² [A copy of this issue of Kampô has been located in the Japan Institute Collection, now administered as part of Columbia University Libraries; a microfilm reproduction of this copy has been ordered for the Library of Congress. The census figures, however, were reprinted in Hôrei zemho (Complete laws and statutes), April, 1941, pp. 559–653, as Naikaku kokuji no. 6; these figures consist of only population totals by place arid sex. Statistics of age composition, marital status, and occupational distribution—the complete reports of the 1940 census—had not been published by December 1941, and very possibly may not be released even in Japan until after the conclusion of the present war.

I have translated jinkô kakutei-sû as “determined population figures” in order to indicate that they are based upon an actual count, and not upon some method of sampling, as were those in Chûshutsu chôsa ni yoru Shôwa gonen kokusei chôsa kekka no gaikan (General survey of the results of the 1930 census, based upon a sample), published in December, 1932. I do not believe, however, that “definitive” would be an appropriate translation, as these figures contain certain inconsistencies which undoubtedly will be discovered and rectified in the tabulation of the detailed tables.

In the appendix (furoku) to the same volume of Hôrei zensho, p. 43, the totals for the various parts of the Japanese Empire are given as follows:

Nihon chimei daijiten, compiled by Sawada Hisao , 6 vols., Tôkyô, 1937–38, is a very convenient though not infallible aid in the reading of place-names which appear in the census reports. The Sawada list is based upon the 1935 census, and contains no reference to incorporations and amalgamations which took place after September 30, 1937. The readings are given in the Nihon-shiki transcription. A still more serious difficulty is that the list contains a number of errors, and the readings are sometimes at variance even with those given in the main body of the work. If used with care, however, the list is exceedingly valuable. Japan proper is covered in vol. 1, pp. 1–191; Taiwan, in vol. 2, pp. 1–61; and Chôsen, Karafuto, Kwantô-shû, and Nanyô guntô in vol. 3, pp. 1–48.]

³ [I suggest this term as a possible translation of gaichijin jin , i.e., the people of Chôsen, Taiwan, and Karafuto.]

⁴ [Detailed instructions relating to the enumeration of these persons are given on the back of the official enumeration form (Kokusei chôsa shinkoku sho . A specimen of this form, which was prepared by the Statistical Bureau of the Cabinet (Naikaku tôkei-kyoku) appears in the edition of Genkô hôrei shûran (Laws in force) which was published on December 15, 1940; Section 6, sub-section 4: The national census (Kokusei chôsa), pp. 242/1–242/2].

⁵ [In this and in several other places in this article the author has rounded his figures to a certain number of ten thousands . Where possible, I have filled out the figures from the author's tables.]

⁶ [ 1879–1940, former president of the Tôkyô University of Commerce (Tôkyô shôka daigaku).]

⁷ [The most extensive statement of this policy I have seen is contained in the article entitled “Jinkô mondai wo dô suru ka (What shall be done about our population problem?),” prepared by the Kikaku-in (Planning Board) and published in Shûhô (Weekly Bulletin) Feb. 12, 1941, pp. 23–31 and Feb. 19, 1941, pp. 36–45.]

⁸ For example, if, in connection with the emigration to Manchoukuo, we examine the population in the former South Manchurian Railway Zone at the time of the several national censuses, (we find that) there were (approximately) 231,000 in 1920; 288,000 in 1925; 372,000 in 1930; and 523,000 in 1935. [I am unable to verify and complete these figures, as the census reports for this area are not available. The 1935 edition (published in Dec. 1936) of the Kantô-kyoku … tôkei-sho (Statistics of Kwantung province), p. 13, gives somewhat lower figures; since these statistics refer to conditions at the end of each year cited, they presumably are based on public registers rather than actual census enumeration. They are as follows: 1920: 177,851; 1925: 274,625; 1930: 352,097; 1935: 501,396. These figures are not analyzed by nationality.] It is true that many Japanese are included in these figures, and the numbers of those of that nationality seem to be increasing rapidly at present. It is reported that on April 1 of this year [1941] there were approximately 506,000 Japanese nationals [hompô jin] residing in the Republic of China [Chung-hua min-kuo] (there were approximately 86,000 in July, 1937); and that there were approximately 36,000 Japanese citizens from Japan proper [naichi iin] residing in Mongolia on July 1 of last year [1940].

