VII. General Dispositions
ARTICLE 36. The Signatory Powers of the present General Act reserve to themselves to introduce into it subsequently, and by common accord, such modifications and improvements as experience may show to be expedient.
ARTICLE 37. The Powers who have not signed the present General Act shall be free to adhere to its provisions by a separate instrument.
The adhesion of each Power shall be notified in diplomatic form to the Government of the German Empire, and by it in turn to all the other Signatory or adhering Powers.
Such adhesion shall carry with it full acceptance of all the obligations as well as admission to all the advantages stipulated by the present General Act.
ARTICLE 38. The present General Act shall be ratified with as little delay as possible, the same in no case to exceed a year.
It will come into force for each Power from the date of its ratification by that Power.
Meanwhile, the Signatory Powers of the present General Act bind themselves not to take any steps contrary to its provisions.
Each Power will address its ratification to the Government of the German Empire, by which notice of the fact will be given to all the other Signatory Powers of the present Act.
The ratifications of all the Powers will be deposited in the archives of the Government of the German Empire. When all the ratifications shall have been sent in, there will be drawn up a Deposit Act, in the shape of a Protocol, to be signed by the Representatives of all the Powers which have taken part in the Conference of Berlin, and of which a certified copy will be sent to each of those Powers.
In testimony whereof the several Plenipotentiaries have signed the present General Act and have affixed thereto their seals.
Done at Berlin the 26th day of February, 1885.
(Here follow the signatures of the Plenipotentiaries in the order of their names in the preamble.)
THE TEXT OF THE DECLARATIONS AND TREATIES BETWEEN THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE CONGO AND ITS NEIGHBOURS, GERMANY, GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND PORTUGAL. ALSO ITS DECLARATION EXCHANGED WITH BELGIUM.
On 8th November, 1884, a convention was concluded between the German Empire and the Association. The following are its terms:
ARTICLE 1. The International Association of the Congo engages not to levy any duty on articles or merchandise imported directly or in transit into its present or future possessions in the basins of the Congo and the Niadi-Kwilu, or into its possessions situated on the Atlantic Ocean. This exemption from duties especially applies to merchandise and articles of commerce which are carried by the roads made round the cataracts of the Congo.
ARTICLE 2. The subjects of the German Empire shall have the right of sojourning and of establishing themselves on the territories of the Association. They shall be treated on the same footing as the subjects of the most favoured nation, including the inhabitants of the country, so far as concerns the protection of their persons and possessions, the free exercise of their religion, the recognition and defence of their rights, as well as in matters of navigation, trade, or manufactures.
Especially, they shall have the right of buying, selling, and leasing lands and buildings situated in the territories of the Association, of establishing commercial houses, and carrying on trade or the coasting trade under the German flag.
ARTICLE 3. The Association engages never to grant any privileges whatsoever to the subjects of any other nation without their being immediately extended to German subjects.
ARTICLE 4. In the event of the cession of the present or future territory of the Association, or of any part of it, the obligations contracted by the Association towards the German Empire shall be transferred to the occupier. These obligations and the rights granted by the Association to the German Empire and its subjects shall remain in force after every cession as far as regards each new occupier.
ARTICLE 5. The German Empire recognises the flag of the Association—a blue flag with a golden star in the centre—as that of a friendly State.
ARTICLE 6. The German Empire is ready on its part to recognise the frontiers of the territory of the Association and of the new State which is to be created, as they are shown in the annexed Map.
ARTICLE 7. This Convention shall be ratified and the ratifications shall be exchanged with the least possible delay.
This Convention shall come into force immediately after the exchange of the ratifications.
Done at Berlin the 8th November, 1884.
(Signed) Count v. BRANDENBOURG. STRAUCH.
On 16th December, 1884, Great Britain and the International Association of the Congo exchanged declarations and concluded a Convention. The following is the declaration of the Association:
The International Association of the Congo, founded by His Majesty the King of the Belgians for the purpose of promoting the civilisation and commerce of Africa, and for other humane and benevolent purposes, hereby declares as follows:—
ARTICLE 1. That by Treaties with the legitimate Sovereigns in the basins of the Congo and of the Niadi-Kwilu, and in adjacent territories upon the Atlantic, there has been ceded to it territory for the use and benefit of Free States established, and being established, in the said basins and adjacent territories.
ARTICLE 2. That by virtue of the said Treaties, the administration of the interests of the said Free States is vested in the Association.
ARTICLE 3. That the Association has adopted as its standard, and that of the said Free States, a blue flag with a golden star in the centre.
ARTICLE 4. That with a view of enabling commerce to penetrate into Equatorial Africa, the Association and the said Free States have resolved to levy no customs duties upon goods or articles of merchandise imported directly into their territories or brought by the route which has been constructed around the cataracts of the Congo.
ARTICLE 5. That the Association and the said Free States guarantee to foreigners established in their territories the free exercise of their religion, the rights of navigation, commerce, and industry, and the right of buying, selling, letting, and hiring lands, buildings, mines, and forests, on the sole condition that they shall obey the laws.
ARTICLE 6. That the Association and the said free States will do all in their power to prevent the Slave Trade and to suppress slavery.
Done at Berlin, the 16th December, 1884.
(On behalf of the Association), (Signed) STRAUCH.
The declaration of the British Government was as follows:
The Government of Her Britannic Majesty declare their sympathy with, and approval of, the humane and benevolent purposes of the Association, and hereby recognise the flag of the Association, and of the Free States under its administration, as the flag of a friendly Government.
(On behalf of Her Majesty’s Government), EDWARD B. MALET.
The Convention itself was couched in the following terms:
Whereas the Government of Her Britannic Majesty have recognised the flag of the International Association of the Congo, and of the Free States under its administration, as the flag of a friendly Government;
And whereas it is expedient to regulate and define the rights of British subjects in the territories of the said Free States, and to provide for the exercise of civil and criminal jurisdiction over them, in manner hereinafter mentioned, until sufficient provision shall have been made by the Association for the administration of justice among foreigners;
It is hereby agreed as follows:—
ARTICLE 1. The International Association of the Congo undertakes not to levy any duty, import or transit, on articles or merchandise imported by British subjects into the said territories, or into any territory which may hereafter come under its government. This freedom from custom-house duties shall extend to merchandise and articles of commerce which shall be transported along the roads or canals constructed, or to be constructed, around the cataracts of the Congo.
ARTICLE 2. British subjects shall have at all times the right of sojourning and of establishing themselves within the territories which are or shall be under the Government of the said Association. They shall enjoy the same protection which is accorded to the subjects or citizens of the most favoured nation in all matters which regard their persons, their property, the free exercise of their religion, and the rights of navigation, commerce, and industry. Especially they shall have the right of buying, of selling, of letting, and of hiring lands and buildings, mines, and forests, situated within the said territories, and of founding houses of commerce, and of carrying on commerce and a coasting trade under the British flag.
ARTICLE 3. The Association engages itself not to accord any advantages whatsoever to the subjects of any other nation without the same advantages being extended to British subjects.
ARTICLE 4. Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland may appoint Consuls or other Consular Officers to reside at ports or stations within the said territories, and the Association engages itself to protect them.
ARTICLE 5. Every British Consul or Consular Officer within the said territories, who shall be thereunto duly authorised by Her Britannic Majesty’s Government, may hold a Consular Court for the district assigned to him, and shall exercise sole and exclusive jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, over the persons and property of British subjects within the same, in accordance with British law.
ARTICLE 6. Nothing in the last preceding Article contained shall be deemed to relieve any British subject from the obligation to observe the laws of the said Free States applicable to foreigners, but any infraction thereof by a British subject shall be justiciable only by a British Consular Court.
ARTICLE 7. Inhabitants of the said territories who are subject to the Government of the Association, if they shall commit any wrong against the person or property of a British subject, shall be arrested and punished by the authorities of the Association according to the laws of the said Free States.
Justice shall be equitably and impartially administered on both sides.
