XXV. SCIENCE, AGRICULTURE, CIVILISING MEASURES

[Sidenote: A Marvellous Transformation.]

Within the lifetime of men who may still be accounted young, the words that stand at the head of this chapter had no application to any part of Central Africa. Science, in all its forms, was utterly unknown there; agriculture can hardly be said to have existed, though a few of the tribes raised scanty crops of a nature that needed little or no attention; while of civilising measures there were absolutely none. These concomitants of long-established civilisation followed naturally the advent of the Belgians; and they have ever since, year by year, taken root, and spread until there are no two countries in the world more dissimilar than the Central Africa of thirty years ago and the Central Africa of to-day.

[Sidenote: The Gospel of Thoroughness.]

Realising to the full that complete success in any undertaking is only possible where all the conditions affecting it are thoroughly understood, the Congo State, early in its career, established nineteen scientific stations, at various points throughout its territories, for the collection of data relating to anthropology, botany, ethnography, geology, philology, pisciculture, mineralogy, zoölogy, etc., and for trigonometrical and astronomical surveys. Each of these stations is in charge of an expert, with properly qualified assistants. They have transmitted to Europe a whole literature of monographs, of great interest and value, upon all sorts of subjects, and their field of work is still far from being exhausted. The study of the Congo climate by these savants has proved especially valuable, their recommendations as to regimen, dress, habitation, etc., for travellers and settlers, having reduced the death rate of the whites to six per cent., thus dispelling for ever the old notion of the deadliness of Central Africa, and showing it to be at least as healthful as India, and healthier than either German East Africa, the Cameroons, the Niger Territory, or Cochin China. A small, but continual and increasing, influx of Europeans and Americans demonstrates the gradual abandonment of fear of the Congo climate, and faith in the hygienic system inaugurated by the Belgians,—a system which maintains sixteen State doctors to watch over and report upon the health of the various stations, and a permanent Hygienic Commission, which sits at Boma.

[Sidenote: Museum at Tervueren.]

At the royal palace of Tervueren, near Brussels, now used as a public museum, are exhibited nearly eight thousand objects illustrating industry and art among the primitive peoples of Central Africa, such as costumes, dwellings, musical instruments, and implements of hunting, fishing, agriculture, river navigation, and war. The museum also contains several thousand geological, mineralogical, and zoölogical specimens, and a very comprehensive herbarium, all collected within the borders of the Congo Free State. The latter is of particular interest, containing specimens of more than four hundred new species.

From the first it has been the unswerving policy of the Congo Free State to promote, by every means at its disposal, the advancement of science as it affects, and as it is affected by, conditions prevailing within its territories. Until the Belgians came among them, smallpox from time to time decimated the natives, and was as great an evil as the slave trade or their own internecine wars. They had no conception of its prevention or cure, and submitted to its ravages with unintelligent dumb passivity as a providential visitation impossible to resist. The white man with his vaccine was a revelation to them; and though they at first refused to believe in its efficacy, and would not accept vaccination, they soon perceived the error of their disbelief; and now they voluntarily come to the Belgian medical officers asking to be vaccinated. Both Boma and New Antwerp have vaccine producing institutions, and vaccine is also distributed from Coquilhatville and Stanleyville. The results are most gratifying; for although, unfortunately, smallpox is by no means stamped out of the Congo State it is far less prevalent and less virulent than formerly, so that it is not unreasonable to look for its practical extinction in the near future.

[Sidenote: The Sleeping Sickness.]

To the present, Science has proved powerless to cope with that strange malady, the sleeping-sickness. The ablest physicians, not only of Belgium, but of England, France, and Germany, have studied the disease exhaustively. Though much valuable data relating to its cause and effect have been collected, the discovery of its antidote seems as far off to-day as ever. The prevalence of this fatal sickness among its people makes it a subject of vital concern to the Congo Government, which is unceasingly vigilant in seeking to discover the means for its extinction or alleviation. In its pursuit of this object, all possible facilities have been afforded to foreign doctors visiting the Congo State. By request of the English medical faculty, three Congolese patients, suffering from sleeping sickness, were recently sent to the School of Tropical Medicine at Liverpool. On another occasion two others were sent to the Charing Cross Hospital in London. Animals have been infected with the germs of the disease, and its every symptom, from inception to climax, noted with minute accuracy. The disease, which is invariably fatal, appears to be on the increase, and there have been many victims of it on the Gold Coast as well as in the Congo State. For some obscure reason this dreadful malady has been strictly confined to individuals of the black race. Notwithstanding its want of success in combating the evil, the Congo Government may congratulate itself that it has neglected no precaution, and spared no expense, in its effort to mitigate what may conceivably develop into a veritable plague.[25]

In numerous ways has the Congo Government applied modern science to the uplifting and general betterment of the people over whom it rules, without distinction of colour or creed. Twenty-seven medical men, holders of European diplomas, twenty Health Committees scattered throughout the country, a Bacteriological Institute, and a Hospital for Natives at Boma not only labour for the cure of disease, but disseminate as widely as possible among the natives knowledge of the laws of health. On the whole, the work has been marvellously productive of good results, and the native is now incomparably more healthful, cleaner, better fed, and better housed than at any previous period of his history.

[Sidenote: Progress of Agriculture.]

[Sidenote: Horses and Cattle.]

Thirty years ago what is now the Congo Free State was a wild tangle of luxuriant tropical growth through which hordes of black savages roamed, fought, and practised their unspeakable barbarities, living almost entirely upon the spontaneous products of Nature. The white magician has waved his wand and the scene is transformed. In, and far around, each of the numerous governmental stations or posts, life and property are as secure now as in any part of Europe or America. The spade and the hoe have displaced the throwing-spear and poisoned arrow in the hands of the native. Where the shy antelope or spring-bok browsed, remote from human intrusion, the soil is now turned up by the plough, and devoted to the growing of coffee, cocoa, tea (of the Assam variety) and various condiments, cinnamon, pepper, ginger, nutmegs, cloves, vanilla, etc. The establishments for the breeding of cattle, horses, and donkeys, particularly in the Enclave of Lado, in Ruzizi-Kivu, Equateur, Bangala, and Lualaba-Kassai, are numerous and increasing. Latest accounts to hand state that they exceed seventy. Many of the natives display considerable aptitude in learning how to tend herds of cattle. Great expense has been incurred by the State and by various companies in the purchase and importation of pedigree horses and cattle. The animals have been selected from the best European stocks by experts, and assigned to various breeding establishments throughout the country. The enterprise has proved extremely successful, the number of cattle of European origin now in the State being no fewer than 4500, with sixty horses, and nearly as many donkeys.

In following agricultural employments the natives receive liberal encouragement from the Government. The State offers rewards for the cultivation of coffee and cocoa. At all suitable stations is a coffee and cocoa nursery, established by the State; that is to say, the State has supplied the necessary seeds, and contracts to allow an indemnity for each shrub on its attaining two feet in height, and to pay the native half the value of its produce less the cost of transport to Europe.

[Sidenote: Coffee.]

Coffee has been found to flourish most in the districts of Equateur and Aruwimi, and in the zone of Stanley Falls. Liberica, Arabian, and Guadaloupe are the varieties which have been selected as suited to the Congo soil and climate. The number of coffee plants has increased from 61,517 in 1894, to 1,996,200 in 1902. Cocoa plants numbered no fewer than 298,003 in 1902, an increase of 284,136 in ten years!

In 1899 the State erected a factory for the preparation of coffee at Kinshassa, and adopted several new methods, improvements upon the practice in vogue in countries where coffee has been cultivated for generations. After being dried at the plantations, the coffee is placed in sacks and sent in State steamers to Stanley Pool, and thence to the Kinshassa factory. So good is the quality of Congo coffee that in 1894 it realised no less than 100 francs per 100 kilogrammes in the open market at Antwerp.

Caoutchouc (rubber), for countless ages wholly a spontaneous product of the forests, every year becomes more and more an object of cultivation. By a decree dated January 5, 1899, it is provided that in all the forests of the domain caoutchouc trees shall be planted in the proportion of 150 feet to the ton of caoutchouc collected during the same period. By a subsequent decree, dated six months later, the number of caoutchouc trees to be planted for each ton of caoutchouc collected was raised from 150 feet to 500 feet. The enforcement of these decrees is attended to by a staff of foresters, consisting of eight controllers and twelve sub-controllers, working under a chief inspector.

[Sidenote: Collecting Rubber.]

Until prohibited by State decree, the method of collecting caoutchouc practised by the natives was to make an incision in the plant (liana), and allow the fluid to run into a jar. Sometimes they allowed it to run into their hands, and afterwards smeared it over their bodies, and in that manner it was conveyed to market, where it was rubbed off with sand. It was an exceedingly wasteful method, or rather want of method, for the plant thus drawn from was necessarily killed. Only the prodigious quantity of plants existing on the Upper Congo and its tributaries has saved it from extinction. Now caoutchouc is harvested by extracting the fluid from the stem of the plant in a way that does it no injury, a scientific yet simple operation easily performed by women and children. The industry has assumed enormous proportions. The number of caoutchouc plants put into the ground by companies and by the State are valued at five million francs. The rubber annually produced in the world amounts at present to something over 30,000 tons, of which the Congo Free State exports 5000 tons.

[Sidenote: The Rubber Plant.]

In the African forests the caoutchouc or rubber-bearing plant grows to a great height, often exceeding 100 feet. It is commonly about six inches in diameter at its base, and shoots upward to the light through a dense mass of tropical growth until, failing to find further support, it falls upon the branches of the tallest trees, and spreads itself over them. There are numerous other plants of the same genus which closely resemble it, but their sap lacks the qualities of true rubber. For several years past the State has experimented with these plants, and has sent specimens of them to the authorities at the Botanical Gardens at Brussels, Kew, Berlin, and Paris, for investigation. The ever-increasing demand for rubber for use in the industries stimulates the inquiry as to whether or not it is possible to so treat what is now regarded as “false rubber” that it shall serve all the purposes of “true rubber.”

Amongst the true rubber lianas in which the Congo Basin abounds are the following: Ficus altissima, ficus Eetveldeana, ficus elastica, ficus nekbuda, ficus religiosa, manihot glaziovii (French name, ceara), clitandra Arnoldiana (native name, mondongo), funtumia elastica (French name, Ireh), landolphia gentillii, and the landolphia owariensis (native name, matofe mengo).

Constant experiments are being made, privately and by the State, in the production of copal, sugar, tobacco, and cotton, with results that justify the confident expectation that at no distant date they will be profitably exported. The cultivation of the vine, and of numerous fruits and grasses, receives also much attention, and is full of promise.

[Sidenote: Elephants and Ivory.]

African ivory is everywhere esteemed for its superiority in colour and hardness to the Indian variety. The large herds of elephants inhabiting the forests of the Congo State provide, at present, an enormous supply; but the Government wisely takes into account the possibility of its exhaustion, and has prohibited the shooting of elephants. Wise laws also regulate the cutting and export of lumber; and the folly of denuding vast regions of trees, such as we have been guilty of in America, will not be repeated on the Congo.

[Sidenote: Civilising Influences.]

In every way the State has exerted its utmost influence to effect the moral improvement of the native races, and its efforts have met with much success. Their liberty and property are very carefully guarded. Polygamy is not only discountenanced, it is penalised, no polygamist being eligible for employment, whether military or civil, by the State. Christian marriages between natives, which ten years ago numbered eighty-four, now take place by thousands every year.

Alcohol is prohibited over 2,337,500 square kilometres of Congo territory, the zone within which its sale is tolerated extending to only 12,500 square kilometres, where its abuse is guarded against by carefully devised restrictions, rigidly enforced. The sale of absinthe is absolutely forbidden in every part of the Congo Free State.

It thus appears that, as the guardian of the welfare of its people, the Congo Free State has nothing to learn, either in theory or practice, from the most enlightened governments of the world.

FOOTNOTES:

[25] In the opinion of scientists, sleeping sickness is due to a trypanomous microbe, the propagating agent of which is the tsetse fly.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XXVI. TRADE, REVENUE, AND TAXES

Among the earlier trading companies on the West Coast of Africa was the house of Regis et Cie., established at Banana in 1858, whose successors, Daumas, Béraud et Cie., were carrying on a considerable business when Stanley explored inland from the mouth of the Congo in 1878. The old Dutch house, the Afrikaansche Handels-Vennootschap, of Rotterdam, had a branch at Boma in 1860, and the Portuguese firm of Valle & Azvedo, and the agents of Hatton & Cookson, of Liverpool, opened trading depots near by a few years later. These firms had, however, very little direct trade with the interior of the Congo Basin, commerce in their early time being confined to the coast. Trade with the interior is almost entirely due to the Belgians.

Before the Free State was founded the trade of Central Africa was chiefly in slaves. As a Belgian writer quaintly observes, the slave was at once the means of labour, the main capital, the vehicle of transport, the common currency, and the usual tribute given to satisfy the covetousness of native chiefs. The slave was the standard of wealth and the element of power. In order to estimate the influence of the slave trade as an economical factor in barbarous communities, and compare it with the trade régime of civilisation, it would be necessary to imagine dealings in some object representing all these uses in our markets.[26]

To destroy the slave trade creates the problem of substituting a trade that is legitimate, that is founded upon the natural resources of the country. It simultaneously creates the problem of labour. The soil depends upon the man in the ratio in which man depends upon the soil. The Belgians heard from Stanley what vast wealth the Congo contained; but that wealth lay behind difficulties so great that no one in Europe ventured to pursue it until the indomitable personality of one man inspired men with the courage to undertake a seemingly hopeless task. Without a railway from Matadi to Stanley Pool commerce could not develop in the Congo Basin. This was Stanley’s opinion. His judgment that the Congo had little value without such a railway in the region of the Cataracts has been justified. The Belgians built the railway at a cost nearly treble that of the original estimate. In fact, while others have been groaning and droning and musing upon the ethical theories of ideal colonisation and civilisation, in pamphlets and innocuous books, the Belgians have followed their own gospel of work and been at their task throughout the waking hours of each day. Spontaneous initiative, timely energy, unremitting labour, these appear to be the characteristics of Belgian dominance in Congoland. Having regard to the habit Europeans have of considering Americans the great exemplars of an age of materialism and hustle, there is almost an element of humour in the fact that one of the first Congolese companies formed under the ægis of the Free State was founded by an American, General Henry S. Sanford, sometime United States Minister at Brussels. This was the Sanford Exploring Expedition, constituted by General Sanford and M. Georges Brugmann in 1887. Its business was that of dealing directly with the natives for rubber and ivory, and it and the Mateba Syndicate and the Compagnie du Congo pour le Commerce et l’Industrie are generally regarded as the pioneers of organised trade in the interior of Central Africa. It would seem, therefore, that the accident of a king’s friendship with an American minister, whose wise counsel he often consulted, might justify at least sentimental interest in the welfare of a region where the restless spirit of strenuous American life had manifested its tendencies nearly twenty years ago. Since the day when General Sanford set the example, forty-eight Belgian and fourteen foreign companies, with an original capital of 136,000,000 francs, have established a commerce in Congoland which is attracting the envy of some and the admiration of many throughout the world.

Before indicating the practical details of the trade and revenue of the State, a brief glance at the ten years before the Brussels Conference enabled it to create its support by levying import duties will recall the fact that from 1878 to 1890 King Leopold personally expended upwards of 3,000,000 francs a year for the founding and maintenance of the State, irrespective of the meagre support derived from other sources. Indeed, no one felt disposed to support an African enterprise which promised to yield only “enlightened niggers.” As Stanley sarcastically said in his lectures in England, too many of his audience measured “civilisation” by the dividends it produced. The inability of the Free State to support itself from enthusiastic humanitarians outside of Belgium was significantly indicated in 1886, when the revenue of the State was less than 75,000 francs! The exports, chiefly ivory, were only 1,750,000 francs, and the Congo Association, when it was merged in the State, possessed only thirteen stations. Out of two hundred and fifty-four foreigners on the Congo in 1885-1886, only forty-six were Belgians. In fact, nothing looked gloomier than the prospect of the new State in the African jungle; and yet one man, with a superhuman sense of the future, continued to pour gold and his labours upon that dark and distant land with its thirty million unenlightened souls. Now, when from a wilderness and savagery have been evolved civilisation, a thriving industry, a prolific field and growing market, religion, order, and prosperity, all that the early pioneer did is utterly lost and forgotten in the noisy controversy over a rich spoil.

It was by the Brussels Act of 1890 that the State acquired the right to levy taxes and impose customs dues. What Leopold II. had expended on behalf of the State in its long formative period was beyond recovery. It will be recalled that the Belgian Parliament had sanctioned a loan to the State of 25,000,000 francs, 5,000,000 francs to be paid soon after the Brussels Conference, the remainder at the rate of 2,000,000 francs a year. To this sum the King, having abandoned all claim to the huge sum he had previously advanced to the State, now added an annual subsidy of 1,000,000 francs. The State, therefore, began the development of its resources with an assured income of 3,000,000 francs a year—not a large sum when compared with the responsibility of fighting cannibal slave-raiders with one hand while tilling the soil, constructing railways, creating posts and missions, and organising the State’s machinery with the other. Beside the task in Congoland, the early American colonist enjoyed a holiday in a land of greater security and healthfulness.

The revenues first provided were on the export of rubber and ivory. These were fixed, after agreement with the neighbouring States of France and Portugal, at ten per cent. The duty on vegetable products was fixed at five per cent. Import duties were as follows: On arms, ammunition, and salt, ten per cent.; merchandise of any kind, six per cent.; on spirits, fifteen francs per hectolitre[27] at 50° of the centesimal alcoholmetre; boats, machinery, and articles for industrial and agricultural use were exempt till May, 1898, and thereafter paid only three per cent.

The tax on caoutchouc (rubber) was first fixed at twenty-five centimes a kilogramme (about five cents on two pounds) equivalent to four per cent. on its value in Europe. When, however, the Cataracts Railway was finished, and human porterage along the route from Stanley Pool to Matadi abolished, the tax on rubber was increased to eight per cent. of its European value. Another decree of the same date (February, 1898) provided for the payment of a licence of 5000 francs by all persons establishing a rubber factory or depôt in the domains. Other sources of revenue are coffee, tea, cocoa, gum-copal, palm oil, palm nuts, rice, tobacco, maize, sugarcane, vegetables, fruit, cinnamon, pepper, ginger, vanilla, nutmegs, cloves, and spices.

Great credit is due the local administrators of the Free State for the progress they have made in a long list of cultivated products, and the growth of the country’s export trade resulting from Belgian and native co-operation and industry. For instance, in 1887 the total exports amounted to only 1,980,441 francs[28], in 1891, 5,353,519 francs, and in 1903, 54,597,835.21.

