<論説>専用漁業権漁場における共同用益の諸形態 : 瀬戸内海水域を中心に

Abstract

明治末年の沿岸水域における漁場用益形態は専用漁業権およびそれに伴なつて定められた入漁権、ならびに専用漁業権免許状に記された条件制限条項にもとづいて規制されていた。これらの用益権のうち慣行専用漁業権は従来の通説では幕末当時の漁場用益形態をほぼそのまま継承したものとされ、反面地先水面専用漁業権は地元漁村ごとに地先水面を細分して与えられたものとされているが、実際は明治維新後漁民自身の手で改められた点も多く、またこの二つの専用漁業権の区別もさほど明確ではない。その結果複雑な様相を示すところの専用漁業権にもとづく漁場用益の諸形態を、その実態に即して、 (1) 単独用益か、共同用益か、 (2) 用益範囲は地先水面のみか、沖合のみか、または地先も沖合も含むかと云う二つの視点から類型化し、更に入漁権および条件制限にもとづく入漁がいかに行なわれていたかを検討することによつて、それらがそれぞれいかなる意味をもつていたかを考えてみた。結論を言えば、明治末年と言う時点では、もはや少数漁村による広い水域の完全な独占は不可能で、むしろ広汎な地域にわたる多数漁村の共同用益こそ自然な姿であつたのであるが、その用益権に強弱の差があり、なお旧来の排他的漁場独占が上からの政策に支えられてある程度生きのびていつた所に、法と現実との矛盾が間もなく露呈されてくる原因があつたと言えよう。

Usufruct forms of inshore fishing ground at the end of Meiji 明治, were regulated by exclusive fishing right, common of fishery therewith, and terms on the bill of exclusive right. Among these usufructs customary exclusive right of fishery, as the former opinions went, almost completely succeeded that of the late Shogunate period, but exclusive right of the surface on the coast was given to each local fishing village by dividing the surface area into pieces. In fact, after the Imperial Restoration, fishermen amended many for themselves and the distinction between these two rights is not so clear. Then this article explains the classification from the two points : (1) whether it was individual or common usufruct, (2) limit of usufruct was to the coastal surface or only to the offing or both the coastal surface and the offing; and considers their meaning by studying how the common of fishery and fishery on terms were executed. In conclusion, at the end of Meiji few fishing villages could no longer monopolize a large water area, but common usufruct of many villages over the wide area was a natural phenomenon, though the usufruct had its variation of strength and the old exclusive right remained to some degree depending upen the governmental policy. That is the reason the contradiction between law and reality soon appears.