ARTICLE 8. A British subject, having reason to complain against an inhabitant of the said territories, who is subject to the Government of the Association, must proceed to the British Consulate, and there state his grievance. The Consul shall inquire into the merits of the case, and do his utmost to arrange it amicably. In like manner, if any such inhabitant of the said territories shall have reason to complain against a British subject, the British Consul shall no less listen to his complaint and endeavour to settle it in a friendly manner. If disputes take place of such a nature that the Consul cannot arrange them amicably, then he shall request the assistance of the authorities of the Association to examine into the merits of the case and decide it equitably.
ARTICLE 9. Should any inhabitant of the said territories, who is subject to the Government of the Association, fail to discharge any debt incurred to a British subject, the authorities of the Association will do their utmost to bring him to justice, and to enforce recovery of the said debt; and should any British subject fail to discharge a debt incurred by him to any such inhabitant, the British authorities will in like manner do their utmost to bring him to justice, and to enforce recovery of the debt. No British Consul nor any authority of the Association is to be held responsible for the payment of any debt contracted either by a British subject or, by any inhabitant of the said territories, who is subject to the Government of the Association.
ARTICLE 10. In case of the Association being desirous to cede any portion of the territory now or hereafter under its Government, it shall not cede it otherwise than as subject to all the engagements contracted by the Association under this Convention. Those engagements, and the rights thereby accorded to British subjects, shall continue to be in vigour after every cession made to any new occupant of any portion of the said territory.
This Convention shall, be ratified, and the ratifications shall be exchanged with the least possible delay. It shall come into operation immediately upon the exchange of ratifications.
Done at Berlin the 16th December, 1884.
(Signed) EDWARD B. MALET. STRAUCH.
On 5th February, 1885, was concluded a Convention with the French Republic.
ARTICLE 1. The International Association of the Congo hereby declares that it extends to France the privileges it has conceded to the United States of America, the German Empire, England, Italy, Austria-Hungary, the Netherlands, and Spain, in virtue of the Conventions which it concluded with those Powers respectively on the 22nd April, 8th November, 16th, 19th, 24th, and 29th December, 1884, and 7th January, 1885, the text of which is annexed to the present Convention.
ARTICLE 2. The Association engages moreover never to grant any privileges whatever to the subjects of any other nation without their being immediately extended to French citizens.
ARTICLE 3. The Government of the French Republic and the Association adopt as frontiers between their possessions:—
The River Chiloango from the ocean to its northernmost source;
The water-parting of the waters of the Niadi Quilloo and the Congo as far as beyond the meridian of Manyanga;
A line to be settled, which, following as far as possible some natural division of the land, shall end between the station of Manyanga and the cataract of the Ntombo Mataka, at a point situated on the navigable portion of the river;
The Congo up to Stanley Pool;
The centre of Stanley Pool;
The Congo up to a point to be settled above the River Licona-Nkundja;
A line to be settled from that point to the 17th degree of longitude east of Greenwich, following, as closely as possible, the water-parting of the basin of the Licona-Nkundja, which is part of the French possessions;
The 17th degree of longitude east of Greenwich.
ARTICLE 4. A Commission, composed of an equal number on each side of Representatives of the two parties, shall be intrusted with the duty of marking out on the spot a frontier-line in conformity with the preceding stipulations. In case of a difference of opinion, the question shall be settled by Delegates, who shall be named by the International Commission of the Congo.
ARTICLE 5. Subject to the arrangements to be made between the International Association of the Congo and Portugal as to the territories situated to the south of the Chiloango, the Government of the French Republic is disposed to recognise the neutrality of the possessions of the International Association comprised within the frontiers marked on the annexed Map, conditionally upon discussing and regulating the conditions of such neutrality in common with the other Powers represented at the Berlin Conference.
ARTICLE 6. The Government of the French Republic recognises the flag of the International Association of the Congo—a blue flag with a golden star in the centre—as the flag of a friendly Government.
In testimony whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Convention and have affixed thereunto their seals.
Done at Paris the 5th February, 1885.
(L. S.) (Signed) JULES FERRY.
(L. S.) (Signed) Comte PAUL DE BORCHGRAVE D’ALTENA.
The Convention concluded with Portugal is dated 14th February, 1885.
ARTICLE 1. The International Association of the Congo hereby declares that it extends to Portugal the privileges it has conceded to the United States of America, the German Empire, England, Italy, Austria-Hungary, the Netherlands, Spain, France, and the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway, in virtue of the Conventions which it concluded with the Powers respectively on the 22nd April, 8th November, 16th, 19th, 24th, and 29th December, 1884, 7th January and 5th and 10th February, 1885, certified copies of which the Association engages to transmit to the Government of His Most Faithful Majesty.
ARTICLE 2. The International Association of the Congo engages moreover never to grant any privileges whatsoever to the subjects of any other nation without their being immediately extended to the subjects of His Most Faithful Majesty.
ARTICLE 3. The International Association of the Congo and His Most Faithful Majesty the King of Portugal and the Algarves adopt the following frontiers between their possessions in West Africa, namely:—
To the north of the River Congo (Zaire) the right frontier joining the mouth of the river which empties itself into the Atlantic Ocean, to the south of the Bay of Kabinda, near Ponta Vermelha, at Cabo-Lombo;
The parallel of this latter point prolonged till it intersects the meridian of the junction of the Culacalla with the Luculla;
The meridian thus fixed until it meets the River Luculla;
The course of the Luculla to its junction with the Chiloango (Luango Luce);
The course of the Congo (Zaire) from its mouth to its junction with the little River Uango-Uango;
The meridian which passes by the mouth of the little River Uango-Uango between the Dutch and Portuguese factories, so as to leave the latter in Portuguese territory, till this meridian touches the parallel of Nokki;
The parallel of Nokki till the point where it intersects the River Kuango (Cuango);
From this point, in a southerly direction, the course of the Kuango (Cuango).
ARTICLE 4. A Commission, composed of an equal number on each side of Representatives of the two sides, shall be intrusted with the duty of marking out on the spot a frontier-line in conformity with the preceding stipulations. In case of a difference of opinion, the question shall be settled by Delegates who shall be named by the International Commission of the Congo.
ARTICLE 5. His Most Faithful Majesty the King of Portugal and the Algarves is inclined to recognise the neutrality of the possessions of the International Association of the Congo, conditionally upon discussing and regulating the conditions of such neutrality in common with the other Powers represented at the Berlin Conference.
ARTICLE 6. His Most Faithful Majesty the King of Portugal and the Algarves recognises the flag of the International Association of the Congo—a blue flag with a golden star in the centre—as the flag of a friendly Government.
ARTICLE 7. The present Convention shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Paris within three months, or a shorter time if possible.
In testimony of which the Plenipotentiaries of the two Contracting Parties, as well as his Excellency Baron de Courcel, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of France at Berlin, as representing the mediatory Power, have signed and affixed their seal to the present Convention.
Done in triplicate at Berlin this 14th day of the month of February, 1885.
(Signed) STRAUCH. Marquis de PÉNAFIEL. ALPH. DE COURCEL.
Declarations were exchanged between the Belgian Government and the Association on 25th February, 1885.
The International Association of the Congo declares by these presents that, by Treaties concluded with the legitimate Sovereigns in the basin of the Congo and its tributaries, vast territories have been ceded to it with all the rights of sovereignty, with a view to the creation of a free and independent State; that Conventions mark off the frontiers of the territories of the Association from those of France and Portugal, and that the frontiers of the Association are shown on the annexed Map;
That the said Association has adopted as the flag of the State administered by it a blue flag with a golden star in the centre;
That the said Association has resolved not to levy any customs duties on goods or products imported into its territories or carried by the road which has been made round the cataracts of the Congo; this resolution has been adopted to assist commerce to penetrate into Equatorial Africa;
That it insures foreigners who may establish themselves in its territories the right of buying, selling, or leasing lands and buildings therein situated, of establishing commercial houses, and carrying on trade under the sole condition of obeying the law. It engages, moreover, never to grant the citizens of one nation any privilege whatever without immediately extending it to the citizens of all other nations, and to do all in its power to prevent the Slave Trade.
In testimony of which the President of the Association, acting in its behalf, has hereunto affixed his seal and signature.
Berlin, the 23rd day of February, 1885.
(Signed) STRAUCH.