The following tables indicate at a glance the products imported and exported, their comparison with previous years, and their value:

STATISTICS OF PRODUCTS EXPORTED FROM THE CONGO FREE STATE DURING 1903

———————————+———————————+—————————————+—————————+————————————— | SPECIAL COMMERCE | GENERAL COMMERCE EXPORTS +———————————+—————————————+—————————+————————————— | Quantity | Value |Quantity | Value ———————————+———————————+—————————————+—————————+————————————— |Kilog.[29]| Frs. Cs.| Kilog.|Frs. Cs. Arachides | 328,463| 65,692.60| 461,652| 92,330.40 Coffee | 136,148| 129,340.60| 172,674| 164,040.30 Rubber | 5,917,983|47,343,864.00|6,594,804|52,758,432.00 White Copal| 341,883| 649,577.70| 342,317| 650,402.30 Palm Oil | 1,647,434| 971,986.06|1,848,092| 1,090,374.28 Ivory | 184,954| 3,791,557.00| 353,679| 7,250,419.50 Palm Nuts | 4,957,635| 1,487,290.50|5,909,900| 1,772,970.00 Cocoa | 89,365| 125,111.00| 89,365| 125,111.00 Beans | 740| 222.00| 740| 222.00 Maize | 4,750| 546.25| 4,750| 546.25 Rough Gold | 5| 15,000.00| 5| 15,000.00 Rice | 33,654| 16,827.00| 33,654| 16,827.00 Sésame | | | 35,810| 17,905.00 Tobacco | 235| 70.50| 235| 70.50 Wood | 5 m. 3| 750.00| 5 m. 3| 750.00 | +—————————————+ +————————————— Totals | |54,597,835.21| |63,955,400.53 ———————————+———————————+—————————————+—————————+—————————————

TOTAL VALUE OF EXPORTS FOR 1903

—————————————————————————+—————————————+—————————————— PLACE OF EXPORT | Special | General | Commerce | Commerce —————————————————————————+—————————————+—————————————— |Frs. Cs.|Frs. Cs. Free State | | (Upper Congo) |51,790,451.05|{ Free State | |{54,597,835.21 (Lower Congo) | 2,807,384.16|{ French Possessions | | (Upper Congo) | | 6,738,689.35 Portuguese Possessions | | (Left Bank of the Congo)| | 1,293,043.47 German Possessions | | (West Coast of Africa) | | 895,611.50 Portuguese Possessions | | (Basin of the Shiloango)| | 271,840.18 Portuguese Possessions | | (Sea Coast) | | 158,380.82 —————————————————————————+—————————————+—————————————— Totals |54,597,835.21| 63,955,400.53 —————————————————————————+—————————————+——————————————

COMPARISON OF EXPORTS FOR 1903 WITH THOSE OF PREVIOUS YEARS

——————————————————————————+————————————————————————————— | VALUES YEARS +——————————————+—————————————— | Special | General | Commerce | Commerce ——————————————————————————+——————————————+—————————————— | Frs. Cs.| Frs. Cs. Second half-year, 1886[30]| 886,432.03| 3,456,050.41 Year 1887 | 1,980,441.45| 7,667,969.41 ” 1888 | 2,609,300.35| 7,392,348.17 ” 1889 | 4,297,543.85| 8,572,519.19 ” 1890 | 8,242,199.43| 14,109,781.27 ” 1891 | 5,353,519.37| 10,535,619.25 ” 1892 | 5,487,632.89| 7,529,979.68 ” 1893 | 6,106,134.68| 7,514,791.39 ” 1894 | 8,761,622.15| 11,031,704.48 ” 1895 | 10,943,019.07| 12,135,656.16 ” 1896 | 12,389,599.85| 15,091,137.62 ” 1897 | 15,146,976.32| 17,457,090.85 ” 1898 | 22,163,481.86| 25,396,706.40 ” 1899 | 36,061,959.25| 39,138,283.67 ” 1900 | 47,377,401.33| 51,775,978.09 ” 1901 | 50,488,394.31| 54,007,581.07 ” 1902 | 50,069,514.97| 56,962,349.44 ” 1903 | 54,597,835.21| 63,955,400.53 ——————————————————————————+——————————————+——————————————

STATISTICS OF GOODS IMPORTED INTO THE CONGO FREE STATE DURING 1903

Summary

———————————————————————————————————————————+——————————————————————————— | VALUES GOODS +—————————————+————————————— | Special | General | Commerce | Commerce ———————————————————————————————————————————+—————————————+————————————— | Frs. Cs.| Frs. Cs. Matches | 17,367.67 | 21,375.79 {Horned Cattle | 15,360.00 | 15,360.00 {Sheep | 2,197.20 | 2,197.20 Live Animals {Pigs | 48.00 | 48.00 and {Horses | 7,379.48 | 7,379.48 Fodder {Donkeys and Mules | 10,370.40 | 10,370.40 {Others | 227.40 | 227.40 {Fodder | 1,654.08 | 1,654.08 | | {Cannons | 66,306.18 | 66,306.18 {Piston Guns | 34,788.66 | 48,541.45 {Flint Guns | 26,848.44 | 74,585.18 {Other Guns (Improved | | { Systems) | 68,215.97 | 90,044.50 {Pistols and | | { Revolvers | 10,295.82 | 12,347.82 Arms, {Charge Pieces | 23,516.53 | 23,834.71 Ammunition, {Side Arms | 1,356.26 | 1,356.26 and belts {Cartridges | 292,323.80 | 308,606.84 {Caps | 8,889.14 | 16,558.34 {Gunpowder | 167,024.44 | 271,145.04 {Ordinary and Blasting | | { Powder | 2,046.61 | 2,963.41 {Explosives | 48,183.67 | 48,183.67 {Sundries | 76,749.90 | 79,268.93 {Belts | 33,720.30 | 34,141.26 | | {Steamers | 845,957.00 | 845,957.00 {Engines and Boilers | 30,920.00 | 56,332.83 {Charge Pieces for Engines | | Boats, Engines, { and Boilers | 223,517.94 | 302,308.83 and {Boats and Sailing | | Detached { Vessels | 66,950.00 | 66,950.00 Pieces for {Detached Pieces for Boats| 715,858.90 | 715,858.90 Boats {Canoes | 22,981.20 | 22,981.20 {Sail-Cloth | 5,216.44 | 6,553.18 {Anchors and Chains for | | { Navy | 2,585.71 | 2,848.27 {Wood for Masts | 120.60 | 120.60 {Other Rigging and | | { Apparatus | 8,781.91 | 9,302.88 ———————————————————————————————————————————+—————————————+—————————————

N. B.—The Special Commerce includes goods for consumption which are declared directly they arrive, or at the time of their removal from the warehouse.

General Commerce embraces all goods which enter the territory of the State that may be declared for consumption, transit, or warehouse.

———————————————————————————————————————————+—————————————+————————————— | VALUES GOODS +—————————————+————————————— | Special | General | Commerce | Commerce ———————————————————————————————————————————+—————————————+————————————— | Frs. Cs.| Frs. Cs. Jewelry {Gold and Silver Jewelry | 183.30| 183.30 and {Other Jewelry | 4,806.60| 7,144.68 Clock-work {Watches and Fittings | 11,315.99| 11,635.07 {Clocks and Alarums | 5,819.75| 5,963.75 Carved Wood and Wooden Objects | 287,143.01| 325,245.95 {Beer | 203,181.34| 207,279.72 {Brandy, at 50 Degrees or | | { Less | 96,725.40| 116,101.64 Liquors {Brandy, at more than 50 | | { Degrees | 113,987.22| 147,452.99 {Other Brandy (including | | { Liqueurs) | 85,148.69| 133,834.91 {Wines | 890,618.56| 1,053,073.73 Candles | 39,473.91| 49,133.16 Coffee | 16,041.49| 24,265.51 Camping Equipments | 60,143.52| 66,217.44 {Briquettes of Coal | 220,681.79| 220,681.79 Fuel {Coke | 103.20| 103.20 {Coal | 1,470.36| 1,470.36 {Charcoal | 1,574.83| 1,574.83 Rope, Cord, and Fishing Implements | 49,973.37| 54,429.73 Colours, Varnish, and Painters’ Materials | 90,181.70| 96,694.46 {Canned Meats, Fish, | | { Vegetables, Butter, Cheese, | | { etc | 2,117,536.81| 2,501,029.49 {Starch, Biscuits, Flour, etc | 378,337.04| 478,102.87 {Seeds (Beans, Oatmeal, | | Alimentary { Lentils, Barley, etc.) | 8,696.69| 9,331.56 Provisions {Dried Fish | 516,216.60| 547,529.61 {Potatoes and Onions | 67,376.77| 73,211.63 {Rice | 412,772.93| 472,494.35 {Salt | 101,206.70| 132,471.30 {Sundries (Spices, Yeast, | | { Tea, etc) | 175,696.59| 220,038.06 Chemicals | 42,450.49| 46,085.27 Pottery and Earthenware | 51,218.48| 58,014.07 Seeds and Berries | 33,491.80| 36,869.80 Clothing and Lingerie | 1,112,571.28| 1,284,929.00 Harness and Saddlery | 35,262.87| 51,670.17 Oils, {Petroleum | 41,865.91| 44,597.69 Grease, and {Oils, Tar, Grease, Resin, | | Bitumen {etc | 126,940.40| 133,992.10 Tools, Scientific Apparatus, etc | 126,258.93| 134,216.20 Machines, {Engines | 29,400.00| 29,400.00 {Cars | 46,073.88| 46,073.88 ———————————————————————————————————————————+—————————————+—————————————

———————————————————————————————————————————+—————————————+————————————— | VALUES GOODS +—————————————+————————————— | Special | General | Commerce | Commerce ———————————————————————————————————————————+—————————————+————————————— | Frs. Cs.| Frs. Cs. Machinery, {Machines and Various | | Tools, { Machinery | 244,595.21| 291,491.21 Telegraph {Charge Pieces and | | and { Accessories | 147,997.82| 150,092.90 Telephone {Various Tools | 300,770.38| 322,553.56 Apparatus, {Material and Apparatus for | | Metallic { Telegraph and Telephone | 32,454.55| 40,776.55 Structures {Various Metallic Structures | 337,512.43| 340,782.43 | | {Bricks | 2,098.38| 2,098.38 Building {Lime | 13,166.52| 14,541.84 Materials {Cement | 98,351.29| 100,560.41 {Other Material | 116,396.30| 128,908.61 Mercery and Perfumery | 135,047.31| 163,413.99 {Steel Bars | 596.46| 1,681.08 {Steel | 209.52| 2,292.10 {Steel Rails | 378,287.50| 378,287.50 {Steel Plates | 4,941.61| 7,587.61 {Other Steel | 1,335.60| 1,454.40 {Copper and Brass | 479,356.67| 522,850.66 {Other Copper and Brass | 21,452.05| 27,190.16 {Tin | 1,667.14| 1,979.14 Metals {Iron Bars | 885.32| 1,583.24 {Pure Iron | 2,772.24| 2,772.24 {Iron Nails | 55,678.83| 58,704.06 {Iron | 6,544.36| 9,386.68 {Iron Girders | 602.48| 602.48 {Sheet Iron | 68,334.43| 77,021.87 {Other Iron | 32,279.45| 49,102.97 {Mercury | 348.90| 348.90 {Lead | 1,489.99| 2,704.75 {Zinc | 6,792.88| 8,515.78 Furniture and Furnishings | 119,458.27| 133,537.33 Papers, {Account-Books and Papers | 73,873.84| 76,413.49 Cards, {Papers and Cards | 28,598.79| 31,743.82 Office {Office Stationery and | | Stationery { Printed Matter (Sundry) | 115,664.81| 139,694.47 Chemical Products | 63,644.81| 70,509.15 Pharmaceutical Products | 224,577.48| 248,789.45 Ironmongery (Kitchen Utensils, Household | | Articles, Sundries such as Copper | | and Iron Bands, Mirrors, etc.) | 640,032.60| 784,079.20 Soaps | 91,364.23| 106,753.67 Tobacco {Cigars and Cigarettes | 80,874.89| 102,181.71 {Other Tobacco | 72,897.57| 91,313.90 | | Tissues {Unbleached Cotton | 835,792.11| 895,633.90 {Bleached Cotton | 141,243.69| 180,482.79 ———————————————————————————————————————————+—————————————+—————————————

IMPORTS

YEAR 1903

RECAPITULATORY TABLE, SHOWING COUNTRIES FROM WHICH PRODUCTS WERE IMPORTED

———————————————————————————————————+—————————————+————————————— COUNTRIES | Special | General | Commerce | Commerce ———————————————————————————————————+—————————————+————————————— |Frs. Cs. | Frs. Cs. Belgium |15,699,535.09|16,524,451.18 England | 2,390,779.79| 2,790,509.07 Germany | 639,098.72| 781,608.72 France | 584,372.36| 1,724,921.27 Low Countries | 491,758.23| 975,031.13 Portuguese Possessions (Sea Coast) | 451,903.78| 478,443.69 Portugal | 155,500.81| 160,004.16 Austria | 110,976.30| 115,275.70 Denmark | 85,195.04| 85,607.06 Italy | 76,616.46| 81,730.76 Switzerland | 69,763.40| 69,857.22 ———————————————————————————————————+—————————————+—————————————

COMPARISON OF IMPORTS FOR 1903 WITH THOSE OF PRECEDING YEARS

———————————————————————————————————————+——————————————+—————————————— | VALUES YEARS +——————————————+—————————————— | Special | General | Commerce | Commerce ———————————————————————————————————————+——————————————+—————————————— | Frs. Cs.| Frs. Cs. From May 9th to December 31st, 1892[31]| 4,984,455.15| 5,679,195.16 Year 1893 | 9,175,103.34| 10,148,418.26 ” 1894 | 11,194,722.96| 11,854,021.72 ” 1895 | 10,685,847.99| 11,836,033.76 ” 1896 | 15,227,776.44| 16,040,370.80 ” 1897 | 22,181,462.49| 23,427,197.83 ” 1898 | 23,084,446.65| 25,185,138.66 ” 1899 | 22,325,846.71| 27,102,581.18 ” 1900 | 24,724,108.91| 31,803,213.96 ” 1901 | 23,102,064.07| 26,793,079.37 ” 1902 | 18,080,909.25| 20,699,723.98 ” 1903 | 20,896,331.02| 23,933,375.02 ———————————————————————————————————————+——————————————+——————————————

These tables show what has provided the enemies of the Congo Free State with a great deal of puerile prattle—an excess of exports over imports which is more apparent than real. One of the bitter critics who write from Liverpool repeats the charge in the press that the Sovereign of the Free State is denuding the Congo of its natural resources by exporting more than he imports. In this respect a German writer in Der Tag, Berlin, September, 26, 1904, not at all friendly to the Congo State (because it is diverting the Zanzibar trade of the Fatherland), has some pertinent things to say of the excess of exports over imports in the British colonies of South Nigeria and Lagos. Herr Eberhard von Schkopp discusses the Congolese, British, French, and German trade statistics in the following concise manner:

In 1901 the Congo State importations reached twenty-three million francs whilst the exports attained fifty millions, and the transit trade seven millions. This excess of exports over imports has been turned to account to support the attacks—justified besides—upon the Congo State’s system of government.

If that circumstance is of a kind to weigh in the balance, it ought to be imputed as a ground of complaint against all nations carrying on a practical colonial policy, and whose possessions export more than they import. The Congo State is neither the only nor even the first colony where this excess has been exhibited.

The exports of the English colony of South Nigeria have always surpassed the imports. Here are the figures:

1896 1897 1898 1899 1900

Imports 750,000 655,000 640,000 732,000 723,000 pounds ster. Exports 844,000 785,000 750,000 774,000 888,000 pounds ster.

Statistics of the trade of the English colony of Lagos:

1896 1897 1898 1899 1900

Imports 881,000 758,000 892,000 960,000 832,000 pounds ster. Exports 975,000 810,000 882,000 915,000 885,000 pounds ster.

Here also, except for 1898 and 1899, the total of exports exceeds that of imports. The case is the same with the commerce of the Gold Coast and the Gambia.

The French colonies also—Ivory Coast, Dahomey, Guinea, and French Congo—can also boast of having frequently had their exports higher than their imports.

No one has ever yet pretended to make that a grievance against the English and the French, and it must appear astonishing that the favourable trade statistics of the Congo State should lead to an attack on the system of its administration.

It would be very desirable if, following the example of the Congo State, and as we have seen of the English and French colonies, our possessions [the German] across the sea were to show exports exceeding their imports. For a commercial firm that is the best proof of success, and it cannot in any way be concluded from this fact that the “poor” blacks of Africa are being exploited by Europeans devoid of conscience.

But let us see if the Congo State exports really do exceed the imports, and if so, by what sum. The exports of the State are estimated in the tables at their value in Antwerp, after they have been harvested, prepared for transport from remote parts of the Congo Basin, stood charges of porterage, freight, export duties, taxes, insurance, brokerage at the African and European terminals, and merchant profits of an indefinite measure—in all, at least half their European value. The original value of Central African ivory, rubber, palm oil, gum copal, and other exports is, in fact, less than half their market value in Europe. In other words, if the exports of the Congo State were estimated at their value as they left the forests or the native collector, instead of aggregating 54,597,835.21 francs for the year 1903, they would show but 27,298,917.16 francs.

On the other hand, the imports, also estimated at their European value, but having similar distances to undergo and similar charges to bear, represent when they reach their consumers at least double their invoiced European cost. On a proper basis of value in their ultimate African market the imports for the year 1903 would amount to 42,792,662.04 francs. Thus the exports would stand at 27,298,917.16 francs, and the imports at 42,792,662.04 francs for the year 1903.

But even this is not a just comparison with the exports and imports of the British colonies, inasmuch as in the colony of Lagos, for instance, the imports include about sixty-five per cent. of alcoholic liquors,[32] leaving the native the beneficiary of an aggregate import of really civilising products of only thirty-five per cent. of the total, while the Congo imports, containing only five per cent. of alcoholic liquors, bestows upon the native legitimate products for his civilisation to the extent of ninety-five per cent. of the total of all the imports of the State. Deducting, therefore, from the Lagos imports sixty of their sixty-five per cent. of gin, rum, and whisky, thereby placing them on an equation with the imports of the Congo, we find in Herr von Schkopp’s figures an arraignment of Lagos “civilisation” which indicates where the real curse of Central Africa abides.

The foregoing is an astonishing record of exports and imports for a country practically developed in the short period which has elapsed since 1886. Congolese products are largely sent to Antwerp and, as the tables show, Belgium is by far the largest exporter and importer. A few years ago England was the chief exporter to the Congo of its cotton stuffs and other goods, but the same laggard spirit which caused Englishmen once interested in the Anglo-Belgian India-Rubber Company (known as the Abir) and other undertakings to abandon their Congolese enterprises has lost England a large and growing market in Central Africa. That the Belgians have developed the Mid-African trade by dint of hard work, organisation, and the risk of capital, is a state of things intolerable to those who have neglected and lost it. The awkward English monetary system is alone responsible for a large percentage of the world-wide diminution of British trade. All other nations have shown greater adaptability to the characteristics of foreign markets, and the capabilities and peculiarities of the peoples who compose those markets. The Germans, French, and Americans circulate their catalogues and price lists in the language of the country where they seek a market and quote prices in its coin, giving the equivalents in francs, marks, and dollars. British merchants, on the other hand, have adhered to their ancient custom of employing a monetary system so needlessly cumbersome that it can hardly be attributed to intelligent origin.

Belgian manufacturers have patiently studied the needs of the natives and have successfully endeavoured to supply them with the textures and food stuffs, machinery, agricultural implements, and building material which, being of simple construction, they are capable of putting to intelligent use.

The mineral wealth of the country which prospecting during the last five years has revealed in many sections of the Congo Basin, it is not the purpose of this volume to more than mention. Fine outcroppings of gold, coal, and copper have been discovered in the Katanga district in the south-eastern corner of the State. It has lately been rumoured in Europe that foreign prospectors have discovered territory marvellously rich in gold near the borders of British East Africa in the south, and again in the Enclave of Lado in the north. On this subject, and the likelihood of early and interesting mineral developments in that region, the Congo State authorities appear to have considerable knowledge. They do not, however, discuss the matter with any degree of candour. When the secret of certain political phases of Congolese history shall have been revealed, a connexion may be found between the mining and rubber industry and the calumnious campaign now proceeding against the State. But with that story, the present volume has naught to do.

The State’s revenue, consisting of import and export dues, tolls, excise, and direct personal taxation, is indicated in the following table:

——————————————+———————————————————————————————————————+————————————— 1902 | | 1903 ——————————————+ Nature of Receipts +————————————— Estimates | | Estimates ——————————————+———————————————————————————————————————+————————————— Frs. | | Frs. 3,000.00 | Registration Taxes | 3,000.00 70,000.00 | Sale and Letting of Domanial Land, | | Timber Felling, etc | 20,000.00 |{Customs Duties on Exports, } | |{ Frs. 4,550,000.00 } | 6,055,000.00 |{Customs Duties on Imports, including} | 6,150,000.00 |{ the Duties on Alcohol, } | |{ Frs. 1,600,000.00 } | 580,000.00 | Direct Personal Taxation | 600,000.00 1,000.00 | Road Tolls | 1,000.00 125,000.00 | Taxes on Timber Felling | 140,000.00 155,000.00 | Postal Receipts | 155,000.00 55,000.00 | Maritime Rates | 60,000.00 25,000.00 | Judicial Receipts | 25,000.00 8,000.00 | Chancery Duties | 6,000.00 4,160,000.00 | Transport, and Different Services | | of the State | 3,100,000.00 60,000.00 | Taxes on Portage | 60,000.00 15,452,000.00 | Proceeds from the Private Domain | | of the State, from Tributes and | | Taxes Paid in Kind by the Natives |16,440,000.00 1,703,000.00 | Interests and Dividends | 1,100,000.00 122,000.00 | Fees for Licences Granted to | | Congolese Companies | 105,000.00 135,000.00 | Extra and Casual Receipts | 125,000.00 ——————————————+ +————————————— 28,709,000.00 | Total Receipts |28,090,000.00 ——————————————+———————————————————————————————————————+—————————————

It will be observed that by far the greater proportion of the State’s revenue is derived from the State lands (Domaine privé), which is fully considered in a succeeding chapter. Direct personal taxation is a comparatively small item, being only 600,000 francs, or one forty-seventh part of the year’s budget. Import duties, including duties on alcohol, are only 1,600,000 francs, while duties on exports amount to 4,550,000 francs. These duties were, as hereinbefore stated, fixed by arrangement with France and Portugal on April 8, 1892, for a term of ten years, and by a protocol dated May 10, 1902, extended until July 2, 1905.

The export duty collected on India-rubber and ivory under these tariff agreements between the interested Powers are as follows:

Ivory, in pieces or sticks Frs. 10 per kilo. Tusks of less weight than 6 kilos ” 16 ” ” Tusks above 6 kilos in weight ” 21 ” ” India-rubber ” 4 ” ”

“Personal taxes,” says Descamps, “are levied upon three bases: 1, The area of inhabited buildings and enclosures; 2, the number of employés in service; 3, the ships and boats used by tax-payers.” As to the taxes en nature, levied upon the natives and already referred to in a previous chapter, the Chevalier de Cuvelier, Secretary of State of the Congo Free State, says in his official capacity in the Bulletin Officiel for June, 1903, that “it is as legitimate as any other kind of tax. It does not impose upon the native obligations of a different nature or heavier than the system of taxation employed in neighbouring colonies, such, for instance, as the British hut-tax. It is the native’s contribution to the public charges incurred by the State in exchange for the protection given him. In the Congo State this participation in the State’s support is light, seeing that it represents on an average not more than forty hours of native labour in a month.” It is the payment of tax in this form that the State terms prestation, which, if literally translated, would mean enforced labour upon roads.