⁹ The 1920 population figures of Chôsen are those of the public registers ; omissions are probably very numerous. [The Japanese administrators were unable to take a census of Chôsen in 1920, owing to disturbed conditions in that country. The regulations under which the census was to be conducted, and the forms to be used in it, were printed in Chôsen hôrei shûian (Laws in force in Chôsen) edition of Nov. 29, 1920, section 5, sub-section 4: Kotusei chôsa. Taishô kunen kokusei chôsa kijutsu-hen (Descriptive summary of the 1920 census), p. 3, states that a population survey based on public registers was conducted instead of the proposed census. The figures deriving from this survey have been reprinted in all later statistical publications; we find them, for example, in the 1930 volume (published in 1932) of Chôsen sôtokufu tôkei nempô (Statistical annual of the Government-general of Chôsen). The first real census of Chôsen, therefore, was taken in 1925.]

¹⁰ [Counting from the traditional date of Jimmu Tennô's accession, February 11, 660 B. C.]

¹¹ From the standpoint of population phenomena, Niigata prefecture would be included in the Tôhoku region; the three prefectures of Toyama, Ishikawa, and Fukui would constitute Hokuriku; the five prefectures of Nagano, Gifu, Aichi, Shizuoka, and Mie would constitute Tôkai. The other prefectures would be in agreement with the usual classification.

¹² [Kôjima Reikichi], Chûshô toshi no hatten to sono tôsei [The development and regulation of medium and small cities] (Dai shichi kai zenkoku toshi mondai kaigi kenkyû hôkoku, dai issatsu [Research report of the seventh national conference on municipal problems, vol. 1]).

¹³ [In this translation I have attempted to make this table clearer by placing the dates in a column at the left of the cities.]

¹⁴ [The basic law of municipal incorporation is printed in Hôrei zensho Apr. 1888, Hôritsu no. 1, pp. 1–92. The list of the first 36 cities incorporated under this law may be found in ibid., Feb. 1889, Naimushô kokuji no. 1, dated Feb. 2, and put into effect on Apr. 1.]

¹⁵ [The names of the 48 shi and 4 ku can be found in Nihon teikoku … tôkei nenkan (Statistical annual of the Japanese empire), no. 20 (1901), pp. 43–48; the 61 shi and 5 ku can be found in ibid., no. 29 (1910), pp. 46–47. Nawa-ku and Shuri-ku in Okinawa were created in 1896; Sapporo-ku and Hakodate-ku in Hokkaidô originally were created in 1879, but were joined by Otaru-ku in the law of 1899. Hokkaidô-chô … tôkei-sho (Statistical report of Hokkaidô) no. 13 (1903), p. 9; Nihon toshi nenkan (Japanese municipal yearbook) no. 1, (1931), pp. 24–35; and Hôrei zensho, Sept. 1899, Naimushô-rei no. 8.]

¹⁶ (These figures are) based upon the municipal boundaries as they were at the time of each of the censuses. In each census the population is given as of October 1. In case of figures below 1,000, those below 500 are disregarded; those of 500 and over are rounded to the next thousand.

¹⁷ The basic materials for this article were all assembled with the assistance of Miss Kawano Nobuko , who, together with Mr. Ishikawa Naohira compiled the tables which are appended. I here express my thanks to them. [It does not detract from the services of these assistants if I point out that in some cases their function was rather to bring up to date material which the Tôkyô Institute for Municipal Research had published from year to year in its Nihon toshi nenkan. For example, in no. 9 (1940) we find Table 1, based on municipal boundaries as. of July 1, 1939, on pp. 60–65; and Table 2, giving the 1938 population estimates of 150 cities together with the census populations of each of the previous enumerations on pp. 66–73.]