The Belgian Government takes note of the declarations of the International Association of the Congo, and by these presents recognises the Association within the limits indicated by it, and recognises its flag as on an equality with that of a friendly State.
In testimony of which the Undersigned, being duly authorised thereto, have hereunto affixed their seal and signature.
Berlin, the 23rd day of February, 1885.
(Signed) Comte AUGUSTE VAN DER STRATEN-PONTHOZ. Baron LAMBERMONT.
DECLARATION OF THE GENERAL ACT OF THE BRUSSELS CONFERENCE, JULY 2, 1890
The Powers assembled in Conference at Brussels, who have ratified the General Act of Berlin of the 26th February, 1885, or who have acceded thereto,
After having drawn up and signed in concert, in the General Act of this day, a collection of measures intended to put an end to the Negro Slave Trade by land as well as by sea, and to improve the moral and material conditions of existence of the native races;
Taking into consideration that the execution of the provisions which they have adopted with this object imposes on some of them who have possessions or Protectorates in the conventional basin of the Congo obligations which absolutely demand new resources to meet them;
Have agreed to make the following Declaration:—
The Signatory or adhering Powers who have possessions or Protectorates in the said conventional basin of the Congo are authorised, so far as they require any authority for the purpose, to establish therein duties upon imported goods, the scale of which shall not exceed a rate equivalent to 10 per cent. “ad valorem” at the port of entry, always excepting spirituous liquors, which are regulated by the provisions of Chapter VI. of the General Act of this day.
After the signature of the said General Act, negotiations shall be opened between the Powers who have ratified the General Act of Berlin or who have adhered to it, in order to draw up, within the maximum limit of 10 per cent. “ad valorem” the conditions of the Customs system to be established in the conventional basin of the Congo.
Nevertheless, it is understood:—
1. That no differential treatment or transit duty shall be established;
2. That in applying the Customs system which may be agreed upon, each Power will undertake to simplify formalities as much as possible, and to facilitate trade operations;
3. That the arrangement resulting from the proposed negotiations shall remain in force for fifteen years from the signature of the present Declaration.
At the expiration of this period, and failing a fresh Agreement, the Contracting Powers shall return to the conditions provided for by Article IV. of the General Act of Berlin, retaining the power of imposing duties up to a maximum of 10 per cent. upon goods imported into the conventional basin of the Congo.
The ratifications of the present Declaration shall be exchanged at the same time as those of the General Act of this day.
In witness whereof the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have drawn up the present Declaration, and have affixed thereto their seals.
Done at Brussels, the 2nd day of the month of July, 1890.
[L. S.] Vivian, John Kirk, Alvensleben, Göhring, R. Khevenhüller, Lambermont, E. Banning, Schack de Brockdorff, J. G. de Aguera, Edm. van Eetvelde, A. van Malgeghem, A. Bourée, G. Cogordan, F. de Renzis, T. Catalani, L. Gericke, Henrique de Macedo, Pereiro Coutinho, L. Ouroussoff, Martens, Burenstam, Et Caratheodory.
TREATY OF AMITY, COMMERCE, AND NAVIGATION
HIS MAJESTY LEOPOLD II., KING OF THE BELGIANS, SOVEREIGN OF THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF THE CONGO, and
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
desiring to perpetuate, confirm and encourage the relations of commerce and of good understanding existing already between the two respective countries, by the conclusion of a treaty of amity, commerce, navigation and extradition, have for this purpose named as their respective Plenipotentiaries, viz.:
HIS MAJESTY LEOPOLD II., KING OF THE BELGIANS, SOVEREIGN OF THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF THE CONGO,
Edm. van Eetvelde, Administrator General of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Officer of His Order of Leopold, and
HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Edwin H. Terrell, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America near His Majesty the King of the Belgians, who, after having communicated to each other their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following articles:
ARTICLE I.—There shall be full, entire and reciprocal liberty of commerce, establishment and navigation between the citizens and inhabitants of the two High contracting Parties.
The citizens and inhabitants of the Independent State of the Congo in the United States of America and those of the United States of America in the independent State of the Congo shall have reciprocally the right, on conforming to the laws of the country, to enter, travel and reside in all parts of their respective territories; to carry on business there; and they shall enjoy in this respect for the protection of their persons and their property the same treatment and the same rights as the natives, or the citizens and inhabitants of the most favoured nation.
They can freely exercise their industry or their business, as well wholesale as retail, in the whole extent of the territories, without being subjected as to their persons or their property, or by reason of their business, to any taxes, general or local, imposts or conditions whatsoever other or more onerous than those which are imposed or may be imposed upon the natives other than non-civilised aborigines, or upon the citizens and inhabitants of the most favoured nation.
In like manner, they will enjoy reciprocally the treatment of the most favoured nation in all that relates to rights, privileges, exemptions and immunities whatsoever concerning their persons or their property and in the matter of commerce, industry and navigation.
ARTICLE II.—In all that concerns the acquisition, succession, possession and alienation of property, real and personal, the citizens and inhabitants of each of the High contracting Parties shall enjoy in the territories of the other all the rights which the respective laws accord or shall accord in those territories to the citizens and inhabitants of the most favoured nation.
ARTICLE III.—The citizens and inhabitants of each of the High contracting Parties shall be exempt in the territories of the other from all personal service in the army, navy, or militia, and from all pecuniary contributions in lieu of such, as well as from all obligatory official functions whatever, except the obligation of sitting, within a radius of one hundred kilometres from the place of their residence, as a juror in judicial proceedings; furthermore, their property shall not be taken for the public service without an ample and sufficient compensation.
They shall have free access to the courts of the other, on conforming to the laws regulating the matter, as well for the prosecution as for the defence of their rights, in all the degrees of jurisdiction established by law. They can be represented by lawyers, and they shall enjoy, in this respect, and in what concerns domiciliary visits to their houses, manufactories, stores, warehouses, etc., the same rights and the same advantages which are or shall be granted to the citizens and inhabitants of the most favoured nation, or to natives.
ARTICLE IV.—The citizens and inhabitants of the two countries shall enjoy, in the territory of the other, a full and entire liberty of conscience. They shall be protected in the free exercise of their worship; they shall have the right to erect religious edifices and to organise and maintain missions.
ARTICLE V.—It will be lawful for the two High contracting Parties to appoint and establish consuls, vice consuls, deputy consuls, consular agents and commercial agents in the territories of the other; but none of these agents can exercise his functions before having received the necessary exequatur from the Government to which he is delegated.
The said agents of each of the two High contracting Parties shall enjoy, in the territories of the other, upon the footing of a complete reciprocity, all the privileges, immunities and rights which are actually granted to those of the most favoured nation or which may be accorded to them hereafter.
The said agents, citizens or inhabitants of the State by which they are appointed shall not be subject to preliminary arrest, except in the case of acts qualified as crimes by the local legislation and punished as such. They shall be exempt from military billeting and from service in the army, navy, or militia, as well as from all direct taxes, unless these should be due on account of real estate, or, unless the said agents should exercise a profession or business of any kind.
The said agents can raise their national flag over their offices.
The consular offices shall be at all times inviolable. The local authorities can not invade them under any pretext. They can not in any case examine or seize the papers which shall be there deposited. The consular offices can not, on the other hand, serve as place of asylum, and if an agent of the consular service is engaged in business, commercial or other, the papers relating to the consulate shall be kept separate.
The said agents shall have the right to exercise all the functions generally appertaining to consuls, especially in what concerns the legalisation of private and public documents, of invoices and commercial contracts, the taking of depositions and the right of authenticating legal acts and documents.
The said agents shall have the right to address the administrative and judicial authorities of the country in which they exercise their functions in order to complain of any infraction of the treaties or conventions existing between the two Governments, and for the purpose of protecting the rights and interests of the citizens and inhabitants of their country. They shall have also the right to settle all differences arising between the captains or the officers and the sailors of the sea-vessels of their nation. The local authorities shall abstain from interfering in these cases unless the maintenance of the public tranquillity requires it, or, unless their assistance should be asked by the consular authority in order to assure the execution of its decisions.