In 1902 a general reduction of direct taxation was decreed. At the same time the taxation of all religious, charitable, and scientific institutions and enterprises was reduced to 50 per cent. of the rate which prevailed when the State had no revenue from import dues or from its domain lands. By a decree of 25th June, 1902, all personal taxes are entitled to one-fifth reduction so long as the State lands (domaine), tributes, and taxes in kind, yield the sum of 17,000,000 francs annually. In order to develop and extend the public highways, and works increasing the facilities of commerce, religion, agriculture, etc., the native prestations and their proper distribution have formed the subject of numerous decrees, all seeking to equitably adjust this form of taxation. One of the later decrees, that of 18th November, 1903, provides, amongst other measures protective of the native, that “In order to fix the tax justly and equitably among the natives, the territorial chiefs must take into account the nature of the work to be done, the age and the skill of the natives subjected to the prestation, and finally the obligation of the State to remunerate the natives for all work done by them.”[33]

The items constituting the State’s annual expenditure throw an interesting light on the subject of these native prestations in the Congo State. The State’s enemies found their charges of slavery largely upon the fact that the State enforces this labour upon the natives instead of imposing a tax in specie. In 1903 the State paid to its European officials and employés in the Congo force publique the sum of 1,800,000 francs, whereas during the same period the wages it paid to natives in the same service amounted to 2,050,000 francs. In developing the State lands at a cost of 6,014,790 francs during that year, the sum of 2,802,190 francs was paid to natives as wages. For extending agriculture and replanting India-rubber vines the sum of 1,373,932 francs was expended in 1903. The following items, taken from the table of expenditure for the same year, may be interesting:

HOME DEPARTMENT

Frs. The Administrative Service of Europe 165,000.00 The Administrative Service of Africa 3,180,310.00 The Army 7,701,765.00 Naval Expenditure 2,023,376.00 Sanitary Department 504,120.00 Public Works 1,081,885.00 Missions and Educational Establishments 121,425.00 Expenses relating to some Transports in Africa, not Drawn up in the Budget 1,600,000.00

FINANCIAL DEPARTMENT

The Administrative Service of Europe 99,000.00 The Administrative Service of Africa 503,065.00 Agriculture 1,373,932.00 Exploitation of the Domain 6,041,790.00 Savings-Bank, Interest of the Loans and Guaranteed Stock 1,656,228.00

FOREIGN OFFICE AND JUSTICE

Administrative Service of Europe 227,100.00 Postal Department 66,000.00 Navigation 140,200.00 Justice 910,000.00 Worship 250,000.00

The currency of the Congo Free State consists of copper, silver, and gold coins and paper notes. The former are issued under a decree of 27th July, 1887, which established the monetary system upon the gold standard. The gold coins are of the value of twenty francs; the silver coins are the five, two, one franc, and the fifty centime piece. The copper coins are the ten, five, two, and one centime pieces.

Paper Currency. By a decree of February 7, 1896, with the object of facilitating business transactions between the different parts of the State, banknotes of the State, payable to the bearer at the General Treasury of the Congo Free State, in Brussels, were issued. This decree sanctioned a first issue of notes to the value of 400,000 francs.

An order of the Secretary of State of February 8, 1896, limited the value of the issued notes to a sum of 269,850 francs, comprising 2,000 notes of 100 francs each, and 6,985 ten franc notes.

Formerly, in the Lower Congo, agents of the State and merchants were accustomed to give the natives, in exchange for their services, a mokande or cheque, which enabled them to purchase what they required at the factories.

It is evident that silver, copper, and paper currency of the State have a great advantage over the mokande or cheque system, these latter often being only payable at a fixed date and by certain persons. At first the circulation of money was slow and difficult. It was only with a good deal of trouble that foreign money was displaced in the Lower Congo, and in the interior there was the same difficulty in abolishing the custom of barter, and the usage of the mitako, or brass wire.

Finally, to accelerate the introduction of State currency, the Government decreed:

1. To pay the soldiers and native workmen in cash, and also to pay in the same manner for all goods bought from the natives by the State;

2. To stop all payments in kind at the stations of the Lower Congo;

3. To substitute for the rations formerly issued by the State to the agents, an equivalent in cash, and so forth.

Immediately after the enforcing of these measures the State currency began to circulate rapidly, and merchants no longer hesitated to open retail stores, where the natives in the employment of the State and commercial companies, and other natives as well, came to exchange their money for European goods.

At the present time, in the region south of Stanley Pool, the greater part of the commercial transactions between Europeans and natives is carried on through the medium of the State currency, and in the native markets it is no longer possible to purchase anything except with the silver or copper Congolese money—the preference being given to silver.[34]

The native’s love of tinsel causes a large quantity of the silver and copper coins put into circulation to disappear from the sphere of commerce. Congolese vanity manifests itself in many forms. Necklaces, earrings, bracelets, anklets, and other ornaments are made of the State coins, and worn by the men and women of all the tribes which come in touch with the Congo coinage. Powerful chiefs are often buried with many coins placed upon their bodies.

FOOTNOTES:

[26] Descamps.

[27] About twenty-two gallons.

[28] Reported in the Bulletin Officiel, 1898.

[29] 1 kilogramme equals 2.20 lbs.

[30] Statistics of exports were not taken until after July 1, 1886.

[31] The collection of import duty commenced May 9, 1892.

[32] The revenue of the British colony of Lagos for the last three years available was derived as follows:

1898 1899 1900-1 Fcs. Fcs. Fcs. Alcohol 3,386,450.00 3,288,250.00 3,345,850.00 Tobacco 273,250.00 266,125.00 379,150.00 Salt 40,075.00 43,750.00 140,800.00 Cotton Goods 428,075.00 382,850.00 432,450.00 Other Articles 366,650.00 661,350.00 799,775.00

The following is a comparison between the alcoholic liquor imported into Lagos and the Congo Free State:

Lagos Congo Free State Gin 463,380 gallons Rum 129,780 ” Whiskey 8,100 ” _______ 601,260 ” Total consumption = 43,300 gallons.

Thus for every gallon of alcohol imported into the Congo Free State (1,000,000 square miles in area,) there are imported into British Lagos (3,460 square miles in area), thirteen and seven-tenths gallons, or as 5 per cent. is to 68½ per cent. of total revenue.

[33] Report of Vice-Governor-General, July 1904.

[34] Descamps.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XXVII. MISSIONS AND SCHOOLS

[Sidenote: Berlin Act on Missions.]

It will be remembered that clause VI. of the Berlin Act enacts that “They [the interested Powers] shall, without distinction of creed or nation, protect and favour all religions, scientific or charitable institutions, and undertakings created and organised for the above ends, or which aim at instructing the natives, and bringing home to them the blessings of civilisation. Christian missionaries, scientists, and explorers, with their followers, property, and collections, shall likewise be the object of especial protection.”

For this enlightened enactment the thanks of the world are due to the Count de Launay, of Italy. In proposing its inclusion in the Berlin Act, Count de Launay said: “It is to scientific men and explorers that we owe the marvellous discoveries made during these latter years in Africa. The missionaries, for their part, lend valuable assistance in winning these countries over to the civilisation which is inseparable from religion. It is our duty to encourage them, to protect them all, both present and future.”

How faithfully the Congo Government has carried out clause VI. of the Berlin Act, impartially and completely administering it in the spirit in which it was conceived, is apparent in the number and diversity of the Christian missions at present existing in the Congo State.

[Sidenote: Protestant Missions.]

Upon Protestants rests the honour of being first in the endeavour to evangelise the races inhabiting the countries of the Congo Free State. Of their numerous missions, the Baptist Missionary Society of London was first in the field, it having been established so long ago as 1877. It has posts at Matadi, Tumba, Takussu, Bopoto, Monsembe, Bolobo, Lukolela, Kinshassa, and Gombe Lutete, and its missionaries are the Messrs. George Grenfell, Ross Phillips, J. H. Weecks, A. E. Scrivener, Kerend Smiths, Lawson Forfeit, Whitehead, Stapleton, Bentley, J. Howell, Kirkland, Frame, and Kempton.

Next, in respect of age, comes the American Baptist Missionary Union, founded in 1883, which now includes the earlier Livingstone Inland Mission, founded in 1879. It has posts at Matadi, Pallaballa, Lukungu, Kimpese, Banza, Leopoldville, and Bolengi, and is served by the Messrs. C. H. Harvey, A. M. D. Sims, W. S. Leslie, J. Clarke, and Faris.

The Congo Balolo Mission is very active. Though it has but six posts—Lulangi, Bongandanga, Bonginda, Ikau, Leopoldville, and Baringa—it has a numerous staff, including Mr. and Mrs. Morgan, Gilchrist, Whiteside, Armstrong, Ellery, Lawes, Ruskin, Gamman, Jeffrey, Harris, and Frost; the Messrs. Beale, Bond, Padfield, Rankin, Boudot, Wallbaum, Steel, McDonald, and Stannard; and the Misses Padfield, Cork, and Amory.

Other important missions are the Christian and Missionary Alliance, the Swedish Missionary Society, the Garenganze Evangelical Mission, the Foreign Christian Missionary Society, and the Bishop Taylor Self-Supporting Mission.

Each mission owns lands, either absolutely or in tenancy, the Baptist Missionary Society Corporation heading the list with no fewer than fifteen, being followed by the American Baptist Missionary Union with fourteen, and the International Missionary Alliance with thirteen. The other missions have between one and eight locations each, their field of action being throughout the Upper, Middle, and Lower Congo.

All these missions are Protestant. Their work is done by between two and three hundred white missionaries, to say nothing of native evangelists, and they dispose of a considerable revenue, subscribed, for the most part, by the Protestants of Great Britain and the United States.

[Sidenote: Mission Steamers.]

Of the five large missionary steamers in the Congo State, four are owned by Protestants. The Peace and the Goodwill belong to the English Baptist Mission, the Henri Reed to the American Baptist Mission, and the Pioneer to the English Balololand Mission. Roman Catholics own only one mission steamer, Our Lady of Perpetual Help.[35]

[Sidenote: Roman Catholic Missions.]

As might be expected from its history, the prevailing faith in Congoland is the Roman Catholic. The Congo Free State tolerates all religions, no one of them enjoying a privilege denied to the others. Unfortunately the Protestants are split up into several sects; but there is no division among the Roman Catholics, and this fact has resulted largely in favour of the growth of the latter.

The White Fathers began their mission in Congoland in 1878, a year later than the first Protestant mission. They were followed by the Scheut Fathers in 1888; the Trappists, 1892; the Jesuits, 1893; the Priests of the Sacred Heart, 1897; the Prémontré Fathers, 1898; and the Redemptionists, 1899. There are also the missionaries of the Ghent Sisters of Charity, the Sisters of Notre Dame, the Trappistines, the Franciscans, and the Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Mary.

The wide-reaching results of the earnest labours of these self-denying evangelists is apparent in the existence to-day of 59 permanent and 29 temporary posts; 384 missionaries and sisters; 528 farm chapels; 113 churches and chapels; 523 oratories; 3 schools of the second degree; 75 primary schools; 440 elementary schools (in which native teachers instruct in the elements of reading, writing, and arithmetic); 7 hospitals, 71 Christian villages, and 72,383 Christians and catechumens.

From statistics such as these, pregnant as they are with proof of the onward march of civilisation, it is a relief to turn to records in words. Here are two extracts from a diary kept by the Rev. Father Grison, missionary in charge of St. Gabriel’s, Stanley Falls. The diary from which they are taken was written in odd moments snatched from an exceptionally busy life in a far-off land, with no idea that any line of it would ever be given to the world.

Aug. 16, 1902. Yesterday we had 17 baptisms and I administered Holy Communion to more than 300 people.

HOLY WEEK. If it had not been for the colour of the congregation kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament, you could not have believed you were in Central Africa. The church was filled with flowers, and a large number of people kept coming during the whole time.

* * * * *

We did not know exactly how things were going on at Banalya, but we did hear that our Christians were prosperous and had won over several catechumens. As soon as we came within a distance of about one and a half hours from the place, a number of the village people came out to meet us, laughing, singing, and kneeling in the mud of the marshes for our benediction. They told us that some little catechists, who could hardly read themselves, had managed to teach a number of the others to pray every morning and every evening, and then to teach them some catechism, so when we came over we found that a large number of the people had already been converted. We immediately landed 150 catechumens at Banalya, 80 at Yambuga, and nearly 200 at Basoko, where a young woman, baptised the year before,—although she is unable to read,—superintends morning and evening prayer for the whole village.

The following, from the diary of the Rev. Father Wulfers, written at Yanonghi (Romee Mission), June 22, 1902, accurately portrays the hopes and fears, the triumphs and disappointments, which attend the life of a missionary in Central Africa.

Our Station is flourishing. We have a fine spring of rock water near the house, and a beautiful vista across the river, about two miles wide. The coffee groves begin near the house, affording shaded walks for hours. Within a short distance, we find the Arab settlements; and, somewhat further away from the river, immense rice fields. Fruits and agricultural products abound. It is from here that rice is supplied for a number of stations and missions, all the way down to the Falls and Leopoldville. The missionary of Romee supplies our other posts with large quantities of rice, besides the seeds furnished by the State Agricultural Station, and a number of articles which we get from the Arabs in exchange for cotton cloth. Of course everything has to be bought; they will give nothing for nothing. The railroad—Romee-Ponthierville—will start from here. The survey is progressing. That branch will help to avoid the rapids on the river on both sides of Bertha Island and the Lakes, which frequently interfere with navigation. Our situation, therefore, is pretty good from the material point of view; but, of course, we have some troubles. The Arabs are not peaceful, and the State contemplates the establishment of a military post here to protect the whites against them and the Turumbus, who are fierce cannibals. When Monseigneur van Ronslé was here last year, he wanted to establish a mission at Romee, because the State maintains there a force of about 600 men to protect the new rubber plantation. At present there are here about 120 catechumens and 20 Christians. I baptised ten of them last March and three in May. They come to Mass every Sunday, sometimes arriving Saturday evening to sleep here. I expect to have a great many more Christians when the work on the railroad begins. Although the Turumbus are still very savage, I hope to do a good deal with them, for they have already helped me to build my house. Yesterday I gave them some presents. One got a pipe; another a looking-glass; another some cotton cloth, with some rice for their children. They went away very happy, saying the Father is a good man. The people of the neighbouring villages sometimes come to me saying they want to stay a year and then be baptised. I promise them when the chapel is built that I will visit them, teach them to read and write, and then get them to teach the catechism to others. They seemed very happy. As regards the Arabs, I am afraid they will not come to the catechism so soon. They sometimes listen to it out of curiosity. They appear to understand it, and acknowledge that it is true; but a virtuous life seems hard to them, and they have no inclination to it. Their Chief often inquires about the beginning of the world, the origin of the white settlements in Africa, the story of Christ, etc. He works with me, comes to see my pictures, and asks for explanations. Some of the Arabs want to learn French. I shall teach them some in order to gain their confidence. When the chapel is finished I will see what I can do to Christianise the Arabs, who are about 200,000 strong.

I have had a disheartening experience at Yafolo, where I found the community, which had inspired me with so much hope, had gone over to the Dilwa worship. This is a form of public worship of the Dilwa. It lasts for two or three months. During that time all the young men, from seven to twenty years of age, devote themselves to the Dilwa. Of course I denounced the falsity of that superstition. I went into the middle of the crowd with a revolver in my pocket, because I did not know what they might do. They were sorry that I came, because they thought I was going to drop dead as a punishment for my temerity. They told me if I touched any of the Dilwa men my arm would wither and fall off. I touched some of them, and of course nothing happened; but they kept on, and during the three months of the Dilwa work I could not do anything for them. I went again a month ago and learned that about two-thirds of the catechumens were willing to return to Christianity, but their parents would not let them come, believing all those who have gone through the Dilwa to be sacred people and to have no further need of God. Some old people told me that when the Dilwa is over they will all come back. I wonder if they will!

The same missionary records yet another of his experiences, which throws a vivid light upon the horrid subject of cannibalism. It is dated February 7, 1903.

While the Rev. P. Kohl was staying with me, a young chief named Kalonda visited us. He told us that he had said to his warriors: “Come, let us visit our Father. He is such a good man that he is sure to give us something!” Speaking to the Rev. Kohl, he added, “He certainly is a very good man. He visits our village and tells us beautiful things about God. You will see that he loves us, because he certainly is going to give us something.” In the meantime he was slapping his stomach, to show what he expected. We could not help laughing, but he took no offence. Turning to his warriors, he began again: “Children, here is the Good Father of whom I have so often spoken to you.” There I stopped him, saying: “That will do, Kalonda. Look here, now. If you answer my questions well, I shall give you a present.”

“To be sure, Father, I am going to tell the truth.”

“Are you a great chief?”

“Yes, Father.”

“And you formerly used to go to war very often?”

“Now listen, Father! I used to have a great many more men than I have now. They were vigorous, and understood war. I went through all the villages with them as far as Lindi.”

“Then you have killed many people?”

“To be sure.”

“You have carried away and eaten quite a number of women and children? Of course,” said I, immediately, in order to prevent an explosion of wrath on his part, “you do not do so any more?”

“No,” said he, very deliberately, “I do not do so at all now; but formerly we ate a number of men. We used to kill as many as we wanted at the time and take away the rest to fatten. The flesh of the women and children is the best.”

“How does it taste?” I asked of the young boy who was standing near the chief [his father].

He answered quite naturally: “It tastes like boiled rice.”

It is out of material such as Kalonda that Christian missionaries and just laws carefully administered are evolving a peaceful, pastoral people. That so large a part of this prodigious task should have been achieved during the brief period that the Congo State has existed places its triumphant completion in the near future beyond all doubt. The patience, skill, and energy of the men who in circumstances so difficult have achieved so much, if not appreciated at their true worth now, will assuredly be regarded by posterity as one of the brightest pages in the history of our time.

There are no harder workers in the world than the Catholic missionaries of the Congo. The following passage from the diary kept by the Rev. Father Grison, missionary in charge of St. Gabriel’s, Stanley Falls, by no means depicts an exceptional experience:

Oct. 19, 1902.—It is Sunday, 9.30 P.M. I have been busy in the church since 6 A.M. Said Mass at 7, and preached. Had a little coffee and wanted to retire to my room for a brief rest, when from 60 to 80 people called. They had come from Vincent yesterday in order to hear Mass to-day. They complained that they had not brought enough supplies and they wanted me to give them some rice; which, of course, I did. Then an important palaver turned up at Adela, and I was called upon to act as interpreter between the natives and the State. Then I had to patch up the quarrels of three or four married couples who had fallen out. Next, I had to grant about sixty permits to work on account of its being Sunday; and, finally, I found a little time to do my Breviary. My brother missionaries are in the same fix. The Rev. Father Kohl, who has charge of the Sisters’ Convent, gave them a lecture, and then had to busy himself with the choir boys to whom he teaches the ceremonies. About noon I received a visit from two gentlemen from Stanley Falls, who are on their way towards the Great Lakes surveying for the railroad. Towards one o’clock the blacks warned us that the boat was coming on, and we knew that in about an hour we should have news from home. The steamer arrived, bringing some stores, which we hurriedly landed, deferring until to-morrow to put them in their proper places in the storerooms. After that we said the Rosary and gave Benediction. Then came the Catechism lesson and a Marriage; then a sick call, Breviary again, and then supper. Such is our Sunday, supposed to be a day of rest!

The Rev. Father Grison is typical of Catholic missionaries in Congoland. Other missionaries there are, of the Protestant faith, equally sincere and ardent; but it is an unfortunate fact that among the latter have been included certain quasi-political agents who believe that they find advantage in depreciating the Government under which they voluntarily elect to live. Others, again, for the purpose of increasing the zeal of the congregations of the churches in their fatherland to provide for them sufficient support, have permitted themselves to excite the sympathies of the home associations by exaggerated tales of oppression and cruelty. Acquisitiveness is not an unknown quality among missionaries. Mr. Stokes, the so-called martyr, who suffered for supplying arms in time of war to the enemies of the Congo Free State, was originally a Protestant missionary, but he abandoned that vocation to become a trader.

FOOTNOTES:

[35] In the French Congo there is only one small launch devoted to missionary work.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XXVIII. STATE LANDS AND CONCESSIONS

[Sidenote: The State’s Heavy Task.]

It would seem reasonable that practical colonial government should begin the pursuit of its objects by a policy so flexible that it might readily conform to the altering conditions upon which it operates. The exceptional nature of the task imposed upon the Government of the Congo Free State, its varied and numerous difficulties, and the uncertainty of the radical principles imposed upon it, left its administrators no choice of colonial precedent to follow, no governmental model to adopt. It stood alone, in a unique enterprise not devoid of new hazards, pitfalls, and strange terrors. It had been regarded at first as an adventure, then as a serious experiment. A civil community was to be created of savage hordes; to maintain itself by its own people led on to civilisation by a few Europeans with a courage and zeal the equatorial sun should not subdue. The vast field it occupied and the untamed characteristics of its large population, the early philanthropic aims of its royal patron, and a general desire to carry out the principles enunciated at the Berlin Conference, all contributed to invest the Congo State Government with a special character, and to saddle it with original duties supposedly beyond its powers to perform. Thus, in the midst of an unexplored and barbarous land, with everything before it unknown, with all behind it seemingly unsuited for employment here, ways and means and a state system of government had to be adopted not only for internal regulation and development, but also to maintain the integrity of its relations with the rival Powers which surrounded it. The natural problems of the sovereignty of an unknown land and savage people were difficult enough; but when these had been intensified and their practical solution hindered by the fine theories and high ideals of the Berlin Conference, there appeared reason for the belief that a West African Don Quixote had been charged to assault a windmill. Colonial traditions appeared to the men on the spot to be inapplicable to the Congo. There was no tax-burdened home government to rely upon for support. Nor were the African forests or the palaces and mansions of Europe crowded with philanthropists desirous of dedicating their fortunes to the welfare of the Bantu race in the distant Congo. In popular parlance, the King and his Congo were left to subsist on fine sentiments and a jug of water. If in these circumstances a colonial policy of self-support was adopted and carried out with an economic skill which in its results excites foreign envy and covetousness to-day, it should not be attributed to wrong motive, but to that of stern necessity. Concerning this formative period of early Congolese policy the recent exposition of Baron Descamps may be aptly quoted:

The problem had to be solved without bringing into conflict certain elements which are difficult to assimilate, namely, the exigencies of commercial freedom as recognised by the conventions, the civilisation of the natives and their material and moral improvement, the exigencies of the life and progress of the State itself considered as the organic principle of the new political society, and finally the exigencies or rather conditions relating to the personal union of the Free State with Belgium.

