Abstract
The Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce (later Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) had been in charge of dog rabies prevention in Japan, but on April 11, 1929, the Ministry of Interior (later MoH) and Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce issued a directive on rabies prevention, officially transferring control of the matter to the Ministry of Interior. When a rabies pandemic broke out in 1923, the Ministry of Interior sponsored a meeting for the prevention of rabies, in preference to the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce, which was the competent authority at the time. The Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce and the Ministry of the Interior opposed this decision, and a debate ensued as to which ministry should be responsible for rabies prevention.
In 1923, an outbreak of rabies centered in Osaka Prefecture resulted in a string of victims that could not be ignored from a public health standpoint. In July 1924, Yamada, director of the Health Bureau of the Ministry of Home Affairs (the government agency in charge of public health at the time), convened a meeting of the Prevention Council from the Ministry of Home Affairs.
When the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce’s Director General of the Livestock Bureau, Mr. Miura, who had previously had jurisdiction over rabies, was also asked to participate, he protested to Director General Yamada.
The reasons were,
(1) Rabies prevention affairs should be under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce.
(2) Insofar as the content of the proposed consultation mainly concerns the control of livestock and dogs, this matter should be organized by the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce under the Livestock Infectious Disease Prevention Law.
It seems that the Prevention Council organized by the Ministry of the Interior brought into sharp relief the conflict between the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) and the Ministry of the Interior, which is in charge of rabies prevention affairs.
Protest letter by Director of the Miura Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce (excerpts)
・The purpose of this meeting is to study how to control domestic dogs, mainly from the viewpoint of rabies prevention.
・The control of domestic dogs from the standpoint of rabies prevention is under the control of the Minister of Agriculture and Commerce in accordance with the provisions of the Domestic Animal Infectious Disease Prevention Law.
・Therefore, it is not reasonable for the Director General of the Health Bureau of the Ministry of the Interior to hold a meeting to study how to control domestic dogs from the standpoint of rabies prevention. If necessary, he should inquire with the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce in relation to rabies, and if there is an order, he should apply to the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce.
・If the Bureau of Public Health desires an explanation of the Department of Agriculture and Commerce’s work on rabies prevention, I will attend the meeting, but I have no right to attend a meeting hosted by the Bureau of Public Health.
As stated above, Mr. Miura of the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce insists that rabies prevention affairs belong to the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce and should not be sponsored by the Health Bureau of the Ministry of the Interior.
Reply by Mr. Yamada, Ministry of Interior (excerpts)
・I have not carefully studied the structure of the regulations.
・I think it is natural that the Bureau of Public Health, which is in charge of rabies prevention, should handle rabies prevention and dog control, since, according to common sense, rabies prevention is mainly concerned with the prevention of hydrophobic.
・However, since the current system is not as described above, and rabies and dog control is the responsibility of the Animal Husbandry Bureau of the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce, it is only natural that the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce should be asked to stop this type of work.
・However, since we have already invited all parties to this meeting, it should be held as an informal meeting.
While understanding the arguments made by Director Miura, Director of the Livestock Bureau of the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce, we insist that this meeting of the Council should be held.
Despite the above discussions, the Preventive Council remained hosted by the Ministry of the Interior.
The problem of the transfer of rabies prevention work arose as a result of the above circumstances. Finally, in 1926, the Ministry of the Interior proposed this transfer to the Administrative Investigation Committee(*) , and in 1927, the following year, the Administrative Investigation Special Committee reported that the rabies prevention work should be transferred to the Ministry of the Interior.
In January 1928, based on the resolution of the Administrative Committee, the Secretary General of the Cabinet issued a Cabinet decision regarding the transfer of rabies prevention work. With this decision, the issue of the transfer was resolved, and the transfer was carried out on April 11, 1929.
In the meantime, however, the directors of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Ministry of the Interior each developed their own theory, and they remained in disagreement until the very end.
(*) Organization to deliberate on basic matters concerning the improvement of management
From 1923 to 1925, there was an outbreak of more than 3,000 rabid dogs, resulting in a large number of rabies cases. By 1928, however, the number of rabid dogs had been drastically reduced to 441. This was the result of the desperate efforts of the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) to prevent rabies, and it is important to understand that the transfer of rabies prevention duties took place as the rabies epidemic was coming to an end.
Reference：
山脇圭吉. 日本帝國家畜傳染病豫防史. 獣疫調査所, 昭和11年.