The local authorities will give to the said agents and, on their default, to the captains or their casual representatives, all aid for the search and arrest of sailor deserters, who shall be kept and guarded in the prisons of the State upon the requisition and at the expense of the consuls or of the captains, during a maximum delay of two months.
ARTICLE VI.—The citizens and inhabitants of each of the High contracting Parties shall have reciprocally, according to the same rights and conditions and with the same privileges as those of the most favoured nation, the right to enter with their vessels and cargoes into all the ports and to navigate upon all the rivers and interior waters of the other State.
The vessels of each of the contracting Parties and of its citizens or inhabitants can freely navigate upon the waters of the territory of the other, without being subject to any other tolls, charges or obligations than those which the vessels belonging to the citizens or inhabitants of the most favoured nation would have to bear.
There will not be imposed by either of the contracting Parties upon the vessels belonging to the other or to the citizens or inhabitants of the other, in the matter of tonnage, port charges, pilotage, lighthouse and quarantine dues, salvage of vessels and other administrative expenses whatsoever concerning navigation, any taxes or charges whatever, other or higher than those which are or shall be imposed upon the public or private vessels of the most favoured nation.
It is agreed that every vessel belonging to one of the High contracting Parties or to a citizen or inhabitant of one of them, having the right to bear the flag of that country and having the right to its protection, both according to the laws of that country, shall be considered as a vessel of that nationality.
ARTICLE VII.—In what concerns the freight and facilities of transportation, and tolls, the merchandise belonging to the citizens or inhabitants of one of the contracting States transported over the roads, railroads and waterways of the other State, shall be treated on the same footing as the merchandise belonging to the citizens or inhabitants of the most favoured nation.
ARTICLE VIII.—In the territories of neither of the High contracting Parties shall there be established or enforced a prohibition against the importation, exportation or transit of any article of legal commerce, produced or manufactured in the territories of the other, unless this prohibition shall equally and at once be extended to all other nations.
ARTICLE IX.—Relating to extraction was stricken out by the Senate.
ARTICLE X.—The Republic of the United States of America, recognising that it is just and necessary to facilitate to the Independent State of the Congo the accomplishment of the obligations which it has contracted by virtue of the General Act of Brussels of July 2nd, 1890, admits, so far as it is concerned, that import duties may be collected upon merchandise imported into the said State.
The tariff of these duties cannot go beyond 10 per cent. of the value of the merchandise at the port of importation, during fifteen years to date from July 2nd, 1890, except for spirits, which are regulated by the provisions of Chapter VI. of the General Act of Brussels.
At the expiration of this term of fifteen years, and in default of a new accord, the Independent State of the Congo will be placed as to the United States of America in the situation which existed prior to July 2nd, 1890; the right to impose import duties to a maximum of 10 per cent. upon merchandise imported into the said State remaining acquired to it, on the conditions and within the limitations determined in Articles XI. and XII. of this treaty.
ARTICLE XI.—The United States shall enjoy in the Independent State of the Congo, as to the import duties, all the advantages accorded to the most favoured nation.
It has been agreed besides:
1. That no differential treatment nor transit duty can be established;
2. That in the application of the tariff régime which will be introduced, the Congo State will apply itself to simplify, as far as possible, the formalities and to facilitate the operations of commerce.
ARTICLE XII.—Considering the fact that in Article X. of the present treaty, the United States of America have given their assent to the establishment of import duties in the Independent State of the Congo under certain conditions, it is well understood that the said Independent State of the Congo assures to the flag, to the vessels, to the commerce and to the citizens and inhabitants of the United States of America, in all parts of the territories of that State, all the rights, privileges and immunities concerning import and export duties, tariff régime, interior taxes and charges and, in a general manner, all commercial interests, which are or shall be accorded to the Signatory Powers of the Act of Berlin, or to the most favoured nation.
ARTICLE XIII.—In case a difference should arise between the two High contracting Parties as to the validity, interpretation, application or enforcement of any of the provisions contained in the present treaty, and it could not be arranged amicably by diplomatic correspondence between the two Governments, these last agree to submit it to the judgment of an arbitration tribunal, the decision of which they bind themselves to respect and execute loyally.
The tribunal will be composed of three members. Each of the two High contracting Parties will designate one of them, selected outside of the citizens and the inhabitants of either of the contracting States and of Belgium. The High contracting Parties will ask, by common accord, a friendly Government to appoint the third arbitrator, to be selected equally outside of the two contracting States and of Belgium.
If an arbitrator should be unable to sit by reason of death, resignation, or for any other cause, he shall be replaced by a new arbitrator whose appointment shall be made in the same manner as that of the arbitrator whose place he takes.
The majority of arbitrators can act in case of the intentional absence or formal withdrawal of the minority. The decision of the majority of the arbitrators will be conclusive upon all questions to be determined.
The general expenses of the arbitration procedure will be borne, in equal parts, by the two High contracting Parties; but the expenses made by either of the parties for preparing and setting forth its case will be at the cost of that party.
ARTICLE XIV.—It is well understood that if the declaration on the subject of the import duties, signed July 2nd, 1890, by the Signatory Powers of the Act of Berlin, should not enter into force, in that case, the present treaty would be absolutely null and without effect.
ARTICLE XV.—The present treaty shall be subject to the approval and the ratification, on the one hand, of His Majesty the King of the Belgians, Sovereign of the Independent State of the Congo, and on the other hand, of His Excellency the President of the United States, acting by the advice and with the consent of the Senate.
The ratifications of the present treaty shall be exchanged at the same time as those of the General Act of Brussels of July 2nd, 1890, and it will enter into force at the same date as the latter.
In faith of which the respective Plenipotentiaries of the High contracting Parties have signed the present treaty, in duplicate, in French and in English, and have attached thereto their seals.
Done at Brussels, the twenty-fourth day of the month of January of the year eighteen hundred and ninety-one.
[S.] EDM. VAN EETVELDE. [S.] EDWIN H. TERRELL.
RATIFICATION BY THE UNITED STATES
And whereas the said Treaty has been duly ratified on both parts, and the ratifications of the two Governments were exchanged in the city of Brussels, on the 2nd day of February, 1892,
Now, therefore, be it known that I, Benjamin Harrison, President of the United States of America, have caused the said Treaty to be made public as amended, to the end that the same and every article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United States and the citizens thereof.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington this second day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two, and of the Independence of the United States the one hundred and sixteenth.
[SEAL] BENJ. HARRISON.
By the President.
JAMES G. BLAINE, Secretary of State.
PROTOCOL RECORDING THE RATIFICATION BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OF THE GENERAL ACT OF BRUSSELS OF JULY 2, 1890—SIGNED AT BRUSSELS, FEBRUARY 2, 1892
On the 2nd February, 1892, in conformity with Article XCIX. of the General Act of the 2nd July, 1890, and with the unanimous decision of the Signatory Powers prolonging till the 2nd February, 1892, in favour of the United States, the period fixed by the said Article XCIX., the Undersigned, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, deposited in the hands of the Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs the Ratification by the President of the United States of the said General Act.
At His Excellency’s request the following Resolution whereby the Senate of the United States consented to the Ratification of the President, was inserted in the present Protocol:—
“Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein),
“That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of the General Act signed at Brussels on the 2nd July, 1890, by the Plenipotentiaries of the United States and other Powers, for the suppression of the African Slave Trade, and for other purposes.
“Resolved further: That the Senate advise and consent to the acceptance of the partial ratification of the said General Act on the part of the French Republic, and to the stipulations relative thereto, as set forth in the Protocol signed at Brussels on the 2nd February, 1892.
“Resolved further, as a part of this act of ratification, That the United States of America, having neither Possessions nor Protectorates in Africa, hereby disclaims any intention, in ratifying this Treaty, to indicate any interest whatsoever in the Possessions or Protectorates established or claimed on that Continent by the other Powers, or any approval of the wisdom, expediency, or lawfulness thereof, and does not join in any expressions in the said General Act which might be construed as such a declaration or acknowledgment; and, for this reason, that it is desirable that a copy of this Resolution be inserted in the Protocol to be drawn up at the time of the exchange of the ratifications of this Treaty on the part of the United States.”