In the accomplishment of this complex task, the State was first inspired with the principle of a scrupulous respect for international engagements. This principle was never lost sight of, even at the critical periods of its life following on the Berlin Conference, when a régime of complete exemption from import duties weighed heavily upon its economic existence.

The State was also filled with the determination to faithfully respect the declaration of permanent neutrality which it made a short time after the Berlin Conference. As we have remarked elsewhere, this was an honourable action towards the Powers who were thus reassured concerning the policy and pacific autonomy of the new State. It was also an act of prudence which protected the Congo State from the solicitations of other States interested in influencing its political life.[36]

[Sidenote: The State’s Policy.]

The policy of the new State was to be “fruitful activity” in peace and order as soon as the Arab wars had ceased and the slave trade had been superseded by an agricultural and industrial régime. With a neutralised State this seemed to be a permanent function commendable alike to its people, its Government, and its international associates and sponsors. Whether we regard the moral concomitant of an era of fruitful activity or only the material essentials of a community so employed, the bald reality called for men and money for its accomplishment. Of white men there were few in a region where a tropical sun, and other climatic disadvantages, counted heavily against their labour. The Negro alone appeared to thrive in conditions more suited to his physical characteristics. The problem of creating a State of the Negro population involved social and material questions of vast import to those who had undertaken to develop and govern this unknown and savage land. Should the Negro be taught the nobility of labour—informed of the glorious edifices to civilisation it had reared and what benefits its pursuit would shower upon him if he would but follow the white man’s precept and example in the sphere of honest toil?

The trade in black men had been suppressed by the courageous white men of Belgium. Trade in the material resources of the country was now but a phenomenon of the law of self-preservation and the principle of self-support. It is in the adoption of practical measures to develop that trade for the greatest good of the greatest number that the Belgians have shown an executive skill which gives the character of indolent farce to the droning administration of certain other African colonies, particularly British Lagos, which derives sixty-five per cent. of its supporting revenue from traffic in alcoholic liquor,[37] as compared with five per cent. derived from the same source by the Congo Free State.

If the Government of the Congo Free State had to deal with a white population capable of co-operation as independent political units in the State’s development, it may easily be conceived that measures perhaps more in consonance with certain European theories might have been devised. The candour of this suggestion in no wise detracts from the fitness and happy efficacy of the measures by which the Government of the Congo State has achieved one of the greatest colonising successes of modern times.

It is the co-operative principle—so utterly lacking in the uncivilised native Congolese—which often inspires those governmental speculations in new countries whereby it is sought to solve the problem of sustaining the State upon its own undeveloped resources. There can be little doubt that this principle, now well recognised in the industrial world and constantly adopted and expanded in the United States and Great Britain by enlightened labour leaders and great corporations, unconsciously influenced the Belgian statesmen who framed the land and taxation laws of the Congo Free State. The civilisation of Central Africa was, and forsooth, still is, an immense task, and the State’s early attitude of welcoming quasi private enterprise to co-operate with it in the development of lands which indolent native races had ravaged—first for their own immediate wants, later at the behest of adventurers and despoiling traders, whose coin was alcohol and shoddy tinsel—was not only justified in a Government seeking rational progress, but it followed the soundest principles of what the higher socialism terms community of interest. If more modern in theory, the Congo State has in practice often followed the most experienced of old-world colonisers—the Dutch and the British. Where practicable under like conditions “it imitates these experienced colonisers, without, however, following them blindly” or attaining at once what it has taken them several generations to accomplish. “Neither does it persist in methods which have been recognised as erroneous, but it alters and corrects them where possible.” Being like all governments, old or new, in savage lands or civilised, unable to reform its domestic policies at command, it seeks the betterment of its system with that gradation of movement which shall not disorganise and disrupt the structure of its statehood. Those who avowedly speak for the Congo Free State say that “its policy is essentially a work of methodical experiment and practical adaptation. Even when colonial science is more advanced than it is to-day, that policy will retain its raison d’être and its merits.”

Having considered those early causes which evolved a State land policy largely founded on the principles of co-operation and self-support, it is pertinent, at this point, to examine the theory of the State land system which has met with the criticism of commercial interests in Great Britain.

[Sidenote: The State’s Land System.]

The origin of the land system of the Congo Free State may be said to have assumed legal form by the official order of Sir Francis de Winton, who, it will be recalled, was appointed Governor-General of the State when Henry M. Stanley returned to Europe. The order is dated Vivi, July 1, 1885.

A Decree of the Sovereign will presently request all non-natives who now possess, by any right whatever, land situated within the territory of the Congo Free State, to make an official declaration, describing the land in question, and submitting their titles to be examined and approved by the Government. The object of the said Decree will be to secure, in the prescribed form, the acknowledgment of acquired rights, and to make the regular organisation of land property in the said State possible in the near future.

In the meantime, with a view to avoiding disputes and abuses, the Governor-General, duly authorised by the Sovereign, orders as follows:

ARTICLE 1. Dating from the publication of the present proclamation, no contract or agreement with the natives for the occupation of portions of the land will be acknowledged or protected by the Government, unless the said contract or agreement has been made in the presence of a public official, commissioned by the Governor-General, and according to the rules laid down by him in each particular case.

ARTICLE 2. No one has right to occupy without title any vacant land, nor to dispossess the natives from their land; all vacant land must be considered as belonging to the State.

[Sidenote: State Protects Lands of Natives.]

This order provided for the official recognition of title to land appropriated by foreigners before July 1, 1885; land occupied up to the same date by natives, and land which, having been neither occupied by natives nor appropriated by foreigners, was declared to be the property of the State. Particular emphasis was given to the clause protecting the native in his occupation of land whereon his industry had created improvement, where he lived in the peaceful pursuits common to his tribe.

As the appropriation by the State of vacant lands in the Congo has inspired many of the specious arguments which have lately emanated from England alone and more particularly from the claque of the Congo Reform Association in Liverpool, it may be opportune to consider first what the Belgians have said in justification of a course which every student of political history knows has been followed by all civilised States.

In his essay, New Africa, Baron Descamps briefly analyses the theory of the State’s unquestionable property in all vacant lands within its territory:

Territory is that part of the globe over which a State exercises its sovereign rights; it is the material basis of sovereign influence.

The mere fact of the acquisition of a political sovereignty over a certain territory does not in itself confer on the Sovereign—at least according to modern law—the ownership of all property over which private individuals have acquired rights. But the recognition of these same rights, the fixing of just titles of acquisition, the regulation of the legal system relating to property and especially of the condition of vacant land, all that constitutes an essential attribute of sovereignty, in conformity with the necessities of public order and the general welfare of society.

As a sovereign and independent State, the Congo State has been, and continues to be, invested with that prerogative.

In appropriating vacant and ownerless land, the State has made lawful use of an indisputable and perfectly legal right, sanctioned by international custom and acknowledged by the law of nations.

When regularly in possession of vacant land, is it expedient for the State to appropriate certain portions for public uses; to transfer other portions gratuitously or for a consideration, with full rights of ownership or with the right of using them only, to private individuals; to preserve other parts for revenue purposes, by means either of direct administration or of tenure, with a view to employing the revenue according to the needs or convenience of the State? That is a question of internal administration which may be discussed theoretically, as we have already observed, but which must be left, in practice, to the sovereign decision of the State.

[Sidenote: Early European Settlers.]

Before the Congo State was founded, a few European traders and missionaries in the Lower Congo were occupying certain undefined lands under agreements—more or less precarious in term and effect—with native chiefs. These occupations partook largely of the temporary nature of the native occupations on the banks of the river. As these occupations ceased and the land was abandoned, it reverted to the State, precisely as it reverts, under certain conditions, in other States and colonies throughout the world.

That the Congo State dealt equitably with foreigners who had seriously squatted upon lands in the basin, is plainly indicated in its next decree, dated 22 August, 1885:

Considering that it is necessary to take steps to recognise the rights of non-natives who acquired property situated in the Congo Free State before the publication of the present Decree:

On proposal of Our Council of General Administrators, We have decreed and do decree as follows:

ARTICLE 1. Non-natives who have rights to substantiate on land situated in the Congo Free State, may have them registered by presenting a request for registration in the form prescribed by the following regulations:

This request must be presented in duplicate, before April 1, 1886, to the public officer, who will have to record the deeds of land.

Our Governor-General has the power to authorise the admission, after this date, of demands for registration, which for some exceptional reason could not be presented within the prescribed time.

* * * * *

ARTICLE 8. The manner in which requests for registration will be controlled shall be settled by Our Governor-General.

When a non-native shall have duly proved his rights over a portion of land, the Recorder of Deeds shall give him a registration certificate which shall constitute a legal title of occupation until such time as the land system has been definitely settled in the Congo Free State.

Under this decree, practically every land claim presented was admitted by the Government. Further decrees provided for the compulsory measurement of land held by private owners; the Torrens Act system of transferring the title to land was adopted; rules of survey and its certification were prescribed; deeds were registered at the office of a Registrar, and generally the complete and practical machinery of an efficient Land Department was established for the benefit of natives and foreigners alike. As the State progressed in its organisation it defined its earlier improvisations with greater precision, provided laws in regulation of native “occupations,” private lands and the lands of the State. Its respect for the equities in property of those who had hazarded life in that wild region extended also to a scrupulous care for the native whose lands it guarded from invasion and trespass. By decree dated September 14, 1886, the State provided that “Lands occupied by native populations under the authority of their chiefs shall continue to be governed by local customs and uses,” thus insuring aboriginal tranquillity in the presence of a scheme of civilisation which the administrators of the State wisely refrained from imposing with disturbing rigour. The savage black man at first instinctively shrinks from the civilised white, and the Belgians, with knowledge of this almost universal timidity of the African races, offered him a mild measure of civilising rule as distinguished from the bluff and peremptory subjugation which has always characterised the decimating colonial methods of its burly neighbour in the Uganda and Soudan countries. By the same decree the Government of the Congo State provided that:

All acts or agreements which might tend to expel the natives from the territories occupied by them or to deprive them directly or indirectly of their freedom or means of subsistence, are forbidden.

Where natives occupy, or have moved upon, lands which it is sought to lease from the State, provision has been made by the decree of April 9, 1893, that:

When native villages are enclosed in the land acquired or let, the natives may, as long as the official measurements have not been made, carry on agricultural pursuits without the consent of landlord or tenant, on the vacant lands surrounding their villages.

All disputes which may arise in the matter between the natives and the grantee or tenant, shall be finally settled by the Governor-General or his delegate.

A decree of February 2, 1898, appointed a Land Commission charged to consider whether certain lands, as to which claims may have been made, “shall be reserved either on grounds of public utility or with a view of promoting their cultivation by the natives.” Reference has already been made to the bounty paid by the State to natives who cultivate coffee and cocoa plants. Even in the mining laws of the Congo the State has continued its solicitude for the native and decreed that he shall not be disturbed in the pursuit of those rude industries which tend to elevate his moral nature and provide him with means of self-support. By a decree dated June 8, 1888, the native is exempted from the prohibition, under a previous decree (July 1, 1885), of working a mine without a concession from the State. Under this exemption natives are expressly authorized to “continue to work mines for their own account on lands occupied by them.” Indeed in all cases where local tribal customs do not directly conflict with civilising tendencies, the rule of the State has been to observe them in all their integrity. To facilitate this policy in its intercourse with natives, the State has dealt with the aboriginal population largely through the chiefs of the native tribes. This means of linking the black man to the State which is striving to civilise him by the gradual substitution of the white man’s methods for those of the savage, has been attended with much success and inspired confidence where instinctive distrust might have long prevailed. Amongst the local customs which are safeguarded by the State are what are known as coutumes de rations, a form of royalty to which the natives are entitled on the produce of certain land. So far has the State concerned itself in perpetuating this form of support to the tribes where the custom prevails that, by an order of the Governor-General dated November 8, 1886, it has provided that:

The issue of registration certificates does not exempt the interested parties from observing, in their dealings with the natives, existing local customs, especially those relative to royalties known as coutumes de rations, although these royalties may not be mentioned in the certificates, among the encumbrances affecting the property.

If, in consequence of the non-payment of the rations or coutumes, usual in such cases, disputes occur between the landed proprietor and the natives, the certificate of registration may be cancelled by the Courts on the application of the curator of land titles.

From the foregoing and many similar decrees intended to secure the property and other rights of the natives, it will be observed that the administrators of the State consistently undertook to carry out all that was implied in King Leopold’s early declaration of his aims in Central Africa. If in the execution of the Congo State laws there has sometimes been laxity, error, and perhaps individual cases of perversion, the fact remains that the law is sound and the land system in respect of native possessions an equitable scheme devised in the interest of their general welfare and protection. The administration of the Congo Free State should be judged with due regard to the nature of its savage population, its unexplored territory of a million square miles, its early lack of organised governmental forces, the necessary newness and the rudeness of its civil institutions, and the thousand and one uncatalogued difficulties which must have beset such ambitious pioneers as that little band of Belgians which dared venture into an abyss from the safe walls of which Europe smiled derisively and shouted orders to the men below.

[Sidenote: State Claims Vacant Lands.]

Having provided laws securing to natives the lands occupied by them, and regulated the land titles of foreigners, the State declared as its own all unoccupied lands not subject to the ownership of the native or the foreigner. This governmental possession of unoccupied territory is not only sanctioned by the most enlightened laws of the age, it is the express duty of a State to bring under its care all territory which, if abandoned, might become the object of dispute, internecine strife, and sanguinary warfare. The very element of, and respect for, ownership of lands, chattels, or other objects of material value, preserves that order which all law seeks to enforce, for which civil society is organised on foundations of equity and justice. Was it not the very principle which actuated the Berlin Conference when, in order to remove the Congo Free State from the covetous rivalry of the Powers—their disputes and possible wars—it recognised the occupants of the Congo Basin and neutralised the Congo State? If, during the twenty years that have elapsed since the Berlin Conference settled the matter, the Congo Free State had remained in the position of territory open to the pre-emption, adverse possession, invasion, and trespass of anybody, the savage European war of words, of diplomatic missiles, or perhaps of actual arms, would have been a deadly substitute for the native savagery of the African black. Civilisation without property vested in the State or its citizens is inconceivable.

[Sidenote: Various Tenures of Land.]

The categories into which the lands within the borders of the Congo Free State naturally fall have already been briefly indicated in a previous chapter. The land system includes, first, a reservation of land exclusively for the use of the public. Second, lands sold upon an official scale of prices through a Land Department composed of five members. Third, concessions of land granted for a certain term of years, or as freehold, to companies organised to develop its productivity. Fourth, grants of use extended to those who, by arrangement with the State, thereby obtain the right to work a prescribed area for india-rubber. Certain zones of rubber-bearing territory are not subject to grants of use, the State reserving therein the exclusive right to work the forests, thereby following the system in force in the Soudan and in other neighbouring colonies. Finally, there are leases of three, six, or nine years, of land for commercial purposes, and leases for twenty to fifty years of lands for agricultural uses and the establishment of missions, schools, and churches. The latter possess areas aggregating about six thousand acres.

The principal concessionary companies, operate over approximately one-fourth of the State. The lands conceded to such companies are transmitted under contracts very similar to those employed in the Soudan,[38] and provide for the improvement of the land by the erection of buildings, planting rubber vines, coffee, cocoa, breeding cattle, and collecting rubber in a manner which will not deplete the growing stock. The Congo State law imposes upon the rubber companies the duty of planting at least five hundred feet of rubber vines or trees for every ton of rubber harvested. The forests are safeguarded in respect of wood and other products, and special inspectors see to the rigorous enforcement of the law. There appears to be a different state of things in the rubber-bearing districts of British Lagos, where reckless destruction of the vines, waste, inattention, and lack of intelligent organisation have reduced the rubber yield in 1900 to one-tenth its harvest in 1896, with the decline still continuing. The same measure of rapid decline is going on in the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone. “The decrease in the export of rubber from £347,721 in 1896 to £160,315 in 1899 is clearly due to the reckless and unskilful manner in which rubber was collected.”[39]

This report is corroborated by the statistics of the British Gold Coast, which in 1899 exported rubber to the value of £555,731, but in 1902 to the value of only £88,602; Lagos, 1896, £347,721, in 1901, £14,749; Sierra Leone, 1895, £86,940, in 1902, £8,192. Indeed, the table from which these quotations are made shows that the rubber exports from eight British colonies have greatly decreased since 1898, despite the increased European value of that product. It would seem that the care and skill which during these same years caused the Congo exports to rise from less than a million francs in 1886 to over fifty-four millions in 1903 were at least worth the emulation of the Gold Coast, Lagos, and Sierra Leone muddlers hiding defeat behind the humanitarian pretexts of Liverpool rubber merchants and their agents, whose conscience is as flexible as their trade product.

Concerning the concessionary scheme which prevails in the French Congo, and which the Congo Free State Government has so successfully carried out in its own territory, M. Eugène Etienne, a distinguished French scholar, Vice-President of the French Chamber of Deputies, and leader of the French colonial group, has said and written some pertinent things. The French Congo, lying on the coast west of the Free State, has been also assailed by the few interested British merchants and their religious and secular agents and reform associations for having been forbidden to trespass upon and despoil Central African territory which has so far escaped the acquisitive proclivities of John Bull. M. Etienne’s dissertation contains the following passages as applicable to the Free State as to the French Congo:

[Sidenote: French and Belgian Systems Compared.]

I stop in the enumeration of the results obtained by the Independent State of the Congo, and I will not put in the opposite column the balance sheet which gives little enough to rejoice over of the progress realised in the neighbouring French colony. Certainly from the point of view of the exploration of the country, and the management of the natives, our officials have obtained what might be called, in a formula borrowed from mechanics, the maximum of result with the minimum of expense....

The constitution of landed property in the Congo, regulated by the decree of 28th March, 1899, and the attribution of vacant lands by important lots to companies bound by a cahier des charges, form a work carefully thought out and elaborated on the advice of eminent jurists. It does honour to the Minister of the Colonies who took the initiative in the matter, my eminent colleague in the Chamber of Deputies, M. Guillain, as well as to the Councillor of State, M. Cotelle, who gave his active collaboration as President of the Commission of Concessions.

[Sidenote: Concessions Justified.]

The justification of the large concessions is to substitute a regular and methodical exploitation of the products of the soil for the system of trading which destroys the natural riches, leaving behind it only the exhausted and mutilated bush. Is it a question of the collection of caoutchouc [rubber],—the native cuts the lianas, bleeds the producing shrub to complete exhaustion. Is it a question of ivory,—the precious product disappears rapidly with the increase of the price, and the easier destruction of the elephants by means of arms of precision. Left to himself the native destroys, and does not concern himself to ask the earth to restore what he has taken from it. At the most he scratches a little of the soil round the villages he inhabits in order to carry out thereon some cultivation of food stuffs. Thus has it already been recorded in our Congo colony that the caoutchouc lianas have nearly disappeared from the coast, and from the banks of the rivers. It would be the same in the end in the regions further removed from the sea, if wise regulations did not put a stop to it.

Quite different would be the value of the soil if new plantations replaced those exhausted by successive harvests, and added new products to those which come without cultivation. Coffee trees and cocoa trees succeed admirably on the Congo. The soil lends itself to all tropical cultivations. As to the collection of caoutchouc, which will long remain one of the principal resources of the country, it demands management and care. It is for this motive that, according to one of the clauses of the cahier des charges annexed to the decrees of concession, the concessionaire companies are bound “to plant and to maintain to the termination of the concession, by replacing those which shall have disappeared, at least 500 feet of caoutchouc plants per ton of caoutchouc produced.”

The contract signed between the State as the proprietor of vacant lands and the concessionaire is the following: The concessionaire is authorised to establish himself on the lands assigned to him, he exercises there for a period of 30 years all rights of possession and exploitation (under reservation of lands allotted to the natives, and of rights of proprietorship previously acquired by third parties); but this lease of 30 years is to be changed into definite proprietorship for all lands which shall have been improved. How is it to be decided whether the lands may be considered as improved? The cahier des charges answers this question with precision. Shall be considered as improved:

1. Lands occupied over at least one-tenth of their surface by buildings;

2. Lands planted over at least one-twentieth of their surface with rich cultivation such as cocoa, coffee, caoutchouc, vanilla, indigo, tobacco, etc.;

3. Lands cultivated over at least one-tenth of their surface with food cultivation such as rice, millet, manioc, etc.;

4. The pasturage on which shall be maintained during at least five years beasts for breeding and fattening at the rate of two heads of large beasts or four heads of small beasts per 10 hectares[40];

5. The parts of forests of a superficies of at least 100 hectares of a single tenancy in which caoutchouc shall have been regularly collected for at least five years at the rate of at least 20 feet of trees or lianas as the average per hectare....

