予戒命令を受けた者を宿泊させ、または、同居させた者に、その事実を管轄する警察署に報告する義務を負わせていた。また、管轄する警察署が予戒命令に関する事項について、事実の申立てを要求した場合には、宿泊人または同居人はその事実を申し立てる義務も負っていた。
報告義務違反、不実の申立てを行った者に対しては罰則が設けられており、3円以上100円以下の罰金が課せられていた。

第八条 刑事罰執行地

予戒令に違反した者の処罰は、違反者の現在の住所地を管轄する監獄で執り行われていた。

第九条 施行期日

予戒令は発布の日より施行された。

脚注

1. ^ 『予戒令（副本）』 アジア歴史資料センター Ref.A03033929600  第26画像目より
2. ^ 中原英典、「予戒令」小史 Ref.28(12)1978.12 ISSN 0034-2912 p.6
3. ^ 読売新聞 ［東京版］明治25年2月27日付朝刊 .. 国立国会図書館(製作) マイクロフィルムリール
4. ^ 枢密院が審議する勅令案には「本住所ニ復帰スル」ことを命じる条文があり「居住及移転ノ自由」を定める憲法に違反する可能性が指摘された。なお、該条の文言は明治25年1月20日の予戒令総委員会修正案によって削除された。
5. ^ ^{a b} 『予戒令（副本）』 アジア歴史資料センター Ref.A03033929600  第29画像目より
6. ^ 『予戒令（副本）』 アジア歴史資料センター Ref.A03033929600  第72画像目より
7. ^ [1] 帝国議会会議録検索システム 第4回帝国議会衆議院議事速記録第39号 明治26年2月20日 第11画像目より「予戒令廃止建議案」
8. ^ 『治安維持法中改正ノ件』 アジア歴史資料センター Ref.A03033171200 
9. ^ 中原秀典 「前掲書」および 読売新聞 ［東京版］.. 国立国会図書館(製作) マイクロフィルムリールより作成
10. ^ 中原秀典 「前掲書」 p.24
11. ^ 読売新聞 ［東京版］明治25年2月9日から2月11日付朝刊 ..国立国会図書館(製作)マイクロフィルムリール
12. ^ 読売新聞 ［東京版］明治40年7月4日付朝刊 ..国立国会図書館(製作) マイクロフィルムリールより 虚構の風説を流布し財界をかく乱させたとして東京日の出新聞記者2名と日本興信所理事1名が予戒令第2条第2号及び第3号の適用を受けたとの記載
13. ^ 中原秀典 「前掲書」 p.32-33
14. ^ [2] 帝国議会会議録検索システム 第14回帝国議会衆議院議事速記録第5号 明治32年12月2日 第1画像目より 「選挙干渉ニ関スル質問趣意書」
15. ^ 上に同じ。 第5画像目より 佐賀、静岡、徳島、奈良、和歌山の各県において地方官による選挙干渉が行われたとの記載
16. ^ ^{a b} 中原秀典 「前掲書」 p.28 および 『枢密院決議・一、予戒令廃止ノ件・大正三年一月十四日決議』 アジア歴史資料センター Ref.A03034045500  第19画像目より作成
17. ^ 明治37年以降の合計の計算に使用した資料『枢密院決議・一、予戒令廃止ノ件・大正三年一月十四日決議』は地方別の値が不記載であるため、合計値と地方別合計が一致しない。
18. ^ 中原秀典 「前掲書」 p.34
19. ^ ^{a b} 『予戒令廃止ノ件』 アジア歴史資料センター Ref.A03033093100  第2画像目から第8画像目

参考文献

書籍

• 亀卦川 浩 (1967) 『明治地方制度成立史』
• 警視庁 (1980) 『警視庁年表』（増補・改訂版） pp.46-47.
• 国立国会図書館蔵 「井上馨関係文書」第46冊（複製版） 予戒令廃止案ニ対スル意見
• 高橋雄豺 (1963) 『明治警察史研究』〔第3巻〕「明治25年の選挙干渉」 pp.239-258.
• 中原 秀典(1978). 「予戒令」小史 Ref.28(12)1978-12 国立国会図書館調査立法考査局 28, 24-35

デジタルアーカイブス

• JACAR（アジア歴史資料センター） Ref.A03020122100、御署名原本・明治二十五年・勅令第十一号・予戒令（国立公文書館）
• JACAR（アジア歴史資料センター） Ref.A03020995200、御署名原本・大正三年・勅令第四号・予戒令廃止（国立公文書館）
• JACAR（アジア歴史資料センター） Ref.A03033093100、予戒令廃止ノ件（国立公文書館）
• JACAR（アジア歴史資料センター） Ref.A03033929600、予戒令（副本）（国立公文書館）
• 国立公文書館 デジタルアーカイブ 「治安警察法案貴族院ニ於テ否決ス」

関連項目

ウィキソースに予戒令の原文があります。

• 第2回衆議院議員総選挙 本令の施行日の3週間後に行われた衆議院総選挙
• 保安条例 本令と同じく治安立法の性格を有する勅令

この項目は、法分野に関連した書きかけの項目です。この項目を加筆・訂正などしてくださる協力者を求めています（P:法学/PJ法学）。

「https://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=予戒令&oldid=56551517」から取得

This article is taken from the Japanese Wikipedia 予戒令

This article is distributed by cc-by-sa or GFDL license in accordance with the provisions of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia and Tranpedia does not guarantee the accuracy of this document. See our disclaimer for more information.

In addition, Tranpedia is simply not responsible for any show is only by translating the writings of foreign licenses that are compatible with CC-BY-SA license information.