The above Resolution of the Senate of the United States having been textually communicated in advance by the Government of Belgium to all the Signatory Powers of the General Act, the latter have assented to its insertion in the present Protocol which shall remain annexed to the Protocol of the 2nd February, 1892.
An official notification to this effect was made to the United States Minister.
The Ratification of the President of the United States having been found in good and due form, notification of its deposit was made to his Excellency Mr. Edwin H. Terrell. It will be retained in the archives of the Belgian Foreign Office.
On proceeding to the signature of the present Protocol the Minister for Foreign Affairs of His Majesty the King of the Belgians announced that the Representative of Russia, in his note expressing the assent of his Government, expressed the opinion that it was desirable that, in the Protocol, a French translation should accompany the English text of the Resolution of the Senate of the United States of America, and that, in any case, the absence of such translation should not form a precedent.
A certified copy of the present Protocol will be sent by the Belgian Government to the Signatory Powers of the General Act.
Done at Brussels the 2nd February, 1892.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, (Signed) PRINCE DE CHIMAY.
The Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, (Signed) EDWIN H. TERRELL.
* * * * *
DISPATCH FROM HIS MAJESTY’S MINISTER AT BRUSSELS RESPECTING THE COMMISSION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE NATIVES, INSTITUTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE INDEPENDENT CONGO STATE UNDER THE DECREE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1896
Sir C. Phipps to the Marquess of Lansdowne.—(Received May 19.)
(Extract.)
BRUSSELS, May 18, 1903.
M. DE CUVELIER handed to me this morning the documents herewith inclosed on the subject of the working of the Commission for the Protection of the Natives, instituted by the Congo State Government under the Decree of the 18th September, 1896, which had been collected and prepared for me in consequence of my request made to that effect the day before yesterday.
Your Lordship will observe that the Congo Government places at my disposal, without concealment, the whole correspondence which has passed in regard to the Commission under discussion, including dispatches not intended for publication. It undoubtedly leads to the conclusion that, if the operation of the Commission has not been so effective as might have been anticipated, the fault has rather been due to the great extent of territory which it had the duty to watch, and to the considerable distances by which its members were separated, and not to any deficiency of conception or absence of energy on the part of the Central Government.
* * * * *
SETTLEMENTS FOR NATIVE CHILDREN
LEOPOLD II., King of the Belgians, Sovereign of the Independent State of the Congo,
To all present and to come, greeting:
Whereas it is expedient to make provision for the protection of those children who have been victims of the Slave Trade; and
Whereas it is the general duty of the State to assume the guardianship of abandoned children, or of those whose parents do not fulfil their duties;
Now, therefore, on the proposal of our Administrator-General of the Foreign Department, we have decreed and do hereby decree:—
ARTICLE 1. The State shall assume the guardianship of children liberated in consequence of the arrest and dispersal of a convoy of slaves; of fugitive slaves who demand such protection, of children forsaken, abandoned, or orphans, and of those whose parents do not fulfil their duty with regard to maintaining and educating them.
They shall be provided with the means of livelihood and a practical education, and established in life.
ART. 2. With this object agricultural and professional settlements shall be established, which shall admit not only such children as come under the definitions of Article 1, but, as far as may be, those children who shall ask to be admitted.
ART. 3. From the day of their admission the children shall be placed exclusively under the guardianship of the State, to which they shall remain subject, and shall be liable to work, at the discretion of the Governor-General, up to the expiration of their twenty-fifth year in return for maintenance, food, lodging, and free medical attendance.
ART. 4. Rules of administration prescribed by our Governor-General shall decide the mode and conditions of admission to the settlements, the composition of the directing staff, the programme of manual and intellectual work, the details of supervision, disciplinary penalties and their application, and the public services to which the children shall be attached.
ART. 5. The administration of the guardianship of the children admitted to the settlements shall, as far as their personal rights and property are concerned, be regulated by the Civil Code.
ART. 6. Our Administrators-General of the Foreign and Home Departments are charged, each in so far as it concerns him, with the execution of this Decree.
Done at Brussels this 12th day of July, 1890.
(Signed) LEOPOLD. By the King-Sovereign:
The Administrator-General of the Foreign Department, (Signed) EDM. VAN EETVELDE.
* * * * *
INSTITUTION OF A COMMISSION FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATIVES
Leopold II., King of the Belgians, Sovereign of the Independent State of the Congo, to all present and to come, greeting:
On the motion of our Secretary of State,
We have decreed and do hereby decree:
A permanent Commission is instituted to watch over the protection of the natives throughout the territories of the State.
The members of this Commission are nominated by the King-Sovereign for a period of two years from among the representatives of philanthropic and religious Associations.
Are named in the first instance:
Mgr. van Ronslé, Bishop of Thymbrium, Vicar Apostolic of the Congo Independent State, President;
Father van Hencxthoven, J., Superior of the Jesuit Mission at Leopoldville;
Father de Cleene, of the Congregation of Scheut;
William Holman Bentley, of the Baptist Missionary Society Corporation;
Dr. A. Sims, of the American Baptist Missionary Union;
George Grenfell, of the Baptist Missionary Society Corporation, Secretary.
The members of the Commission are to inform the Judicial authorities of any acts of violence of which the natives may be the victims.
Each of the members, individually, may exercise this right of protection, and communicate directly with the Governor-General.
The Commission shall further indicate to the Government the measures to be taken to prevent slave-trading, to render more effective the prohibition or restriction of the trade in spirituous liquors, and gradually to bring about the abolition of barbarous customs, such as cannibalism, human sacrifices, ordeal by poison, etc.
Our Secretary of State is charged with the execution of the present Decree.
Done at Brussels, the 18th September, 1896.
(Signed) LEOPOLD. By the King-Sovereign:
The Secretary of State, (Signed) EDM. VAN EETVELDE.
* * * * *
LETTER OF INSTRUCTION FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL AT BOMA IN RE PROTECTION OF NATIVES
BRUSSELS, October 1, 1896.
SIR,
I have the honour to transmit to you herewith a certified copy of a Decree, dated the 18th September, appointing a Commission for the protection of natives.
It has seemed advisable that selected and impartial men, without official or administrative connection, should be placed in a position to form a perfectly independent opinion in regard to any acts of violence of which the natives may have to complain. Such is the object of the new Commission which has been appointed to watch over the protection of natives throughout the country.
Its members are nominated by the King-Sovereign, for a period of two years, from among the representatives of philanthropic and religious Associations.
By this expression the Decree pointed specially to the missionaries, who were, indeed, marked out for nomination in virtue of their office.
The first members nominated are: Mgr. van Ronslé, Fathers van Hencxthoven and De Cleene, the Protestant missionaries William Holman Bentley, Dr. A. Sims, and G. Grenfell. The last mentioned is appointed Secretary; Mgr. van Ronslé is nominated President.
I have to request you to inform them individually of their selection by the King-Sovereign; the Government are confident that they will not be appealing in vain to the devotion of these gentlemen in requesting the assistance of their services in a work of humanity and protection. One of the authenticated copies of the Decree hereto annexed is intended for each, and will serve as a letter of appointment.
The Decree specifies the duty intrusted to them as being that of notifying to the judicial authorities acts of violence of which the natives may be the victims. This right of initiative belongs to each member individually, that is to say, that he can act separately without any co-operation on the part of the other members of the Commission. Each member may of his own accord address direct communications to the Governor-General with regard to any matters which come within the scope of his mission.
It is the express desire of the Government that the authorities should act upon the information thus given by the members of the Commission, and open an inquiry and institute proceedings either administrative or, in cases of infractions of the law, judicial, in accordance with the general instructions given to the Department of Criminal Justice (le Parquet).
It will hardly be necessary to call the attention of the members of the Commission to the fact that, by reason of the great attention which will be paid to any complaint which they may make, it will behove them to act with circumspection, and to give the authority of their support only to those facts of which they may have personal knowledge, and which are based on trustworthy evidence.