In exchange for these advantages the concessionaire assumes charges which are not defined with less rigour: Fixed annual rents to be paid to the colony, share of the profits, 15 per cent. of the company’s receipts going to the local budget, obligation to float on the watercourses traversing the concession steamboats of a fixed model, all without prejudice to the payment of a security....

The British merchants[41] complained of being deprived of the rights which they had exercised during many years of sending their contractors to collect the caoutchouc on the lands conceded to the new companies, a dispossession for which they demanded reparation. The Court, after having ascertained that the English firms did not claim any permanent establishment on the domain conceded, non-suited them, objecting with reason that the State as proprietor of free lands in the Congo had the right to dispose of them, and that the long tolerance which the merchants had enjoyed for the collection of the products of the soil could not constitute an acquired right in their favour. Beaten in the French courts, the Liverpool firms lodged an appeal before a tribunal where they were certain of being heard. They set in movement the English Chambers of Commerce, interested the press and public opinion in their cause, and made the British Foreign Office intervene.

I have always admired the ardour and solicitude with which British diplomacy takes part and cause for the grievances of British subjects abroad. The British citizen, as formerly the Roman, is assured of being protected and defended. I know citizens of other countries who cannot always say as much. The complaints of the Liverpool merchants furnished in their way a fine platform for diplomacy. The Congo with the guarantees stipulated by the Berlin Conference, should it not be the chosen land, the last refuge of commercial freedom? To the complaints of merchants established in the French colony were added those of the English merchants and consuls resident in the Belgian Congo. It was the placing on trial of the Independent State in its entirety—of its commercial policy, of its native policy, which formed the subject of inquiry in the press and before the British Parliament....

Now in no country of the world has freedom of commerce been considered as interfering with the rights of property. The proprietor of the soil alone has the right to dispose of the products of the land which belongs to him. Do people in England think that freedom of commerce is violated because the first passer-by of a rich and extensive manorial domain cannot take the fruits and vegetables, kill the bucks and the hinds, and lay the axe to the trees? Why should it be otherwise on the Congo? The whole question is, whether the State, which in the French Congo (as in the Independent State) has proclaimed itself the proprietor of vacant and unowned lands, has this right legitimately. If it has, it can in one form or another alienate the lands belonging to it. That this exercise of the law of property may inconvenience those who formerly enjoyed the products of the soil, I do not deny. There are countries where hunting is not forbidden, and the game belongs to the killer. A day arrives when the proprietor reserves his rights. He forbids hunting, he institutes suits. It is very disagreeable for those who used to traverse his land freely. But it does not follow that they have the right to an indemnity. Still that is the strange suit that England wishes to bring before the European Areopagus. The Congo has protected its hunting grounds; the poachers exclaim against the injustice and claim damages![42]

[Sidenote: British Concessions in Canada.]

[Sidenote: Crown Lands in British Colonies.]

Has the State been right in considering itself the legitimate proprietor of vacant and unowned lands in the Congo? If any doubt existed on the subject, the luminous opinion given to our concessionaires by Maître Henri Barboux should suffice to remove it. After having recalled that in all countries, at all periods, the exercise of the right of sovereignty implied the appropriation for the profit of the State of conquered lands, the eminent advocate shows how England has made use of that prerogative; in Lower Canada where a single Governor granted 1,425,000 acres to sixty persons; in Upper Canada where in 1825 out of 17,000,000 measured acres, an extent almost equal to Ireland, 15,000,000 had been given in concession; in Australia where the distribution of lands to colonists in gratuitous concessions or by sale was never considered “as in contempt of the rights of the primitive inhabitants of the country, nor as contrary to the largest principles of commercial freedom.” In India, Ceylon, at Hong-Kong, in Africa (Cape Colony, Natal, Bechuanaland), in the Fiji Islands, Great Britain has always admitted that “the whole country falls to the Crown, and that the Crown can attribute to individuals portions of the country, while reserving as its own domain all which is not given in concession” (Creasy, The Imperial and Colonial Constitutions of the Britannic Empire, p. 66). Holland applies the same rules. In Germany the Imperial ordinance of 26th November, 1895, ordains in these terms: “Under reserve of the rights of property or other real rights that individuals or juridical persons, native chiefs or communities, can invoke, as well as of the rights of occupation of third persons resulting from contracts passed with the Imperial Government, all the land of German East Africa is vacant land of the Crown. The proprietorship of it belongs to the Empire.”

These very same principles have been applied by the European nations which have shared amongst themselves the Conventional Basin of the Congo. The reservation of the rights acquired by third persons, the reservation of the rights of natives are stipulated for in our contracts of concession with a precision which leaves nothing to be desired. “The society having the concession cannot exercise the rights of enjoyment and exploitation which are accorded to it except outside villages occupied by natives, and the lands reserved to them for purposes of cultivation, pasturage, or as forest. The perimeters of these lands if it is a question of natives with a fixed residence, or the successive perimeters to be occupied or reserved if it is one of natives with a changeable residence, shall be fixed by the decisions of the Governor of the Colony, who shall equally determine the lands over which the natives shall preserve the rights of hunting and fishing. The lands and rights thus reserved shall not be ceded by the natives either to the concessionaire or to third parties except with the authority of the Governor of the Colony.” (Art. 10 of the decree of 28th March, 1879, on concessions.) These stipulations are the most liberal that could be carried out in a country where native proprietorship is not regularly constituted, where the land surrounding the villages is alone cultivated, where the villages are shifted about with extreme ease, what was field or plantation one year returning to the state of the bush in the following. As to lands really occupied by Europeans, they have always been left outside the new concessions. What it has not been thought proper to respect is the pretension which some traders have put forward of being masters of what they never possessed, of trading in what did not belong to them....

Up to the present I have spoken only of the concessions given on French territory. The Independent State has employed the same system. In a part of its territory it even inaugurated it. All that may be said to defend our administration from having violated on the Congo the principle of commercial liberty is, then, applicable to the Belgian concessions.

[Sidenote: Grievances of Traders.]

The Private Domain (Domaine Privé) of the Congo Free State embraces approximately one-fourth of the unoccupied lands within its borders. This is the feature of the State’s general scheme of physical development which excites its enemies to make many foolhardy assaults and become voluble with fallacy and hollow argument. It was created by a decree dated December 5, 1892. All the net revenue derived from the Private Domain is placed in the State’s treasury and applied to the payment of the cost of its public improvements and all its undertakings seeking to improve the condition of the native population, the facilities for their civilisation and the elevation of their moral nature.

The revenue from the Private Domain is derived from the State’s direct exploitation of its lands. Rubber and ivory are its chief products at the present time. Various kinds of wood abound in its forests, and cocoa and coffee plantations, experimental farms, live-stock ranches, agricultural areas, all are being developed under the direct supervision of State agents.

The question which is periodically enlivened concerning this governmental scheme for acquiring necessary revenue is: Can the State, in occupation of its own lands in the Congo Basin, develop the land by direct cultivation, or en régie (by trustees), for the benefit of the State budget, which, in its integrity, is devoted to increase the power of the State to civilise and elevate its native people? There can be no doubt about the State’s right to develop territory which for lack of private initiative and capital would produce nothing for the benefit of the society for which the State has been created. This right has been recognised not only by the Powers at the Berlin Conference in reference to Central Africa, but, in varying aspects, by all civilised countries in reference to other parts of the globe. Belgian, French, English, Russian, Swiss, and Italian jurists have considered this question at great length. The opinions of Messrs. Van Berchem, Van Maldeghem, de Paepe, John Westlake, K.C., Sir Horace Davey, K.C., de Martens, Barboux, Nys, Pierantoni, and Azcarate, besides the weight of opinion expressed by United States authorities which have been consulted, all concede the State’s right to develop its territory for the benefit of a treasury devoted to the welfare of its people. Moreover, this scheme of self-development is not peculiar to the Free State. France, Germany, Great Britain, and Portugal declared unoccupied land to be the property of the State. The establishment of that principle at once implies the adoption of that other by which the State may improve its own property and turn it from a wilderness into a productive garden. In addition to innumerable earlier decrees by the Governments surrounding the Congo Free State, many of which are set out in the Bulletin Officiel of the Independent State of the Congo for June, 1903, new ordinances, amplifying and extending the early decrees, have been recently (September 20 and October 23, 1904) put into operation. Their inclusion herein would unduly extend the text of this volume. A brief indication of their provisions will be found in the Appendix under the title: Features of the Land System in the African Colonies of Germany, Great Britain, France, and Portugal.[43]

From the Neue Hamburgische Börsen Halle, 20 October, 1904, we quote the following comment upon the German decree of the same date, inasmuch as it reveals what, in general, is the European opinion of the British criticism of the Congo State land system:

The decree brings under the designation of forest products the products from all woodlands, whether fenced in or not, and even from isolated plantations, from bush and underbrush, bamboo and elm trees, and from all liquaceous plants, especially the lumber, the bark, the sap, the rubber, the leaves, the flowers, and the fruit. In such part of the territories as have, after effective occupation, been declared forest reservations by a public notice of the government, it is strictly forbidden to gather any kind of forest products, for such harvesting is made an exclusive right of the Treasury.

That decree is interesting in many ways. First, it shows that the German Colonial Office has decided to systematically protect the forest domain of the Colony in order to prevent indiscriminate deforestation, which would rapidly bring disaster upon the country. But it also reminds one of the violent onslaught made by some English people, and especially by the Liverpool rubber dealers, against the Congo Free State.

What England unceasingly argues against the Belgian Congo—for the humanitarian movement is only a pretext—namely, the exploitation by the Government of such parts of the territory as are not private property of individuals, is actually made a rule by the [German] decree just referred to. A previous decree of the Government has still more closely indicated what parts of the territory are assigned to the Treasury as forest reservations. Added to the other Treasury lands of various description they cover more than nine-tenths of the Colony.

The conclusion is that in German East Africa, as well as in the Congo Free State, the rubber harvest, in which the Liverpool merchants take such lively interest, is gathered from crown-lands only, and practically constitutes a State monopoly.

Now, a large part of German East Africa comes under the provisions of the Berlin Act. And, in order to show the extent to which British hypocrisy will go, it is enough to recall that for years, both in British East Africa and in Uganda, which also partly come under the scope of the Berlin Act, the same government rules have been enforced, declaring india-rubber a State monopoly not only on the crown-lands, but even on private estates.

What is lawful for one party must be lawful for the other, and we cannot reproach the Congo Free State for upholding against British would-be interference such rights of the Crown as other governments maintain in their own colonies.

This example of vigorous Teutonic candour might be repeated from the columns of many other European journals, but the desire to avoid passing from the historical to the controversial in the present work must limit the use of abundant similar material.

To show that the direct exploitation of domanial forests is made a legitimate source of revenue in Eastern countries, the instance of Japan may be cited. That brave little country, so heroically engaged in fighting for the unmolested right to pursue its brilliant course of modern progress, directly cultivates and harvests for the benefit of its treasury a State domain equal to seven times the entire area of Belgium!

When the ministers of his Majesty, King Leopold, were requested to indicate the principles upon which the Domaine Privé of the Congo Free State was developed, they stated that, having in view the necessity for revenue from the soil, the civilising influence of labour, and the social, physical, and moral condition of the African black, they had devised that scheme which would attract the only existing available labour in the country, the co-operation of the native, for which co-operation the State not only paid him, but provided him with liberating and enlightening opportunities for participating in the growth of African civilisation. In its official reports the Government of the Congo Free State refers to its aims in this respect:

The object which the Government aims at, is to succeed in turning the private domain of the State to profit, exclusively by means of voluntary contributions [of labour] from the natives, and inducing them to work through the allurement of an earned and adequate payment. The rate must be sufficiently remunerative to stimulate in the natives the desire of obtaining it, and, as a consequence, to induce them to gather in the products of the domain.

Where the attraction of commercial benefit is not sufficient to assure the working of the private domain, it is necessary to resort to the tax in kind; but, even in this case, the work is remunerated in the same manner as the voluntary contributions. The Government’s orders in this respect are positive. Properly speaking, the tax in kind is not a real tax, since the local value of the products brought in by the natives is given to them in exchange.

The Government has never neglected an opportunity to remind its agents, intrusted with the collection of taxes in kind, that their part is that of an educator: their mission is to impress on the mind of the natives the taste for work; and the means available would fail of their aim if compulsion was changed into violence.

What is called the Domain of the Crown is a limited territory defined by decrees dated March 8, 1896, and December 23, 1901, lying in the basins of Lake Leopold II. and of the Lukenie River, in the basin of the Busira-Momboya River, and between certain boundaries at the confluence of the Lubefu and Sankuru rivers, to the western summit-line of the Lukenie basin, and including certain contiguous areas. These lands include six discovered mines which have so far not been worked. The Domain of the Crown is a corporate body administered by a committee of three persons appointed by the Sovereign.

The forests of the Congo are the finest in the world. They contain a great variety of hard and soft wood, fruit-bearing trees, rubber trees and vines, and gum trees, and constitute an industrial wealth which is being preserved by enforcing rigorous laws. A decree dated July 7, 1898, and orders dated November 22, 1898, and March 21, 1902, regulate timber cutting. Under these, steamboats may take on supplies of wood fuel on payment of an annual tax measured according to their tonnage and speed.

The mining laws of the State are embodied in the decrees of June 8, 1888, and March 20, 1893. They provide, amongst other things, that the purchase of land from the State or from individuals does not “confer the right of working the mineral riches beneath the surface”; that “mineral riches remain the property of the State”; that “no person can work a mine except by virtue of a special concession from the State”; that “the Government fixes by decree the regions where mining researches are authorised either in favour of all persons without distinction, or of the persons specified in the decrees.” A licence fee of 2500 francs and other fees are imposed upon those who, having discovered mineral-bearing properties, desire to work them. A mining concession is limited to an area not exceeding 24,000 acres. Article 4 of the decree of March 25, 1893, provides that:

Whoever shall discover a mine in the regions where he is authorised to make researches in conformity with Article 3, can obtain a right of preference for ten years for the concession of this mine, on condition that he complies with the regulations laid down in the present Decree.

All mining concessions are limited to a term of ninety-nine years. On its expiration the State succeeds to the property as it stands. A system of royalties on the product of the mine is stipulated in all concessions. Such royalties shall not be less than one dollar a year on each 2.47 acres. These fixed annual charges may be commuted by arrangement with the State.

In commenting upon the criticism which British merchants and their allies have uttered against the entire land system of the Congo Free State, an eminent Belgian closely identified with those who support the Congolese policy has said:

It is an easy matter to point out, in an undertaking such as the Congolese enterprise, the inherent imperfections and difficulties of the task, and the accidental defects in the instruments which the State is called upon to employ.

It is, however, very unfair to hide under a bushel the good results which have been obtained, and the progress which has been realised, and to expose on a pinnacle a few exceptional and regrettable facts, to draw a conclusion from particular cases to the detriment of the general rule, and to condemn wholesale an institution which draws forth the admiration even of its enemies, and of which a witness, certainly to be little suspected, has been able to say: “In the whole history of Colonial life, there is no example on record of such a result obtained in such a short period of time.”

We are far from overlooking the important rôle which criticism plays in a matter which is as yet so little advanced as the art and science of colonisation, but in order to play this rôle properly, the critic must remain impartial.

After all, if these severe criticisms have been at times formulated, there are ample compensations in many authoritative comments from abroad. For instance, M. de Lanessan, formerly Minister of the Admiralty in France, says:

“Belgium has shown that, in matters of colonisation, she possesses more practical and rational ideas than ourselves, and a better understanding of the methods of modern colonisation.”

As to the condition of the natives, this is the opinion of Sir Harry Johnston, speaking from experience of that part of the Congo which was formerly the most backward:

“This portion of the Congo Free State was inhabited by cheerful natives who repeatedly, and without solicitation on my part, compared the good times they were now having, to the misery and terror which preceded them when the Arabs and Manyema had established themselves in the country as chiefs and slave-traders.”

As this volume is going to press, advices are to hand that M. Gaston Doumergue, the French Minister for the Colonies, submitted to the President of the Republic of France—and on October 23, 1904, procured his signature to—a decree consolidating the Republic’s legislation concerning French West Africa. This decree reaffirms that “all vacant lands in the colonies of French West Africa are the property of the State”; that the property of the State may be alienated, leased, or developed according to the methods employed in the Free State; that concessions may be granted; that property held in common by tribes under their chiefs may not be sold by them without the State’s consent, etc. In short, the success of the land régime practised by the Congo Free State having convinced the Germans and the French of its wisdom, both countries have now conformed their own laws to it.

FOOTNOTES:

[36] Report to the Belgian Senate, July 25, 1893.

[37] For statistics supporting this statement, see page 287.

[38] Sale of Government Land in the Anglo-Egyptian Soudan, Times (London), July 18, 1904.

[39] Annual Colonial Report, Lagos, 1899.

[40] Approximately twenty-four and one-half acres.

[41] Two Liverpool firms, Messrs. Hatton & Cookson and John Holt & Co., have alone figured in the cases brought before the Courts of Libreville.

[42] Italics by the author.

[43] See Appendix.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XXIX. THE NEMESIS OF LIBEL

On Friday, the 25th of March, 1904, in the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, London, the case of Captain Henri Joseph Leon De Keyser, and his colleagues-in-arms, Commandants Chaltin and Dubreucq, against Captain Guy Burrows, an Englishman, one time in the service of the Congo Free State, and his publishers, Messrs. R. A. Everett & Co., London, came on for trial before Mr. Justice Ridley and a special jury.

The trial of this action for libel is the first which has, so far, been determined against those who are charged with traducing the men whose courage in, and devotion to, the Congo cause has erected a prosperous State in the heart of savage Africa. The case irradiates much that has been long proceeding in Great Britain, and that has recently received significant impetus in the United States through the action of certain persons operating from the city of Boston.

The author has no acquaintance with any of the parties to this case, but deems it incumbent upon one who essays to write a full history of the Congo Free State to include an account of litigation which in its proceedings and result reveals and explains many things with which the present work will not otherwise specifically deal.

Belgian officers brought this action against an English officer, whom they charged with libel and attempted blackmail, before a British jury. Captain Guy Burrows, the defendant, had published a book containing false statements of atrocities in the Congo. He had followed the Liverpool and Boston custom of attributing villainy to the officers of the Congo State Government. But unlike the Liverpool and Boston general allegations, Captain Burrows attributed the wrongful acts to Captain De Keyser and Commandants Chaltin and Dubreucq. What the Court thought of the case as it sensationally unfolded itself may be gleaned from the observations and summing up of Mr. Justice Ridley. What the jury felt is indicated in its verdict for damages against the defendants in all the cases.

To ensure the fairest statement of this interesting and informing suit, the following quotations, verbatim et literatim, are taken from a stenographic report of the trial.

There was a fine array of learned counsel on both sides, among whom Sir Edward Clarke, K.C., Mr. J. Eldon Bankes, K.C., and Mr. Lewis Thomas (instructed by Messrs. Bird, Strode & Bird, solicitors) appeared for the plaintiffs; Mr. Crispe, K.C., and Mr. Swanton for the defendant Burrows; and Mr. Germaine, K.C., and Mr. G. A. Scott for the defendants, Messrs. R. A. Everett & Co.

Defendants’ counsel opened the case by asking leave of the Court to withdraw his clients’ plea of justification, by which, in popular terms, he stated that Captain Burrows was unable to prove any of the monstrous accusations he had made against Captain De Keyser and his colleagues, in the book which contained the libels complained of. After this dramatic collapse of previous pretence, Sir Edward Clarke proceeded with the case as follows:

May it please your Lordship.—Gentlemen of the Jury, I feel bound to preface the observations that I have to make to you upon this case by just a very short reference to what has taken place this morning. A very sudden transformation has occurred in the condition of the case, and in the issues which are to be put before you. In February last year Captain De Keyser, a gentleman who has served in the Belgian Army, and who has been employed in the Congo Free State, found himself compelled, by circumstances which I shall explain to you in a few minutes, to take the opportunity of bringing this action against Captain Burrows and against some London publishers in respect of accusations against him of the gravest possible kind—accusations dishonouring to his character as a man of honour and as a man of humanity, and dishonouring to him as an officer in the Belgian Army; and he brought his action in February last year. Thereupon, in the course of the year, Captain Burrows puts on a defence in the month of April or May, and Messrs. Everett & Company put on a defence in the month of August, in which they say that those accusations against Captain De Keyser were true; and what were called Particulars, to which, however, I need not now refer, were put in, in which it was alleged that Captain De Keyser had been guilty of infamous conduct as a servant of the Government of the Congo Free State. This case has gone on month after month. There have been questions as to the time when it should be tried, and those who were advising Captain De Keyser and those who are interested in this matter have had the anxious duty of taking care that it never could possibly be said that the Defendants did not have a fair opportunity of trial. The case stood over for a considerable time, and even so lately as when it was before the Lord Chief Justice there was a practical assent on the part of the Plaintiffs to the postponement of the case in order that no one should ever say that the Defendants had not the fullest opportunity of putting their case before you; and now, at this moment, when we come into Court to-day, suddenly, the statement that the accusations are true is absolutely struck out. Not only do the Defendants say that they are not prepared to call witnesses to support the allegation that those allegations are true, but they appear not to be prepared even to challenge Captain De Keyser himself, or to ask him any questions as to his conduct in the Congo Free State. I do not know how far I may be allowed to go—how far it may be possible in the present state of the Pleadings for me to get any absolute vindication of Captain De Keyser in this Court. I daresay my Lord will be indulgent with me with regard to that, looking at the very cruel position in which this gallant officer has been placed by accusations made against him which might affect, and, I believe, have affected him, very seriously in private life—accusations which have come to be known and to be talked about—accusations, as he was prepared to show, which were absolutely untrue, and accusations at the very last moment withdrawn, struck away from the Record, when not only has he been here prepared to give his evidence, but when we have tried to get, and succeeded in getting, as many of those as could be possibly called here who were associated with him in his responsible work in the Congo Free State to carry to a demonstration the proof that he could give that there was not a tittle of foundation for the injurious statements that have been made about him. Now, at the last moment, it comes to a question of publication, and my learned friends have taken the position that if I can prove against them that there was a publication of these libels, then they are without a defence, and are not able to say that there is any truth in the statements that they have made, and must submit to such verdict as you may give in the matter. As to the verdict, I do not know whether, in the ultimate results, the amount of it will matter very much, but you may think, when you hear the statement I have to make to you with regard to the publication of these accusations, that it is a case in which, whether there is ever any possibility of recovering the money or not, at all events there should be a very definite expression of your view with regard to the conduct that these parties have pursued. I shall prove not only a publication, but I shall prove an attempt to blackmail the Belgian authorities, and the authorities of the Congo Free State, by these people in conjunction, Captain Burrows and Everett & Co. I believe I shall prove it up to the hilt, and then it will be for you to say, by your verdict, what you think of the conduct of which they have been guilty.