The Decree lastly provides that the Commission may, through the medium of its Secretary, indicate to the Government the measures to be taken to prevent slave-trading, to render more effective the prohibition or restriction of the trade in spirituous liquors, and gradually to bring about the disappearance of inhuman practices. The simplest mode of procedure will be for the Secretary of the Commission—and I am sure that Mr. G. Grenfell will be willing to accept the duty—to forward to the Governor-General a half-yearly report on these questions, containing the observations and proposals of the members of the Commission on the subject. This half-yearly report would also deal with the working of the Commission, the acts of violence definitely established by the members, the complaints made, and the results achieved.
I have to request you to keep me informed of the manner in which the new Decree is carried out, and to acquaint me with the definite constitution of the Commission.
The terms of the Decree seem calculated to afford the natives a real guarantee. In order to strengthen this still more, the Government have decided that all offences against the persons of natives, and all attempts against their liberties committed by Europeans, shall be remitted exclusively to the Court of First Instance at Boma, that is to say, before a Court sitting under the fullest conditions of publicity and control. I therefore request that you will instruct the Public Prosecutors (Parquet) to bring offences of the kind before that Court, instead of sending them to the territorial Courts, reserving of course the special jurisdiction which the law gives to military Courts (Conseils de Guerre) in the case of soldiers.
Believe, etc., The Secretary of State, (Signed) EDM. VAN EETVELDE.
* * * * *
BOLOBO, December 26, 1896.
REVEREND SIR,
I have the honour to transmit to you herewith a certified copy of the Decree of the 18th December last appointing a Commission for the protection of natives, and nominating you to fulfil the duties of Secretary to the said Commission. This authenticated copy will serve you as your letter of appointment to the important functions for the performance of which the King-Sovereign has selected you. The Government are confident that their appeal for your assistance in a work of humanity and protection will not be in vain.
Owing to the powers devolving upon you as a member of the Commission, you will be in a position to form a perfectly independent opinion in regard to any acts of violence of which the natives may have to complain, and it will be your duty to notify to the judicial authorities any improper proceedings of which the natives in question may be the victims. This right of initiative belongs to you individually, that is to say, you may act separately, without any co-operation on the part of the other members of the Commission. On your information the authorities will open an inquiry, and will institute proceedings, either administrative or, in cases of infractions of the law, judicial.
In view of the action which will be taken on any complaint emanating from you or from the Commission, it is scarcely necessary to remind you that circumspection is called for, and that you should give the authority of your support only to those facts of which you may have a personal knowledge, and which are based on trustworthy evidence.
The Commission will also have the duty of drawing the attention of the Government to the measures to be taken to prevent slave-trading, to render more effective the prohibition or restriction of the trade in spirituous liquors, and gradually to bring about the disappearance of inhuman practices. The simplest mode of procedure in this matter would be, in the opinion of the Government, that you, in your capacity as Secretary—and the Government is convinced that you will be willing to accept this duty—should send in a half-yearly report on these questions, containing the observations and proposals of the members of the Commission on the subject. This half-yearly report might also deal with the working of the Commission, the acts of violence definitely established by its members, the complaints made, and the results achieved.
But in this matter, as in everything which relates to the working of the Commission, the Government give it full discretion.
In forwarding to each of the members a copy of the new Decree, and in announcing his nomination to each individually, I am informing them of your appointment as Secretary. You will be good enough to place yourself in communication with them in order, if possible, in spite of distance, to arrange, at Leopoldville, for instance, a meeting of all the members of the Commission, or of a certain number of them, or definitely to constitute the Commission by correspondence, and to settle such measures as should be taken for the execution of the Decree.
Believe, etc., The Governor-General, (Signed) WAHIS.
* * * * *
To The Reverend George Grenfell, Baptist Missionary Society, Bolobo.
CIRCULAR TO ALL THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS, HEADS OF ZONES AND OF POSTS, WITH REGARD TO BARBAROUS CUSTOMS PREVAILING AMONG THE NATIVE TRIBES.
BRUSSELS, February 27, 1897.
GENTLEMEN,
As you are aware, the Government have had constantly under their consideration the barbarous practices, such as cannibalism, ordeal by poison, and human sacrifices, which prevail among the native tribes, and the best means of bringing about their disappearance.
In this matter, as in all questions in which allowance must to some extent be made for long-established custom and social conditions which it would be impolitic to attack too directly, the Government have thought it advisable to act at first with prudence and circumspection, without, however, remaining inactive.
For this reason the first instruction issued to officers did not, in all cases, prescribe repression by force; they enjoined the exercise of their influence and authority with a view to deterring the natives by persuasion from indulging in these inhuman practices. A further advance has been made: the moment the authority of the State was sufficiently established in the neighbourhood of its posts and stations, the toleration of such customs was formally prohibited within a certain distance round the State stations or European establishments, and the Penal Law made their repression in these places possible by its provisions respecting acts of violence against the person. Outside this limit it lay with the officers of the Department of Criminal Justice (Ministère Public) to prosecute or not, according as the situation of the district and the forces at the disposal of the authorities permitted.
These measures have not been without result. Not only have cases of cannibalism become less frequent in the centres occupied by the officers of the State, but the native himself has learnt, and now knows, the horror felt by Europeans for cannibalism, and is no longer ignorant of the fact that by giving way to it he renders himself liable to punishment. As a general rule, indeed, it is only in secret, and out of sight of Europeans, that he still indulges in the odious custom, for he has become convinced that, save in exceptional cases in which the white man is powerless to do otherwise, he will not let him go unpunished.
The Government considers that an even more decisive step should be taken in the direction of repression. As the State’s occupation of these districts becomes more and more complete, as its posts are multiplied all along the Upper Congo, and as regular Courts are gaining a footing in the interior, the moment seems to have come to endeavour to reach the evil once for all, and to seek to extirpate it everywhere where our authority is sufficiently established to enable us to enforce absolute respect for the Penal Law.
It was with this view that the Decree of the 18th December, 1896, was drawn up, by which more particularly cases of cannibalism and ordeal by poison were made special offences. It is the Government’s intention that these provisions shall be strictly enforced, and it is the aim of the present Circular to direct all our officers to bring to justice any offences of this kind which may come to their knowledge. It will be the duty of the officers of the Department of Criminal Justice (Ministère Public) to institute proceedings against the delinquents, and in these special cases they will not be at liberty to apply Article 84 of the Decree of the 27th April, 1889, and to hand them over to the jurisdiction of the local Chief to be dealt with by native custom. It is, indeed, evident that such a course is out of the question in dealing with a class of offences which are contrary to the principles of our civilisation, and which are the outcome of customs which we are seeking to abolish.
The Government count on general assistance, with a view to insuring the prompt and certain repression of these offences, and they believe that a few severe examples will have a powerful effect in inducing the native to put an end to these reprehensible practices. The District Commissioners and Heads of Stations are in this connection expected to police the territories under their administration, and to take the necessary measures to obtain exact information.
The Director of Justice will forward to the Government every quarter a Report on the practice of cannibalism, on the cases prosecuted, and, if necessary, on the new measures which should be taken in order to check and extirpate this custom.
* * * * *
MISSIONARY GRENFELL ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
BAPTIST MISSIONARY SOCIETY, BOLOBO, July 13, 1897.
SIR,
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated the 17th May, together with the enclosure, relative to cannibalism, proof by poison, and human sacrifices, dated Brussels, the 27th February, 1897.
I need hardly say, M. le Gouverneur, that I sympathise most sincerely with the Government in its desire to eradicate the evils referred to; and you may rely upon my best efforts in the long and arduous struggle involved in combating them.
I am glad to recognise the gradual extension of the zone where justice is administered by regularly constituted Judges, for there is no doubt that where the administration of the State has been sufficiently advanced to allow of this, the evils referred to are very markedly on the decrease. It is not possible, of course, to complete at a stroke the organisation of distant territory, or at once to appoint Judges in new districts, but the fact that the State is persistently pushing the regular administration of justice towards the interior encourages one in confidently looking forward to the reducing of the cases of cannibalism, proof by poison, and human sacrifices in those parts of the Colony that as yet have not benefited by the ameliorating influences that have done so much for its western section.
I have, etc., (Signed) GEORGE GRENFELL.