Gentlemen, I must limit very closely the observations which I was going to make to you. My learned friend and I had somewhat laboriously prepared ourselves for dealing with all the possible issues of fact that might be raised in this case that were suggested by the accusations against Captain De Keyser. That has passed out of the case, and I must treat very shortly the questions with which I should otherwise have had at some length to deal. It is essential when you are considering the persons against whom, if I prove the publication, your verdict must go, for you to consider who those persons are. The accusations which were made have been made by Captain Burrows and published by the Everetts, and were accusations which concerned the course of government in the Congo Free State, a matter which has attracted great attention from time to time and with regard to which certain very strong statements have been made in this country and elsewhere.

Now, Gentlemen, the Congo Free State is a State which, as a separate and independent State, has not existed very long. It was in the year 1884 or 1885 that that State was constituted under the Government of the King of the Belgians, who is called the King Sovereign of the State, and it has from that time been administered by Belgian authorities as the authority of the Free State. It has been a Government in process of construction, and it was not, perhaps, until the year 1891 that it can be said that there was an organised system of government extending over the Congo Free State. It is an enormous area of over 800,000 square miles. It is an area scantily populated, but populated by savages of almost the lowest type of existence, savages among whom the practice of cannibalism, the practice of mutilation of enemies who have been killed in battle, and of violent punishments as between one tribe and another, had reigned without check until the representatives of civilisation came, in the officers of the Congo Free State, and established some sort of organisation and government throughout that country. The difficulties have been enormous. The difficulty of dealing with an area of more than 800,000 square miles with only a very few hundred white men who were in command of black troops, drawn from the very tribes whose habits I just now referred to, has been enormous. It has been one of the most anxious and difficult tasks that a civilised country ever undertook. That task has been fulfilled—on the whole with signal success. No set of men are absolutely free from reproach. The position of the representatives of the Congo Free State has been an extremely difficult one. At the time when Captain De Keyser went out, a captain and seventy-five men had been killed a few weeks before, very near to the place where he was sent to carry on his work. Every white man is surrounded by hundreds or thousands of black men, and is in a position not only of great responsibility but of great personal danger and of great difficulty, and there may have been here and there a default on the part of now one and now another of the officers in the employ of the Congo Free State. It has not been the fault of that State, for from time to time orders have been issued to the officers of the Free State, by which it has been attempted to prevent any sort of misconduct, and there have been administrative orders by which severe punishments have been inflicted on the natives for cannibalism or for the mutilation of persons who have been killed in battle, and this amelioration of the condition of the people has been going on with great success. Captain Burrows, who wrote against Captain De Keyser these most atrocious libels, has been on two occasions in the employment of the Congo Free State. He was employed there from June, 1894, until September, 1897. He never had an opportunity of seeing or knowing the character of the work which Captain De Keyser did, for they were together only fourteen days in the year 1897. But from 1894 to 1897 Captain Burrows was out in the Congo Free State. He came back to Europe in 1897, and the first interesting circumstance about him is that he became at once the champion of the Congo Free State against allegations made by Captain Salusbury. In 1896 Captain Salusbury had made accusations against certain officers of the Congo Free State, and one of his allegations had been that there were mutilations—hand-cutting and the like. Captain Burrows made himself the defender of the Congo Free State and of its administration. He had had four years’ experience, and he sought an interview with the Étoile Belge, and had a conversation with the representative of that newspaper, which was published; and you will find in a letter from Captain Burrows that he takes to himself the credit for what he had done in getting rid of, or answering, the accusations of Captain Salusbury. I will read a line or two from this statement: “As for his accusations,”—that is, Captain Salusbury’s accusations against the Congo State and the Belgian officers who employ him,—“they fail from the outset. It is without any compulsion that the natives enlist in the public forces. The harvest of ivory and caoutchouc gives rise to no atrocity. I have witnessed none of the odious deeds related by Captain Salusbury, and they certainly would have come to my knowledge if they had been real. I say this for the simple reason that it is true.” Then at the end he says as to the action of the Government: “With such accounts one is silent instead of becoming an accuser. I do not pretend that all is perfect at Congo. It certainly commits errors sometimes, but truth compels me to state that the Government seeks only to redress them, and to punish those who have been guilty of it. The Belgian officers do not use their men brutally at will as Captain Salusbury has affirmed. Indeed, the soldiers are much attached to the greater number of their white chiefs, and the latter can confidently count on their courage and devotion in time of war.”

The close of it all was—and this you will find extremely important when you see what Captain Burrows was saying later: “The tales that have been told of cut hands are all pure legend. I have never seen a living native mutilated. As for the cannibal customs of certain tribes of the Congo, they should not be charged to the whites, who do what they can to modify them, but who can only succeed in doing it after lapse of time.” That was as explicit as it was possible to be. That was published in the year 1898. He came back in 1897. You will find a reference in the letter which I am going to read. He published a book. I will read the letter first. The letter is the 20th November, 1897. “Dear Mr. Liebrechts,—I send you the last article of Mr. Salusbury.... I do not like asking anything for myself, but if it were possible for you to obtain for me the order of the ‘Lion,’ and that I should be named the Captain Commandant of the first class, Salusbury would know it, and this would be an absolute denial of his exposures.... I have an idea of writing a book entitled The Truth about the Congo. It should be dedicated (I do not know if that is the word) to the King, and an introduction written by Stanley. What do you think of the idea? Yours always, Burrows.” M. Liebrechts is the Secretary General of the Congo Free State, resident in Brussels. He has had the administration of the Congo under the King for years past. He himself served for six years in the Congo, came back, and has been Under Secretary for the Congo Free State since 1889. He has been Secretary General for the State, and has had the responsibility for the administration of the place, and is at present here in Court.

In that letter he refers to an introduction written by Stanley—that is, Sir Henry M. Stanley. Here is the book that was published. It was not called The Truth about Central Africa; it was called The Land of the Pigmies. It is dedicated to the King of the Belgians by permission, and it does contain an introduction by Stanley. It purports to give a full account of the Congo State, and I need hardly say there is not the smallest reference in it as to any sort of atrocity. At one page there is a statement of a man being caught, who had been guilty of inhuman conduct, and of his being most severely punished, but that is given as an instance of the untruth of the stories that inhumanity was allowed. This was the position in 1898. Captain Burrows went back in June, 1898, and was at Basoko from 1898 till February, 1901. Then he came back to Europe on the 21st of May, 1901. He wrote a letter to Mr. Liebrechts. You will be interested to note the attitude he takes with regard to his treatment by the Congo Free State. “Sir, I have the honour to ask you to have the goodness to request the Government to permit me to convert into capital (i. e., sell) my allotment of the public debt 4 per cent. Congo Free State, granted by your letter dated the 19th April, 1901.” The explanation is that when an officer has served in the Congo for a certain time and retires from the service there is allotted to him a certain income from the Public Debt, and he is allowed to take that as a lump sum, instead of receiving the interest from year to year upon the proportion which is allotted to him. “The motives which have decided me to make this request are as follows: It is more than probable that I shall not return any more to the Congo. I shall in all probability go to the Transvaal, and in that case the stock granted to me would be almost useless. It would indeed be difficult for me to again enter into service with the State after having been four times passed over for promotion by officers of shorter terms of service. Moreover, I have never received any increase of pay during the two years and six months of my last term of service as Commissioner of the district of Aruwimi. In spite of services rendered since my arrival in the Congo in July, 1898, I was the object of unrelenting suspicion on the part of several functionaries of the State, and I am informed that many of these gentlemen disparage me to the State. Amongst the services which I have rendered I can remind you that it was I who silenced Captain Salusbury. I wrote and published a book distinctly favourable to the State, for which Sir Henry M. Stanley was pleased to write the introduction. I regret, Sir, that such circumstances oblige me to quit the service of the State.... I have the honour to remain, District Commissioner Burrows.” You see by that that he was leaving the service. He was stating his grievances: that his pay had not been properly raised, and that he had not received sufficient distinction. The next thing that happens is on the 15th of November, 1901—a note which is the beginning, as you watch from this point, of the scheme by which it was attempted to blackmail the Government of the Congo Free State, or anybody else, by the combination of Captain Burrows and Messrs. Everett, publishers of his second book. On the 15th of November, 1901, this very curious note was written: “Dear Monsieur Liebrechts. I should be very grateful if you would have the kindness to tell me if the State wishes to employ me again. If so, will you let me know the conditions? Mr. Canisius is here. He says that he is engaged in writing a book on the Congo.” That is a very interesting bit of information. Monsieur Canisius was a gentleman who had been in the employment of the Congo Free State, and had left that employment to go into the employment of a private Company, and then had desired to come back into the employment of the Congo Free State. He had been refused. It is a rule, I think, with the Congo Free State not to take back into the State service those who have left to serve in private companies. Captain Burrows says: “Canisius is here. He is engaged in writing a book on the Congo.” M. Canisius was not there; M. Canisius at that time was on the Gold Coast! It was a very curious notification to send: “Are you going to have me back into the State service? There is somebody here who is writing a book.” On the 23rd of November he was answered by Commandant Liebrechts: “I have duly received your letter of the 15th of November and hasten to thank you for the communication you have been good enough to make me. I heard Monsieur Canisius was spreading certain calumnies about the State.” On the 16th December Captain Burrows writes again: “I presume that your letter is a refusal on the part of the Free State to re-engage me for a third term of service. I beg you to enlighten me on this point, then I shall know whether I am free or not to do what I wish”—another very interesting suggestion; it is enlightened very much by what you will hear shortly. On the 21st of December M. Liebrechts writes thus: “I quite understood at the time of our last conversations, that you no longer wished to resume service at the Congo, and we seemed to be agreed that a post suitable to your capabilities would be very difficult to find in Africa. You must not, however, conclude that we shall no longer be able to make use of your services should an occasion arise, for special missions, such as may arise at any moment in other regions. If you were inclined to hold yourself at our disposal, I should be obliged if you would let me know.” On the 31st December Captain Burrows wrote: “I do not remember the conversation alluded to in your letter of the 21st December, in which I said quite plainly that I no longer wished to resume service at the Congo. I understood that it was a question of the conditions under which it would be impossible to resume such service. You ask me if I am disposed to hold myself at the disposal of the State with a view of being employed for special missions which may arise at any moment in other regions. Am I to understand that I am still in the service of the State or not? And if so, under what conditions of remuneration, etc.?” On the 2nd of January, 1902, Commandant Liebrechts writes: “In reply to your letter of the 31st December, 1901, I hasten to inform you that your agreement ended with your return to Europe, and that since then you have, according to our laws and regulations, ceased to be a member of our staff. It is precisely for this reason that I asked you in my last letter if it would suit you to hold yourself at our disposal for a certain period—let us say two years. You will have to undertake during that period any mission with which we might entrust you. Of course, if you accepted this proposal, an annual salary would be allowed to you for that period of two years. But before deciding this point I should like to know if, in itself, our proposal commends itself to you. I should be obliged if you would reply as soon as possible.”

Gentlemen of the Jury, we have come now to January, 1902. There was an end of the negotiations, so to speak, between Captain Burrows and Commandant Liebrechts, and Captain Burrows found himself, to use his own expression, free to do as he chose.

During the early part of 1902, he began writing some things, and an advertisement appeared in the Wide World Magazine in which an announcement was made of “Life in the Congo Free State,” a series of articles which were to be published, written by Captain Guy Burrows. The advertisement reads: “Captain Burrows was recently in the employ of the Congo Free State Government, and in his official capacity has seen much of the misgovernment which prevails in that little-known territory. He has a good deal to say about the atrocities which have taken place in connection with the rubber industry, and the sworn testimony and photographic evidence which he holds will no doubt create a sensation in high circles. Captain Burrows’ articles in the Wide World will be illustrated with his own snapshots.” That was the advertisement that appeared. Why there was a mention of atrocities in it appears presently. The articles appeared in April, May, and June, in the Wide World. They are articles with regard to the Congo State, and there is not one syllable in them about any atrocity of any sort or kind. That is what he was doing in the early part or middle of the year 1902. In the latter part of this year an agreement was entered into between Captain Burrows as author, and E. A. Everett & Co., London, as publishers, for the publication of a work then entitled The Congo Free State. This was signed on November 17, 1902. On the 24th of November, 1902, this letter was written by Everett & Co. to the Secretary of State of the Congo Free State at Brussels: “Sir, we have recently concluded a contract with Captain Guy Burrows, well known to the English public as having served some years in the service [sic] of the Congo Free State, to publish an important work on the Congo Free State. The information contained in this book is of such a startling character, and contains so many revelations concerning the administration of the Congo Free State of Belgium, that we thought it well to advise you of its publication beforehand, and at the same time to enquire if we may have the honour of offering you the Belgian rights for publication in your country. We are arranging for simultaneous publication in Italy, Germany, France, Norway, and Sweden, and the United States of America. We need hardly say that the book will be well got up, and illustrated with a very large number of valuable and unique photographs taken on the spot by the author and others. If you wish to move in the matter of this offer, we should be glad if you would let us know at your earliest convenience....” That, written on the 24th to the Secretary General, was followed by a curious communication sent to the editor of the Independance Belge at Brussels, on the 27th November by Everett & Co.: “Dear Sir, We send you the advance notice of the enclosed valuable work, and trust you may find room to insert the same in your literary column. If you have an agent here, we could, perhaps, tell him of some of the marvellous revelations in this book, but which we could not put on paper.” On the 8th of December Commandant Liebrechts wrote to him: “I have received your letter of the 24th ulto., in which you inform me that you have agreed with Captain Guy Burrows for the publication of a work on the Congo State, and you offer me the rights of publication in Belgium. Before replying to your proposition I wish to see the manuscript or a proof of the book.” On the 9th Messrs. Everett & Co. wrote: “We are in receipt of your letter of the 8th inst., for which we have to thank you, and we much regret that we are unable to comply with your request in sending you the MSS. of this book, as we are under a contract with the author not to part with the MSS. under any consideration whatever. We should, however, be happy to send you the title and contents so as to give you some idea of the nature and scope of the book, and we should also be willing to show the MSS. to any of your accredited agents in London (by appointment). The MSS., signed documents, and photographs are of such vital importance that we should not care to put them through the post, for fear of loss. We understand that the author, Captain Burrows, was lately a District Commissioner for the Congo Free State, and is a Chevalier of the Order of the Lion of Belgium.” In consequence of their offer to show those documents to anybody who was sent over, Mr. Bigwood came over to this country, and he saw Messrs. Everett. He met them and had a conversation with them, and then there was shown to him the document of which this is a copy, called “The Curse of Central Africa.” It was the same document as had already been sent to the Independance Belge. At the end of chapter xxv., the very last chapter, there is this: “A Belgian’s treatment of a native chief—more bestial than human—goes unpunished.” That was afterwards applied to Captain De Keyser. Then comes a list of illustrations. At the end there is a list of Belgian officers and officials who, the author alleged, are responsible for the atrocities mentioned in this book; and a series of names included the name of Captain De Keyser.

Captain Burrows was in England on the 16th of December. He had a conversation with Everett on the 17th of December. This note was written to Mr. Bigwood at the Hotel Metropole by R. A. Everett: “With reference to your visit yesterday at my office, I think it would be to your advantage for you to call upon me at my club. I shall be here during the evening.” That was the National Liberal Club, Whitehall Place. On the 17th, Everett was at the National Liberal Club, and he was there with Captain Burrows and young Mr. Everett, and then a very interesting agreement was signed which throws a very clear light indeed upon the correspondence that had been going on with Brussels. It is witnessed by A. E. C. Everett, that is, the son, who went over to Brussels and posted the post cards in bad French. Captain Burrows signs it: “I hereby agree to pay Mr. John George Leigh the sum of £500, if and when my publishers, R. A. Everett & Co., 42, Essex Street, Strand, receive the amount which may be paid by the Belgian Government for the non-publication of the manuscript written by myself and him entitled ‘The Curse of Central Africa.’ In case the book is published I agree to pay Mr. J. G. Leigh one third of the profits accruing from such publication as per agreement with the said publishers.” There never was more definite evidence of the intention with which these communications had been made with Brussels. If they had succeeded in extorting from the Belgian Government by any apprehension of the publication of these documents, a substantial sum of money—£500—was to be paid under that agreement.

Mr. Leigh is a brother-in-law of Mr. Canisius, and Mr. Leigh eventually signed the introduction to the book. He is a journalist. That agreement having been made on the 17th, on the 30th Mr. Everett writes another letter to the State Secretary: “At the request of Mr. Bigwood, who called upon us recently on your behalf, we send you a revise of the title-page, and one or two chapters of this book” (you will hear from Mr. Bigwood that that is not true; he did not request them to send anything at all), “and we shall be glad if you will let us know definitely, and at once, whether you wish to go any further in this matter. The more important photographs detailing the cruelties are being enlarged from the originals, so please do not take the enclosed to be the size.—We have the honour to remain your obedient servants, R. A. Everett & Co.”

In the documents you will find the passages to which I have now come, which are contained in this: “Flogging a native by order of De Keyser. At Basoko, the headquarters station of the district of the Aruwimi, where the notorious De Keyser [meaning thereby the Plaintiff], of hand-cutting fame, was in command, women were daily flogged for the most trivial offences, etc.” This, you will notice, is stated to have occurred in November, 1897. It was a time when Captain Burrows himself was not in the Congo State at all, but you will hear from Captain De Keyser that there is not the smallest ground for the allegation of cruelty that was made against him. It is true that a chief was taken down in the steamer on which Captain De Keyser was, but the suggestion that he was treated in that barbarous fashion is entirely untrue. The next passage which has to be read is with regard to Basoko, and as to Basoko, what I have told you is that at Basoko, for fourteen days only, Captain Burrows was at the place where Captain De Keyser had his command. “At Basoko, the headquarters station of the district of the Aruwimi, women used to be flogged almost daily for the most trivial offences. In one case five women were beaten for daring to go to a village a short way up the river to buy food without having previously informed the commandant.” Thus, after six and a half years, during which no breath of accusation has been made with regard to these matters by Captain Burrows, there comes this extraordinary attack: “De Keyser, of hand-cutting fame”; “De Keyser’s massacre”; De Keyser described as walking about the station where he was employed with his gun, and shooting with reckless cruelty at the natives—De Keyser, who is accused of taking a man prisoner and practically roasting him on the stack-pipe of the boat as he is going down the river. There was not only that, but the imputation of habitually flogging women at this place. These odious and appalling accusations, the echo of which follows a man through his whole life, are made against him, and made against him by whom? By a man who had been in the service of the Congo State itself, who, in the year 1897, as I have shown, made himself the defender of the administration of the Congo State, and declared in an article which was put in the interview which he had with L’Étoile Belge, that there was no foundation whatever for the accusations which had been made against the Belgian officers, and he was able to say so because he knew the truth. He attacked Captain Salusbury and disposed of that. This man, who in 1897 was taking that attitude, who afterwards leaves the service of the Congo State and feels himself aggrieved because he has not been so highly paid, because he has not had such distinction conferred upon him as others have had conferred,—he, seven years afterwards, enters into this—is it too much to call it a conspiracy? They are grave accusations, accusations which, if there had been any semblance of truth in them, or if there had been any honest reason for their being made, would have been made long before in different circumstances and in a different way. At the time when they are eventually made, they are made in a way which will not do public service, but will put money in Captain Burrows’ pocket and into the pockets of the publishers who are joining with him in publishing. It is perfectly impossible to misunderstand the correspondence with Commandant Liebrechts. If this had been an honest thing, honestly done by Captain Burrows in the performance of any public duty, do you think there would have been a going first to a publisher and then a letter from that publisher inviting the Belgian Government to consider what it would be worth their while to pay for the suppression of this book? There is no question as to the meaning of that letter. What do you think was the object of putting a crowd of names into the revise, some of which afterwards disappeared? Why, it was because the object was the illegitimate object of endeavouring to bring pressure upon the Belgian Government and to induce them to pay money to buy up this book. It was not for any public object at all, but because the mention of these names, showing that there was a list of persons formerly or at present in the Congo Company’s service against whom accusations might be brought, might make it worth the while of the Belgian Government to prevent a great scandal by procuring the suppression of this book. But the Congo Free State or the Belgian Government was not going to buy up the book in order to suppress it or in order to prevent its publication. As one of the witnesses, Commandant Liebrechts, said, “For the first time we found that we should be in a position to deal with specific statements.” It is all very well for people to be spreading over the world—I do not care whether they are in reports or interviews or anything else—general statements with regard to things that are done in the Congo Free State. Commandant Liebrechts says there had been complaints: “I had heard on more than one occasion of complaints being made as to conduct in the Congo. Whenever it was known, and found out, it was dealt with and it was punished. These allegations about maladministration of the Congo Free State had been spread about from time to time by interviews, suggestions, newspaper reports, and the like, but here we saw that there was an opportunity for the men who were personally attacked to come and vindicate themselves from the charges which were made against them.” Therefore, there was no attempt to buy this book, and the conspirators were disappointed who had been preparing this revise, and cramming it with an enormous amount of material which it was thought would frighten the Belgian Government from permitting it to be dealt with. I do not know what the price might have been which they would have asked for, but that there was a price they were thinking of you will see in a minute or two. What did they expect to get for it? We do not know. But we do know this, that there were two principals in the matter, and there was by way of being a subordinate. I speak of Mr. Leigh as a subordinate. I do not suggest in the least that he was associated with the attempt that was being made in Belgium, but what we know is, that he was doing a minor part of the work, that the manuscript was said to have been Captain Burrows’ manuscript, that the materials for this book were supposed to be Captain Burrows’ materials, and Captain Burrows therefore was the principal person, and Messrs. Everett had lent their name and their work, and were acting with Captain Burrows, and no doubt expected a very large share of the money that would be got from the Belgian Government. If Mr. Leigh, in his modest inconspicuous, and irresponsible position, was to get £500 for helping in putting together the materials for this book, what do you think that Captain Burrows and Mr. Everett thought that they might be able to extort from the fear of the Belgian Government that this thing would go all over the world?