M. le Gouverneur-Général, Boma.
* * * * *
CO-ORDINATED TEXT OF VARIOUS INSTRUCTIONS RESPECTING RELATIONS BETWEEN CONGO STATE OFFICIALS AND NATIVES
It will be the especial care of Heads of Expeditions and of District Commissioners to see that their subordinates, of whatever degree, act, in their dealings with the natives, with the tact which is necessary to avoid such conflict as might arise from misunderstandings or from proceedings which run too sharply counter to native habits and customs.
They will recommend their officers to proceed slowly in reforming the native, and will draw their serious attention to the danger of trying to obtain too rapid results. Before using force, they will try to enter into negotiations with the natives, and they must remember that it is better to obtain redress for harm done to the State by pacific means rather than by force of arms.
The Government are aware that energetic measures of repression are sometimes necessary, but they consider that such measures should be used only in exceptional cases, and after every means of conciliation has been exhausted.
In many cases negotiations skilfully conducted and prolonged will avoid direct hostilities.
It is, for instance, obviously advisable, with a view to avoid bloodshed, to make use of such Chiefs as are at once devoted to the State and in friendly relations with the tribes in conflict with the authorities.
In this way the natives, and especially those who are not in continuous relations with Europeans, will not misunderstand the intentions and sentiments of the State towards them, a misunderstanding which would certainly arise from a too hasty recourse to extreme measures.
In any case, whenever resort to force has become inevitable, the Government must receive exact and complete information in regard to the motives which have led to its employment, and operations must, as far as possible, be so carried out that only the guilty suffer.
No officer is to engage in hostilities with the natives, unless in self-defence, or duly authorised by the Commissioner of his district or the Head of his expedition.
Moreover, the regular and auxiliary troops engaged in warlike operations must always be commanded by a European. No exception to this rule will be admitted, and officers who transgress it will render themselves liable to dismissal as well as to any judicial proceedings it may be thought advisable to institute against them.
In case of hostilities, the property of natives is not to be destroyed, and under no pretext may villages be burnt as a means of repression. The European commissioned and non-commissioned officers will take especial care that the operations shall be conducted in such a manner as to avoid all cruelty. Wounded rebels are to receive careful attention, and the bodies of the dead must be respected. The barbarous mutilation of dead bodies, as often practised by the natives among themselves, is to be absolutely forbidden by the Europeans.
All Europeans at the head of troops engaged in warfare will be held personally responsible for all such cruelties as they may tolerate; all guilty persons will be brought before a military Court and dealt with according to law.
Prisoners of war and hostages are to be treated humanely, and their ill-usage is strictly forbidden.
Any women and children found among them shall be placed under the immediate protection of the officer in command of the operations.
Officers of the State must remember that the disciplinary penalties provided by the Military Regulations are only applicable to such as are military recruits, and then only for offences against discipline and in accordance with the special provisions of the said Regulations.
The said penalties can, under no pretence, be put into force against non-military servants of the State or against the natives, whether rebels or not.
Those among them who are accused of offences or crimes must be remitted to the competent Tribunals and tried according to law.
Should officers of the State infringe the Rules laid down respecting the relations which they are to have with the natives, or tolerate mutilations and cruelties on the part of their soldiers, they will, in case of a specified offence, be remitted to a Court of Justice. They would, in any case, be subjected to disciplinary punishment. Moreover, the guilty officers, if already decorated with the Service Star, will lose their right to wear it.
It is equally indispensable that officers should act justly, and in accordance with the instructions in force, in their dealings with the servants of the State. They are forbidden to act illegally, i. e., to inflict punishments other than those provided for breaches of discipline or to disregard legal forms for the purpose of repressing offences of which the servants of the State, and notably soldiers, may be guilty. When sentences have been passed, they must be undergone in accordance with the specified legal conditions.
Any officer departing from these Rules would be guilty of abuse of authority, and render himself liable to dismissal.
District Commissioners and Heads of expeditions must exercise the most vigilant control over such detachments of black soldiers as they may be obliged to place among the natives. These detachments must on no account be provided with improved firearms. Their task is exclusively one of protection and supervision.
They are never to intervene in quarrels between natives. They must confine themselves to informing the nearest station commanded by an European.
It is the duty of the European officers to make frequent inspections of such detachments, and to see that they do not in any way transgress the limits imposed upon them by their orders. They are to summon the neighbouring native Chiefs on the occasion of these inspections, and will receive their complaints, should they have any to make.
The Negro officers of the stations are strictly forbidden themselves to take any measures of repression against the natives; the duty of taking measures, when occasion arises, devolves upon the European officers alone.
The arrangements to be made with the villages must be concluded by a European.
Any Chief of a Negro station levying exactions on the natives, or ill-treating them, or in any way abusing his authority over them, must be prosecuted according to law, and immediately suspended from his duties.
The Heads of expeditions and Commissioners of Districts are personally responsible for the conduct of any Negro posts under their orders. They would be guilty of a very serious offence if they gave these detachments any duties other than those defined above, and if they did not constantly supervise them and immediately repress all abuses coming under their notice.
* * * * *
REPORT OF THE FIRST MEETING OF THE COMMISSION FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATIVES, HELD AT LEOPOLDVILLE ON MAY 17, 1897. PRESENT, THE REVEREND FATHER VAN HENCXTHOVEN, DR. SIMS, AND THE SECRETARY, MR. GRENFELL
In the absence of Mgr. van Ronslé, the Rev. Father van Hencxthoven was elected President for the sitting.
Seeing that the members of the Commission live far apart, and in view of the difficulty of all the members meeting, it was decided that three members should form a quorum.
The members of the Commission found that from the date of the constitution of the Commission, so far as their personal experience went, the laws of the State had been duly administered with a view to the protection of life and property, as well as to the well-being of the community. They found, further, that every case of injustice brought to the notice of the authorities had been immediately followed by measures of the most energetic description.
In the absence of Mr. Bentley, his Report was communicated to the Secretary. He writes that the Judge of the district where he resides, had, in each case notified to him, at once taken measures to punish the guilty, some cases having been settled satisfactorily, and the others being before the Court. The Judge informed Mr. Bentley that he would always be ready, on receiving a week’s notice, to go to Lutete, and try any case.
The members of the Commission, recalling the days of native rule, take this opportunity of recording their sincere appreciation of, and their gratitude for, the law and order introduced by the Independent State into the districts where they reside.
The members of the Commission also record with the deepest satisfaction their opinion that, as far as they know, the laws forbidding the introduction of alcoholic liquor for natives to the east of the River N’Kissi have been satisfactorily enforced. They consider the restriction of the zone up to the west of the River Kwilu as a really judicious and beneficent measure, and they trust that the Government will be as successful within the new limit as heretofore within the old.
The members of the Commission deeply regret that ordeal by poison is still practised over so great an extent of the country, and that its suppression is so difficult. In those districts which are more completely administered, ordeal by poison is practised in secret, owing to the penalties of the law, and the members hope that the same measures of repression will be taken in the interior districts as soon as the organisation of the Government allows of it.
The Commission desire to call the attention of the Government to the fact that all its members are chosen from the Stanley Pool district and below, and that no one has been chosen from the immense districts which are supposed to furnish the reason for the existence of the Commission for the protection of the natives.
The members of the Commission, also, seeing that it is only possible for them to act within the very narrow scope of their personal experience, venture to hope that the Inspector specially nominated by His Majesty the King-Sovereign, will soon arrive, seeing that his powers of observation would be infinitely greater than our own.
(Signed) GEORGE GRENFELL, Secretary.
LEOPOLDVILLE, May 17, 1897.
* * * * *
PROTECTION OF NATIVES—COMMISSION
Leopold II., King of the Belgians, Sovereign of the Independent State of the Congo, to all present and to come, greeting:
On reconsideration of our Decree of the 18th September, 1896, appointing a Commission for the protection of natives:
On the suggestion of our Secretary of State,
We have decreed and do hereby decree:
Article I. The following are appointed members of this Commission, for the period of two years mentioned by the said Decree:
Mgr. van Ronslé, Bishop of Thymbrium, Vicar Apostolic of the Vicariat of Belgian Congo, President.