The address to the jury of Mr. Crispe, counsel for the Defendant Burrows, was often eloquent, always adroit, and showed great skill in defending a cause to which the main defence had been abandoned when the pleas of justification were withdrawn.

Gentlemen [said Counsel for Everett & Co., one of the defendants], apart from what Commandant Liebrechts termed “moral damage,” there is no evidence of actual damage suffered by Captain De Keyser in this having come to the knowledge of Commandant Liebrechts. Commandant Liebrechts says that he had investigated these charges and found out that they were false. If so, the repetition of them could have no effect upon his mind as regards the complicity of Captain De Keyser in them, and therefore, so far as that is concerned, no damage could have been suffered with reference to Commandant Liebrechts.

Those are the facts on the question. I now ask you to deal with the printer in this case in the most general and lenient manner that you can. He has, as I told you in opening, been compelled to accept the evidence given him by the man who brings him the material. He safeguards himself to an extent, or at all events his bona fides [sic], he safeguards by obtaining the statement in that agreement that these allegations are true, and that there is nothing libellous in the work that he is about to produce. Mr. Everett has not been able to establish the plea of justification, and if the statements, as Captain De Keyser says now, in the books are untrue, Mr. Everett can only express his regret that he should have accepted from Captain Burrows, on Captain Burrows’ assurance that they were true, statements which were false, and which have led Mr. Everett to being made a Defendant in an action for libel.

Gentlemen, I ask you to say that throughout Mr. Everett has believed in the truth and the proof of these allegations; that otherwise he would not have published the book, and placed himself in such a dangerous and perilous condition; and I ask you further to say that whether the Plaintiff comes here to-day to vindicate and clear the character of Captain De Keyser, or whether he comes here to vindicate and clear the character of the Congo Free State administration, there was no necessity, in order to do that, to try and blacken the character of the Defendant, Mr. Everett.

Mr. Justice Ridley, in charging the jury, after disposing of several minor matters, said:

What is the real case here? The action is brought by Captain De Keyser to clear his character against libels which have been published. I do not wish to use epithets in a case like this, but they are certainly libels of a most serious character. It is charged that he had been guilty of abominable outrages against the natives, against men and women who were under his government, a thing which is of an atrocious character, enough to blacken the good name of any one for the rest of his life. That is what he came here about; he came to say that this was a libellous statement, to say that it was untrue, and to ask for a verdict from you. The answer of the Defendants is that it was true. That has remained their answer until yesterday morning, when it ceased to be their answer.

We have been listening this afternoon to statements made by Counsel, in which it appears that they complain because they cannot cross-examine, or they cannot examine, or they cannot do something or other. It seems to me that, upon the other hand, it is the Plaintiff who has the right of complaint, that he has been brought here with such a plea on the Record until the very last minute. That is very late, is it not? It is absolutely untrue that he ever did any one of those things. There is not one tittle of evidence to that effect, and nobody dare say so.

It appears that Captain Burrows, who is one of the Defendants, was out in the Congo at an earlier year. I am not sure when; he returned to Europe on November 20, 1897. He was at that time a supporter of the Government in respect of the charges made by a person named Salusbury. In 1898 he brought out another book, called “The Land of the Pigmies,” against which I have nothing to say. It contained nothing at all in the shape of a charge against anybody in respect of this matter. He then went back again to the Congo, but he returned in 1901, and then commenced a correspondence between him and Commandant Liebrechts. There is an earlier letter in which he states that he is proposing to bring out another book. Later on there is correspondence as to which I agree, that it shows that he and the Belgian Government parted on terms not of dismissal of him, but upon a proposal being made that if he liked to place himself at their disposal for two years they would pay him a salary, and that he must be ready to accept any expedition on which he was asked to go. He declined that service. That was at the end of 1901. In the following year he published certain articles in the Wide World. They contained nothing at all about cruelties, as I understand, although they contained articles about the administration of the Congo Free State. That was in the year 1902; but when we get to the autumn of 1902 a new state of things commences, because up to that time you will see there is nothing to indicate that he had taken up a hostile position against either the administration of the Congo Free State or against any one who had been concerned in it. But on the 17th November things begin to assume a somewhat different complexion. There is the Agreement of the 17th November, 1902, made between Captain Burrows and Messrs. Everett & Co., under which the author warrants that the work is to be an original work. He names the work then as The Congo Free State. The publishers agree to pay him the sum of £250 on account, and a royalty of 15 per cent. On the 24th November, when that agreement was in force, a letter was written by Messrs. Everett & Co. to Commandant Liebrechts. Now the point of this letter is: Was the action of the Defendants bona fide in this matter? Are they persons who have unwittingly fallen into a false statement, or have they done a thing with a purpose regardless of the consequences? Have they done the thing which is what we commonly call blackmail, or forcing people to pay over money unless they wish to have a foul charge made against them?

These are the letters which bear upon this matter. The first is November 24th: “We have recently concluded a contract with Captain Guy Burrows, well known to the English public as having served some years in the service of the Congo Free State, to publish an important work on the Congo Free State. The information contained in the book is of such a startling character, and contains so many revelations concerning the administration of the Congo Free State by Belgium, that we thought it well to advise you of its publication beforehand, and at the same time to inquire if we may have the honour of offering you the Belgian rights for publication in your country.” That may mean nothing but what it says, but it may have a sinister meaning in it. It may be that the fact that “the information contained in the book is of such a startling character, and contains so many revelations concerning the administration of the Congo Free State,” that the point which is meant to be taken by those to whom it is written is: Is it worth your while to buy it up and stop it; not to publish it, but to have the right of publication so as to prevent it from being published in the ordinary way? Is that the meaning of the letter, or is it merely a bona fide offer of trying to push a book which is supposed and intended to be innocent, and to get people to push the sale of it? If that was the object, one is rather at a loss to understand how it could be to their interest to publish revelations concerning the administration of the Congo Free State by themselves, and, of course, contrary to the good faith and to the proper administration of the Government. That it might be to their interest to buy it up, and refuse to publish it, I can understand; the other part I have a difficulty in following. It states: “We are arranging for a simultaneous publication in Italy, Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, and the United States of America.” I suppose this could not also be bought up through some agents of the Government of Belgium, but if so, it would be a larger sum to come to the publishers. That is the letter of the 24th. On the 27th, by the same people is sent to the paper in Brussels an “advance notice of the enclosed valuable work.” That is the first issue which contains a list of the persons who are implicated in the atrocities. It does not contain the chapter which is the subject of this libel, but it contains a list of Belgian officers and officials responsible for the atrocities mentioned in this book. That is sent to the leading paper in Belgium. With what object? Do you think it possible that they thought that by some means or other it would come to the knowledge of the Government through the Press, or through some other means, that there was something which it would be worth their buying?

Now came Mr. Bigwood. The result upon the Belgian Government was not that they made an offer; they made nothing of the sort. They said, We will find out what this is; and they sent Mr. Bigwood over, whose evidence we heard yesterday, and who says that he then saw and took back with him not only the first issue, which is the one I have just been mentioning as containing the names of the officers, but that he also saw upon the table the second issue, which is now put forward as the first of the two libels in the case, but he did not take it with him. It was sent upon the 30th December, as you know. Now, an important thing upon this part of the case seems to me to be the document of the 17th December. That is, you see, between the two dates; it is after the 24th and the 27th November, and it is about the time of the visit of Mr. Bigwood, or just after he had left. Mr. Bigwood had seen on the table the second issue, but he had not taken it; it was not sent until the 30th December. In the interval we have got a document which is signed by Captain Burrows, and which says: “I hereby agree to pay to Mr. John George Leigh” (who is the man whose signature appears in the introduction), “the sum of £500 if and when my publishers, Messrs. Everett & Co., receive the amount which may be paid by the Belgian Government.” What for, do you think, gentlemen? You will say, of course, for the publication of the book. But it is not so: it is for the non-publication of the book. Therefore he is to get £500, which is to be paid by the Belgian Government for not publishing the book; that is to say, for suppressing it. Nothing could be plainer. “If the Belgian Government think it worth their while to buy it up, so that it should not be published, I will pay you £500.” It is under his own hand and signature, and I cannot see what the answer to it is. To my mind it is absolutely conclusive. I do not know whether you will consider that the meaning of the first letter is not that the book should be published broadcast but that the rights of publishing it should be bought up with the view of stopping its being published broadcast. He goes on: “For the non-publication of the manuscripts written by myself and him, entitled ‘The Curse of Central Africa.’ In case the book is published, I agree to pay Mr. Leigh one-third of the profits accruing from such publication as per agreement with the said publisher.” That, of course, goes for nothing. It is the first part, and it appears to me to be clear upon that, that the meaning of such words must be that the object was not to get the Belgian Government not to publish, but to prevent the publication. Now, if so, of course I am perfectly aware that that is not the point of the case, but you cannot keep out of your mind in a case of this kind what has been the conduct of those who are responsible for the libels which have been published. Is it a case in which they have done the thing with a bona fide intention to produce and to bring to light, and to make to cease outrages and atrocities which have been committed in any part of the world, or is it, on the other hand, to make a profit out of something which has been brought to their knowledge to the detriment of other people? If you think that this was done to get a profit by forcing the Belgian Government to buy their silence, it would appear to me that you would deal with the matter upon a different footing to that on which you would be willing to deal with it if you thought that the Defendants, from beginning to end, had done their best to alleviate the mischief which their published statements might have unfortunately brought about.

You must also, I think, look at the conduct of those who were guilty of having published this libel. Have they done the best they could to alleviate the consequences, or have they, on the other hand, maintained the fact that it was true until almost the eleventh hour; and have they also, or have they not, whilst this matter has been going on, been actuated by other motives, not merely the motive of bringing to light in the public interest a scandal that was going on, but by the idea that out of this business they would make some ugly profit for themselves?

The jury retired at 3.22 o’clock. In ten minutes it returned a verdict for the plaintiff, Captain De Keyser, awarding him £500 damages and costs. Sir Edward Clarke, plaintiff’s counsel, having moved the Court to make the preliminary injunction forbidding publication of the book perpetual, defendant’s counsel gave expression to the thought that if the Court complied, it would be a “very hard and cruel proceeding.” In replying to this observation, Sir Edward Clarke said:

I do not know that the interference with the business of persons who publish libels like this is a public misfortune; but it would be very unfortunate indeed if after the Jury have found a verdict in my favour upon this matter, and awarded substantial damages, that the Defendant should be free from the Injunction which has gone on for the last year. I do not ask your Lordship to vary the Injunction, but I ask your Lordship that the Injunction which lasted while this matter was in dispute shall be made perpetual.

The terms of the Injunction which was granted by Mr. Justice Bigham are these: “Ordered that the Defendants, their servants and agents and each and every of them be restrained and an Injunction be granted restraining the Defendants, their servants and agents, and each and every of them, from printing or selling or otherwise distributing a book entitled ‘The Curse of South Africa’ under that or any other title, or any portion of the said book under that title or any other title.” I submit that I am at least entitled to be continued in the protection which existed while the action was pending.

I was so protected when it was uncertain whether I had sustained any grievance or not. Now it has been established, and I have recovered substantial damages for that grievance, I surely am entitled to a continuation of that protection.

Mr. Justice Ridley: I shall make it perpetual.

Thereupon counsel for defendants in the remaining cases of Chaltin versus Captain Burrows and Everett & Co., and Dubreucq versus the same, agreed to submit to a verdict in favour of the plaintiffs for £50 damages and costs. The jury returned verdicts for this sum, and the Court made perpetual the injunction against the publication of the book.

So resulted the first opportunity Belgian officers in the service of the Congo Free State have had to vindicate their characters during the long campaign which certain persons have, from varying motives, waged against the youngest and most progressive State in Africa.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XXX. THE CONGO CAMPAIGN IN ENGLAND

[Sidenote: Some English Traits.]

THE English are an admirable people, who have excelled in every department of human effort; but the evidence of the more critical among them, with whom love of fair play counts for as much as pride of race, has never failed to reveal in the national character (as of course in the character of every nation) a goodly number of weak spots whereat the critic and the wit may profitably direct their shafts. John Bull, the trader, is a keen-eyed, hard-headed bargainer. Good; it behoves every merchant to be no less. He regards the whole world as his farm by right divine, and resents his exclusion from any part of it. When his remonstrance is met by counter-remonstrance, he points to his home markets and his colonies, and emphasises the fact that these British markets are open (long after his own trade has been firmly established therein) to the traders of the world.

But it is in his ultra-sentimental mood that John Bull is seen at his worst. Has there been a conflict between some semi-barbarous tribes in that seething cauldron of discontent, the Balkans, and the Sultan’s troops have thrashed them indiscriminately and dispersed them, John Bull, or at least that part of him which wears white ties and is described as “reverend,” rushes off to Exeter Hall and demands the prayers of the churches and the forces of his Government for the suppression of the inhuman atrocities which he denounces. (Incidentally, but in unmistakable terms, he at the same time calls the attention of his audience to the joyful fact that it is their duty and privilege to assist in this good work by giving liberally of their money.) Of course it is but a section of the English people which approves and supports this sort of thing, and a still smaller section that exploits it. But in a country politically constituted as England is, where the suffrage is almost universal, it is sufficiently large and influential to influence from time to time the conduct of the British Government. This is more particularly the case where the interests of the pseudo-humanitarians and those of the traders happen to coincide. On such occasions, fortunately somewhat rare, the spectacle of Cant and Commerce in alliance is enough to bring a smile to the face of a sphinx.

[Sidenote: A Strange Alliance.]

Protestant missionaries of various sects, in rivalry with each other, but often alike in being envious of the superior results obtained by Roman Catholic missionaries in the Congo Free State, denounce the Congo Government as a gang of barbarous extortioners, oppressors, murderers. A small but active set of Liverpool merchants, dismayed at finding that what twenty years ago they regarded as worthless has, under judicious Belgian administration, become a valuable asset, and some of whom appear willing to resort to any means by which they may at least be enabled to share the prize, join their forces to those of the missionaries. Lies fall as thickly as leaves in Vallombrosa. No sooner is one mendacious story refuted than ten others take its place. The Congo campaign multiplies its adherents, it gathers force daily, its voice becomes more and more thunderous, until at last it invades the British House of Commons and moves a British minister to write a puerile dispatch to the Great Powers, which the Great Powers, in the exercise of their common-sense, politely ignore. Only up to a certain point does Baron Münchausen triumph. Verb. sap.

[Sidenote: Why is John Bull Silent?]

What magnificent material for the mouthings of certain English ultra-humanitarians would be the lynching of Negroes in our own Southern States! The jail-breakings, the hangings, shootings, and burnings—could more effective subjects for stereopticon slides and the perfervid oratory of paid lecturers be devised? And all true and ready to hand, needing neither lies nor distortions! Alas! nothing can be made out of that campaign. It will not pay to call our country to account for its neglect or failure to suppress these things. The United States own a fleet which, if not as strong as it should be, is sufficiently powerful to inspire respect; and our President can at any time call up an army of a million citizen soldiers, volunteers of proved valour. With the Congo Free State this is not the case. Caution was ever a prominent characteristic of John Bull, and he has carefully noted that fact. Neutral little Belgium may safely be bullied, her King libelled, and his enterprise misrepresented and held up to the scorn of an undiscriminating world, too busy to undertake a careful analysis of motives or even to distinguish between the true and the false.

Judicial consideration of the English campaign against the Congo, naturally a difficult task, is rendered doubly so by the general suppression of material evidence favourable to that State. From motives best known to their proprietors, one or two important London newspapers, ever ready to afford space for an attack upon the Congo Government, however violent or by whomsoever made, frequently decline to publish replies thereto. Indeed, the more complete the refutation, and the greater the authority of the writer, the less chance of its acceptance for publication in these newspapers. Upon several occasions has Major Harrison been refused space for his temperate letters to the Morning Post, and the Daily News, the principal support of the Aborigines Protection Society, is avowedly against the continued existence of the Congo Free State. A complete answer to Mr. Roger Casement’s Report, prepared by the Congo Government, was unanimously rejected by London editors. This most unjust partisanship extends even to English press reports of proceedings in the House of Commons, of which one might reasonably expect to find in English journals a complete record; or where the exigencies of space necessitate condensation, that at least that editorial operation should be performed without bias. That expectation meets with disappointment.

On June 9, 1904, Sir Charles Dilke, with a fine show of virtue which has not always characterised his conduct, delivered a speech in the House of Commons wherein he assumes the truth of the various libels upon the Congo Government prepared by missionaries, merchants, and dismissed employees. That speech, and the speeches of such other members of the British House of Commons as for various reasons have been induced to follow a similar course, have been reported in extenso, while the speech of Mr. John Campbell, member for South Armagh, has not so much as been referred to. Mr. Campbell derided the Congophobes’ plea that they have at heart only the interests of humanity.

The gold [he remarked] of that fine phrase is alloyed with other arguments. Commercial considerations have also their weight. Some speakers began by talking of humanity and ended with commerce. Others began with commerce and ended with humanity. One honourable member had thrown overboard the humanitarian theme and flatly talked business. But, in spite of all the ornamental flowers of philanthropy, the groundwork of all these speeches is—commerce. The true motive which prompts the Anti-Congo campaign, conducted with such vigour in this country and within these walls, was exposed in a few words by Stanley when he said: “The sentiment that inspires the charges against the Congo is jealousy. The Congo is succeeding better than any other State in Africa.”

One would suppose that sentiments such as these, supported by the authority of Stanley, would at least be as worthy of a few lines in an English newspaper as the vague charges of cruelty alleged by some missionaries based upon what they have been told that somebody else has heard, etc. But, no! such references are rigidly suppressed in a large section of the English press, just as much of Mr. Casement’s Report that is favourable to the Congo Government has been suppressed.[44]

Just as this book is going to press particulars come to hand of an incident which throws a strong light upon, the methods adopted by the enemies of the Congo Free State in manufacturing evidence against it. The paid officers of the Congo Reform Association in Liverpool, the Aborigines’ Protection Society, and kindred organisations, must find it increasingly difficult to justify their existence when tactics such as are here exposed have to be resorted to.[45]

[Sidenote: A Typical Congophobe Method.]

In 1902, on the recommendation of a high official of the Free State, Mr. Antoine Benedetti, a cultured gentleman belonging to an ancient and wealthy family in Sicily, was appointed chief commissary—a post which had never before been conferred on a foreigner on account of its special responsibilities. This rapid promotion shows in what esteem Mr. Benedetti was held by his chiefs.

Mr. Benedetti returned to Europe on November 7, 1904, and when requested to give his chiefs some information on the existing situation in the Congo, related circumstances which might well be considered fit for a novel, if their accuracy were not vouched for by authentic documents.

While at Boma, Mr. Benedetti noticed that a Negro named Shanu, a British subject from Lagos, was trying to discover his opinions on Congo policy and administration. Shanu having been at one time in the employ of the State, Mr. Benedetti suspected nothing; but in the course of conversation with the Negro, he perceived what Shanu wanted to get from him. Shanu boasted to Mr. Benedetti of the humanitarian character of the English campaign against the Congo, and he further hinted that, if he were correctly informed, Mr. Benedetti would surely join in the said campaign, a course which would be of great advantage to him. Mr. Benedetti pretended to share the views of Shanu, who thereupon pushed the matter home by producing some letters of Mr. Edmund Deville Morel, Secretary of the Congo Reform Association.

In one of these letters, Mr. Morel informs Shanu that Mr. Benedetti, commissary at Boma, has been spoken of to him as one who would be a valuable acquisition in the English campaign against the Congo. Mr. Benedetti at once saw what was expected of him; he realised that efforts were being made to enlist in the anti-Congo campaign the numerous Italians in the service of the Free State; and, with the sole desire of protecting the honour of his fellow-countrymen in the Congo, he resolved to defeat Mr. Morel’s plans. With a view of gaining Shanu’s confidence, he declared himself to be on the Negro’s side, and by so doing compromised himself in the eyes of his official colleagues. He told Shanu—who lost no time in informing Mr. Morel—that by virtue of his position, he was able to make some startling revelations. Shanu thereupon suggested that he should send in his resignation, giving as the reason certain compromising allegations against the Free State. Shanu then wrote to Mr. Morel to the effect that he and Mr. Benedetti agreed that the latter was just the man to lead the campaign against the Congo. On the receipt of Mr. Morel’s reply, the departure of Mr. Benedetti was decided upon.

Mr. Benedetti was promised his passage money to Europe, as well as compensation for the loss of his place under the Free State, and, later, a handsome bonus. Mr. Morel requested Mr. Benedetti to meet him at the Exchange Station Hotel, Liverpool, on the 19th November, and to announce his arrival by the following telegram:

“Morel care Jellani arrived Benedetti.”

Under these circumstances, Mr. Benedetti sent in his resignation, alleging that private business called him to Europe. He left by the SS. Philippeville, and the British Consul at Boma gave him ten pounds sterling for his travelling expenses. The receipt for this sum was made out by Mr. Benedetti in the name of Shanu.

Up to the time of his departure, Mr. Benedetti had discharged his duties so well that he was congratulated by the local authorities. Having spoken to nobody about the course he was adopting, so little was his sudden departure understood that his colleagues were mystified. He could not, of course, enlighten them without showing his hand. Mr. Benedetti landed at Antwerp on November 7th, and on the 17th arrived at Liverpool, having previously despatched to Mr. Morel the telegram agreed upon. After some delay Mr. Morel went to see Mr. Benedetti at the Exchange Station Hotel in that city.

Mr. Morel appeared somewhat distrustful, and asked Mr. Benedetti if he had authenticating documents. The latter produced some unimportant papers, which he pretended were valuable, and told the Secretary of the Congo Reform Association some sensational stories of absolutely imaginary crimes. In short, Mr. Benedetti played his game so well that Mr. Morel no longer hesitated to close the affair, but said he would introduce to him a gentleman who was greatly interested in the Congo.

In response to a telephonic message from Mr. Morel there arrived Mr. John Holt, a merchant, of Dale Street, Liverpool. Mr. Holt is Vice-President of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce and a member of the Congo Reform Association. Mr. Morel told Mr. Holt what Mr. Benedetti had said, and then certain practical questions were discussed. It was agreed that Mr. Benedetti should relate in the West African Mail the stories that he had just invented; but Mr. Benedetti, wishing to gain time, stated that he would rather publish them first in Italy, after which the organ of the Congo Reform Association might reproduce them. It was decided also to issue a pamphlet, for which Mr. Benedetti was to receive eighty pounds. Some generous promises were made to Mr. Benedetti: five hundred pounds as damages and his fare paid to Teneriffe by the Congo Reform Association. At Teneriffe, it was agreed, he should seek to poison the minds of Italian officers returning from the Congo. Later, Mr. Holt was to go to Italy where, together with Mr. Benedetti, he was to subsidise a newspaper to attack the Congo, and if this newspaper war resulted in the King of Italy recalling Italian officers serving in the Congo, Mr. Benedetti was to receive a further sum of four thousand pounds.

The former commissary of Boma would not accept verbal promises; he requested a document. He demanded first of all a contract for the publication of the pamphlet. Mr. Benedetti invited Mr. Morel and Mr. Holt to dinner, and it was during this dinner on the 19th of November that the clauses of the contract were discussed. Conversation was carried on to a late hour and Mr. Holt, in an unguarded moment, remarked that in England everything was done by and for the sake of business, and that sentiment was obliged to give way to trade. The signing of the contract was fixed for eleven o’clock on the morning of the 21st of November, 1904, when the three gentlemen concerned attended and the following document was drawn up and signed. The text is in English and French:

Between Mr. Benedetti and Mr. Morel it is agreed as follows:—Mr. Benedetti agrees to publish in a special pamphlet all the statements that he made and proved by means of documents on the evening of the 19th of November at the Exchange Station Hotel, in the presence of Mr. Morel and Mr. Holt, as well as various other facts the evidence of which is in his possession in Italy.

Mr. Benedetti shall first submit to Mr. Morel, before the 5th of December, a rough copy of his pamphlet in English and Italian. Upon this rough copy Mr. Morel reserves the right to make corrections, and to send these corrections to Mr. Benedetti by the 9th of December, unless prevented by force majeure.

As soon as the pamphlet has been approved by Mr. Morel, Mr. Benedetti shall send to Mr. Morel a corrected copy (if corrections have been made) in English and Italian, as well as a copy of the original documents in his possession, certified by the British Consul on the original text.

Mr. Benedetti undertakes to be ready to publish all by 22nd December, or by such date as Mr. Morel shall telegraph to him.

In any case, Mr. Benedetti will not publish all or any part of the pamphlet without previous understanding with Mr. Morel as to the date.

Mr. Benedetti undertakes to place at Mr. Morel’s disposal, after the publication of the pamphlet, all original papers referred to in the said pamphlet, and Mr. Morel undertakes to return them, if required.

Mr. Morel deposits a thousand francs for Mr. Benedetti’s travelling expenses from Boma.

Mr. Morel undertakes to pay Mr. Benedetti the sum of two thousand francs, which sum represents the loss to Mr. Benedetti of his situation in the Congo State, owing to the publication of statements made in the said pamphlet, as soon as he receives from Mr. Benedetti notice that the pamphlet has been published in Italy, and a copy of the pamphlet.

Mr. Morel undertakes to pay the expenses incurred in publishing the pamphlet in Italy up to the sum of five hundred francs. Mr. Benedetti undertakes to send two hundred copies of the pamphlet to Mr. Morel.

It is understood on both sides that the above entirely covers all relations between Mr. Benedetti and Mr. Morel.

Mr. Morel undertakes to obtain from Mr. Shanu, of Boma, the receipt for the two hundred and fifty francs handed by Mr. Benedetti to Mr. Shanu, and to deduct the sum from the two thousand francs above mentioned.

Signed the 21st November, 1904, at Liverpool Exchange Station Hotel.

E. D. MOREL. A. BENEDETTI.

Witness to signatures of A. Benedetti and E. D. Morel:

JOHN HOLT, merchant, 81 Dale Street, Liverpool.

It is not without interest to call attention to the final clause, concerning the receipt for the 250 francs which Mr. Benedetti had given to Shanu, as a guarantee of the £10 which the British Consul at Boma had given him before his departure.

As to the clause concerning the thousand francs which Mr. Morel undertook to pay Benedetti for his travelling expenses from Boma, it came about through the fact that his departure from Boma was not in accord with the regulations. As his engagement was not terminated, the question of his being sent home at the expense of the Congo Free State was not settled. Mr. Holt took from his pocket a roll of Bank of England notes and paid Mr. Benedetti £40.

As soon as he was in possession of this contract, Mr. Benedetti returned to Brussels, whence he sent Mr. Morel the following letter:

BRUSSELS, 30th November, 1904.

Mr. E. D. MOREL, Liverpool,

I have the pleasure of remitting herewith to you a cheque on the South Wales Bank, Limited, No. 109,880, to the order of Mr. John Holt, merchant, Dale Street, Liverpool, for £40, which this latter gave me in the Exchange Station Hotel, Liverpool, on the 21st of this month.

I will also send you a sum of £10 in exchange for the receipt of Shanu, which you promised to procure for me.

You made a mistake, Sir, when you thought I would play into your hands in your campaign against the Congo, and thus do grievous harm to my countrymen working in the Congo.

Believe me, my conduct, from my first interview with Shanu, when acting for you, till my telegram from Paris on the 28th of this month, was dictated by a sentiment of duty and patriotism.

A. BENEDETTI.

The telegram to which Mr. Benedetti alludes was addressed to Mr. Morel from Paris, and was to call his attention to an article in the Tribuna favourable to the Congo, and to ask him for arguments in answer to this article for publication in an Italian paper. Mr. Morel replied that he had not had time to get the Tribuna article translated.

This edifying incident needs no comment. When the denial of its genuineness, or a qualification of its meaning and purpose, comes, it is understood that the Congo Administration will publish a facsimile of Mr. Morel’s contract with Mr. Benedetti, bearing his signature and the signature of Mr. John Holt, merchant-philanthropist, Vice-President of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, etc., in order that intelligent people may form their own conclusions upon it at first hand.

Mr. Morel writes to the London Times of December 19, 1904, defending the part he has played in this Benedetti incident. “You persist,” says Mr. Morel (addressing M. Roland de Marès), “to make readers believe that I proposed to pay M. Benedetti for false testimony, whereas my rôle was limited to giving him the opportunity he asked for (that is to say, to come to Europe and to publish under his own name, in the interests of truth and of his fellow-countrymen), by defraying the expenses of his journey and the positive pecuniary losses which his action would involve, and by participating in the printing expenses of his pamphlet.”

FOOTNOTES:

[44] The following letter, addressed to the Secretary of the Congo Reform Association, Liverpool, on December 8, 1904, by the editor of the Catholic Herald (London), indicates that certain British journals are sincerely seeking to expose the truth concerning the Congo and the motives underlying the campaign against the Free State in England. The writer of the letter is the publisher of the thirty-odd leading Catholic papers in the United Kingdom. As a Member of Parliament, and as an editor, his attitude towards public questions has always been conscientious and fearless.

“SIR,—The following matters so intimately concern your veracity, and, therefore, deeply concern the public, in connection with your anti-Congo campaign and your Congo Reform Society, that I draw your attention to the fact that this letter will be printed in full in the Catholic Herald of next week, and will also be sent out broadcast to the newspapers of this country, so that you may have a full opportunity of defending yourself from the most serious charges made therein.

“On the 24th of November last, in defending an abusive attack made by the London Daily News on the Belgian people, in which it referred to them as ‘barbarians,’ you made a statement to the effect that fifteen Congo officials were then in prison at Boma for the grossest outrages upon natives, and that ten more were awaiting their trial.

“In reply to a communication sent to a member of the Belgian House of Representatives, a statement is made by the Belgian authorities, that only two officials are in prison in Boma. This statement was forwarded to the Daily News, which has lent itself to the disgraceful and lying campaign against the Congo, but, although the editor has been several times requested to publish it, he has up till now declined to do so.

“I, therefore, draw your attention to this emphatic contradiction of your story, and, having every confidence in the honesty and truthfulness of the statement made by responsible gentlemen in Brussels, state that your assertion can only be treated as a gross invention, quite on a par with the other methods of your anti-Congo campaign.

“But this is not the most serious matter. On the following point, I charge you with putting forward a statement in the Daily News, with reference to the Congo Reform Society, which you knew to be untrue, for the purpose of deceiving and misleading the public of this country. It was stated in a letter which appeared in the Daily News on November 25th, that Liverpool shippers and merchants were aiding the Congo Reform Society, and financing it. On the 29th November a letter appeared from you in the Daily News, in which you denied this, and called upon the writer to offer an apology for his statement. You proceeded to assert that you had enclosed (for the private information of the Editor of the Daily News) a list of the subscribers to the Congo Reform Society, and the editor supported your statement by the assertion that ‘the list of donors and subscribers supplied does not contain the names of any British merchants or shippers.’

“The clear purport of your letter was to make it out that there was no co-operation between the Liverpool shippers and merchants and this so-called Reform Society, which is nothing more or less than a bogus name adopted to cover the campaign of falsehood and calumny which you and your friends have entered upon.

“On November 30th the following statement was published in the Daily News in answer to your denial:—‘With reference to the Liverpool merchants I have not seen the “private list” that he (Mr. Morel) forwards to you. I cannot tell whether it contains the names of all the subscribers to the Congo Reform Society, but I cannot accept the denial of the secretary with reference to the Liverpool merchants, in view of the candid admission of Mr. Fox Bourne that some of the merchants in Liverpool are working with the Society, and his further admission that they had helped to finance it. I believe Mr. Fox Bourne’s statement, and if an apology is required for perversion of the facts, the secretary of the Congo Reform Society must make that apology.’

“To that emphatic disproval of your statement, you have up till now made no reply. In fact you cannot deny Mr. Fox Bourne’s honest admission, which has already appeared in our columns, and of which evidently you were entirely ignorant at the time you attempted to throw dust into the eyes of the readers of the Daily News by your untruthful denial.

“Now, one of two things: either you are in a position to free yourself from this charge of deception and untruthful statement put forward for the purpose of deceiving the public, or you are not. If you are in a position to do so, come forward immediately, in the interests of the Congo Reform Society, and of yourself as its secretary. If you are not in a position to disprove this statement and to substantiate your words, you stand convicted of flagrant deception and falsehood on a most important public matter, and the people of this country will know how to judge a person, or a society, which descends to such methods for the purpose of bolstering up selfish and disgraceful designs.

“At the very moment that you were writing this denial in the columns of the Daily News, you were in treaty with a former Congo official, and bribing him for the purpose of giving evidence against the Congo State, and as a witness to the document that passed between you, you called in Mr. John Holt, merchant, 81, Dale Street, Liverpool, who was associated with you in this attempt to purchase testimony, and who actually paid, at the Exchange Hotel, Liverpool, on the 21st November last, a sum of £40 to Mr. Benedetti, the Congo ex-official referred to, and yet you have the impudence and the hardihood to assert that the Liverpool shippers and Liverpool merchants are not associated with the Congo Reform Society!

“Nor are these all the inventions, perversions, and misrepresentations which can be proved against you in connection with this movement.

“The book that you have just written and published is packed with such lies and suppressions of truth. You print a travesty of the case of the man Stokes, who was executed in the Congo, and you say that the charge against him was ‘of trading with natives,’ whereas, as a matter of fact, he was proved to have supplied the cruel and barbarous Arab slave raiders of the Congo, who have been put down by the Congo Government, with guns and ammunition for the purpose of carrying on their nefarious work.

“These slave raiders evidently receive your warm sympathy, and the man Stokes, who helped them to carry on their trade, is held up by you as a martyr! Yet you dare to appear before the people of this country as a friend of the natives of the Congo, and your present campaign is ostensibly carried on for the amelioration of their condition!

“Again, you have ventured to make a most infamous charge against Catholic missionaries in the Congo. In a letter to the Times you said that ‘they dared not state in public what they have said in private.’ In other words, you accuse them of double dealing of the basest character, like Mr. Fox Bourne, who says, ‘they offer religion to the natives only as a bribe, or to terrorise them into further enslavement.’

“You have never produced a single iota of evidence in support of this statement against the Catholic missionaries, who are doing such splendid work in the Congo territory. We characterise the statement as a gross and palpable invention, but, in that respect, it has only been on a par with the general policy of yourself and the so-called ‘Congo Reform Society’ in connection with these matters. “It has also been asserted by the secretary of the Aborigines’ Protection Society—which has been mainly responsible, with yourself and the Liverpool shippers and merchants, for working up this campaign of calumny—that the clerical party in Belgium is supporting the King in his Congo policy, irrespective of any atrocities that may be committed, because the King has agreed to support them in Belgium. This is not only a libel on Belgian Catholics and the Belgian people—who have been insolently referred to by the Daily News as ‘barbarians’—but is amply disproved by the fact that the most recent exposure of your tactics, and the tactics of your society, has been made in the columns of the well-known anti-clerical paper, The Independance Belge, of Brussels, which has published the disclosures with reference to your bribing of a Congo official to secure evidence from him, and has amply exposed, on many occasions, the selfish and dishonest character of this anti-Congo campaign.

“You have printed the grossest inventions with reference to the treatment of British natives in Congo territory. You have said that at Lagos, and in the surrounding district, if the word ‘Congo’ is mentioned to a native he will make for the bush if he is on land, and will jump into the water if he happens to be on sea, in order to escape going to the Congo!

“A full and impartial inquiry made by a number of English gentlemen at Lagos, and the evidence of one hundred and seventy-five natives taken on oath, shows how baseless and unscrupulous is your statement. One English gentleman declares that ‘in a single week’s time he would undertake to send two thousand natives to the Congo, if the English Government would permit their enrolment’—the taxation being so much heavier in British territory than in Congo territory, that natives have to seek in the latter the means of earning the taxation which they are compelled to pay to the British administration.

“Missionaries of all classes, Catholic and non-Catholic, have borne ample testimony to the humane and civilising influence of the Congo administration. Englishmen like Lord Mountmorres, Major Harrison, of Hull, Mr. Grenfell, Mr. Bell, Mr. Holland, Mr. Maguire, as also Mrs. French-Sheldon, Mrs. Doering, and others, have borne the most emphatic testimony to the lies and misrepresentations that have been so sedulously spread by yourself and your friends with reference to the Congo administration.

“You cannot have failed to notice that in La Vérité sur le Congo for October-November, 1904, page 3, you are accused of actually having faked certain photographs which appeared in your book—one on page 49, in which certain natives are represented holding cut-off hands. The publication referred to says that ‘the hands seem to have been added afterwards’; and, with regard to a photograph on page 225 of your book, the same publication says that ‘the chains around the necks of the natives would also appear to have been designed on the plate.’

“You have put these photographs forward as real. Will you produce the negatives and the name of the person who took the actual photographs? Or will you remain content to rest under the charge of fabricating evidence of this description to deceive your readers?

“The Catholic Herald denounces, and will denounce, outrages upon natives and wrongdoing and maladministration of native territories, whether by Belgians or by any other people. No doubt wrongdoing has taken place; but is it of such a character as justifies people in this country taking up arms against those responsible for it?

“Is it not rather inseparable from the administration of native territories? Let any one responsible for native administration answer this question, but let not the good cause of fair play and justice for the natives be disgraced and besmirched by the recklessness and viciousness that have been displayed in connection with this Congo agitation.

“The Catholic Herald accepts in full all responsibility for the statements made herein, and for the publication of them, and for their circulation broadcast through the Press of this country, and believes that in doing so it is discharging a public duty, not only to the Catholic name, which you have foully libelled, but also to the cause of international peace and goodwill, which this anti-Congo campaign, based on selfish and sordid motives, has done so much to impair.

“The administration of the Congo will compare more than favourably with the administration of native territories under British rule. There is more consideration shown to the natives, more care evinced for their interests, and they are less heavily taxed, and more humanely treated in the Congo, than is the case in any British territory in Africa to-day.

“Some of the lies sent forth on the wings of the Press are hereby nailed to the counter, and it is to be hoped that yourself, or your Society, will at once disprove, by any means at your disposal, charges which, if not so disproved, clearly show that your evidence in connection with these matters is discredited and untrustworthy, and that no one will be justified in paying attention to any statement of yours, unless supported by evidence that has not been purchased or invented.

“THE EDITOR, “The Catholic Herald.”

[45] From The Transvaal Trouble, an Extract from the Biography of the late Sir Bartle Frere, by John Martineau (pp. 211, 212):

“During these years, about 1879, a society in London, called the Aborigines’ Protection Society, took upon itself the function of judging between the white and the black races in South Africa, and of arraigning the conduct of the white race whenever there was a question between the two. That a society in London, with paid officers bound to justify their employment by finding something to complain of, should take upon itself to pronounce judgment upon difficult and complex questions between races in South Africa was, on the face of it, not more reasonable than that a society should be started at Cape Town, say, to protect women and children in London. By its constitution, which was practically that of advocatus diaboli against the white man, such a society must always of necessity take a one-sided view, from which misapprehension and mischief could hardly fail to result, however carefully considered were the methods employed.

“The methods employed by the Aborigines’ Protection Society bore some resemblance to those of mediæval Venice. The Blue-books of the time are full of letters from the society to the Secretary of State, detailing stories of alleged oppression or cruelty, and demanding an inquiry; or sometimes a question was asked to the same effect in Parliament. It would be many months before the reply to the inquiry could come back from the Cape, and, in the meantime, the story was circulated, and the refutation came too late to be listened to. The society generally refused to give the name of its informant, or the particulars of time and place, so that, like the lion’s mouth at Venice, it offered an opportunity to any one—agitator, place-hunter, or criminal having a spite against a magistrate or official—to injure him anonymously.... The fear of being denounced by some scoundrel to the society in some districts seriously interfered with and often perverted the administration of justice.... In one instance, a man, on whose testimony is placed special reliance, was discovered to be a disfrocked clergyman who had been in custody for swindling another informant, who in turn was a trader who had been in jail for gun-running.

* * * * *

“Mr. H. Nixon, writing to Sir Bartle Frere, says:

“‘The lawlessness of the coloured races and their hopeless state of degradation, their drunkenness, and general dissolute habits may fairly be laid to the baneful influence of the Aborigines’ Protection Society, which has done everything it possibly could to paralyse the arm of the law in the execution of justice, and I consider the demoralisation of the natives is entirely due to their persistent agitation. The drunkenness in this province is quite alarming and unprecedented.’”

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XXV. SCIENCE, AGRICULTURE, CIVILISING MEASURES…

Cite this passage

MLA

APA

Chicago