The Reverend Father van Hencxthoven, J., of the Society of Jesus.
The Reverend Father Cambier, of the Congregation of Scheut.
Mr. William Holman Bentley, of the Baptist Missionary Society Corporation.
Dr. A. Sims, of the American Baptist Missionary Union.
Mr. George Grenfell, of the Baptist Missionary Society Corporation, Secretary.
Art. 2. The members of the Commission shall carry out their mandate in accordance with the terms of the above-mentioned Decree of the 18th September, 1896.
Art. 3. Our Secretary of State is intrusted with the execution of the present Decree.
Done at Brussels, March 23, 1901.
(Signed) LEOPOLD.
By the King-Sovereign:
In the name of the Secretary of State,
The Secretaries-General,
(Signed) CHEVALIER DE CUVELIER, H. DROOGMANS, LIEBRECHTS.
* * * * *
DISPATCH TO CERTAIN OF HIS MAJESTY’S REPRESENTATIVES ABROAD IN REGARD TO ALLEGED CASES OF ILL-TREATMENT OF NATIVES AND TO THE EXISTENCE OF TRADE MONOPOLIES IN THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF THE CONGO
The Marquess of Lansdowne to His Majesty’s Representatives at Paris, Berlin, Rome, St, Petersburg, Vienna, Madrid, Constantinople, Brussels, Lisbon, the Hague, Copenhagen, and Stockholm.
FOREIGN OFFICE, August 8, 1903.
SIR,
The attention of His Majesty’s Government has during recent years been repeatedly called to alleged cases of ill-treatment of natives and to the existence of trade monopolies in the Independent State of the Congo. Representations to this effect are to be found in memorials from philanthropic societies, in communications from commercial bodies, in the public press, and in dispatches from His Majesty’s Consuls.
The same matters formed the subject of a debate in the House of Commons on the 20th ultimo, when the House passed the Resolution, a copy of which is inclosed.
In the course of the debate, the official record of which is also inclosed, it was alleged that the object of the Administration was not so much the care and government of the natives as the collection of revenue; that this object was pursued by means of a system of forced labour, differing only in name from slavery; that the demands upon each village were exacted with a strictness which constantly degenerated into great cruelty; and that the men composing the armed force of the State were in many cases recruited from the most warlike and savage tribes, who not infrequently terrorised over their own officers and maltreated the natives without regard to discipline or fear of punishment.
As regards the ill-treatment of natives, a distinction may be drawn between isolated acts of cruelty committed by individuals, whether in the service of the State or not, and a system of administration involving and accompanied by systematic cruelty or oppression.
The fact that many individual instances of cruelty have taken place in the Congo State is proved beyond possibility of contradiction by the occurrence of cases in which white officials have been convicted of outrages on natives. These white officials must, however, in view of the vast extent of the territory under their administration, in most cases be of necessity isolated the one from the other, with the result that detection becomes additionally difficult. It is therefore not unfair to assume that the number of convictions falls considerably short of the number of actual offences committed.
It is, however, with regard to the system of administration that the most serious allegations are brought against the Independent State.
It is reported that no efforts are made to fit the native by training for industrial pursuits; that the method of obtaining men for labour or for military service is often but little different from that formerly employed to obtain slaves; and that force is now as much required to take the native to the place of service as it used to be to convey the captured slave. It is also reported that constant compulsion has to be exercised in order to exact the collection of the amount of forest produce allotted to each village as the equivalent of the number of days’ labour due from the inhabitants, and that this compulsion is often exercised by irresponsible native soldiers uncontrolled by any European officer.
His Majesty’s Government do not know precisely to what extent these accusations may be true; but they have been so repeatedly made, and have received such wide credence, that it is no longer possible to ignore them, and the question has now arisen whether the Congo State can be considered to have fulfilled the special pledges, given under the Berlin Act, to watch over the preservation of the native tribes, and to care for their moral and material advancement.
The graver charges against the State relate almost exclusively to the upper valleys of the Congo and of its affluents. The lands forming these vast territories are held either by the State itself or by Companies closely connected with the State, under a system which, whatever its object, has effectually kept out the independent trader, as opposed to the owner or to the occupier of the soil, and has consequently made it difficult to obtain independent testimony.
His Majesty’s Government have further laboured under the disadvantage that British interests have not justified the maintenance of a large Consular staff in the Congo territories. It is true that in 1901 His Majesty’s Government decided to appoint a Consul of wide African experience to reside permanently in the State, but his time has been principally occupied in the investigation of complaints preferred by British subjects, and he has as yet been unable to travel into the interior and to acquire, by personal inspection, knowledge of the condition of the enormous territory forming his district.
His reports on the cases of British subjects, which have formed the basis of representations to the Government of the Independent State, afford, however, examples of grave maladministration and ill-treatment. These cases do not concern natives of the Congo State, and are therefore in themselves alien to the subject of this dispatch; but as they occurred in the immediate vicinity of Boma, the seat of the central staff, and in regard to British subjects, most of whom were under formal engagements, they undoubtedly lead to the belief that the natives, who have no one in the position of a Consul to whom they can appeal and have no formal engagements, receive even less consideration at the hands of the officers of the Government.
Moreover, information which has reached His Majesty’s Government from British officers in territory adjacent to that of the State tends to show that, notwithstanding the obligations accepted under Article VI. of the Berlin Act, no attempt at any administration of the natives is made, and that the officers of the Government do not apparently concern themselves with such work, but devote all their energy to the collection of revenue. The natives are left entirely to themselves, so far as any assistance in their government or in their affairs is concerned. The Congo stations are shunned, the only natives seen being soldiers, prisoners, and men who are brought in to work. The neighbourhood of stations which are known to have been populous a few years ago is now uninhabited, and emigration on a large scale takes place to the territory of neighbouring States, the natives usually averring that they are driven away from their homes by the tyranny and exaction of the soldiers.
The sentiments which undoubtedly animated the founders of the Congo State and the representatives of the Powers at Berlin were such as to deserve the cordial sympathy of the British Government, who have been loath to believe either that the beneficent intentions with which the Congo State was constituted, and of which it gave so solemn a pledge at Berlin, have in any way been abandoned, or that every effort has not been made to realise them.
But the fact remains that there is a feeling of grave suspicion, widely prevalent among the people of this country, in regard to the condition of affairs in the Congo State, and there is a deep conviction that the many charges brought against the State’s administration must be founded on a basis of truth.
In these circumstances, His Majesty’s Government are of opinion that it is incumbent upon the Powers parties to the Berlin Act to confer together and to consider whether the obligations undertaken by the Congo State in regard to the natives have been fulfilled; and, if not, whether the Signatory Powers are not bound to make such representations as may secure the due observance of the provisions contained in the Act.
As indicated at the beginning of this dispatch, His Majesty’s Government also wish to bring to the notice of the Powers the question which has arisen in regard to rights of trade in the basin of the Congo.
Article I. of the Berlin Act provides that the trade of all nations shall enjoy complete freedom in the basin of the Congo; and Article V. provides that no Power which exercises sovereign rights in the basin shall be allowed to grant therein a monopoly or favour of any kind in matters of trade.
In the opinion of His Majesty’s Government, the system of trade now existing in the Independent State of the Congo is not in harmony with these provisions.
With the exception of a relatively small area on the Lower Congo, and with the further exception of the small plots actually occupied by the huts and cultivation patches of the natives, the whole territory is claimed as the private property either of the State or of holders of land concessions. Within these regions the State or, as the case may be, the concession-holder alone may trade in the natural produce of the soil. The fruits gathered by the natives are accounted the property of the State, or of the concession-holder, and may not be acquired by others. In such circumstances, His Majesty’s Government are unable to see that there exists the complete freedom of trade or absence of monopoly in trade which is required by the Berlin Act. On the contrary, no one other than the agents of the State or of the concession-holder has the opportunity to enter into trade relations with the natives; or, if he does succeed in reaching the natives, he finds that the only material which the natives can give in exchange for his trade goods or his money is claimed as having been the property of the State or of the concession-holder from the moment it was gathered by the native.
His Majesty’s Government in no way deny either that the State has the right to partition the State lands among bona-fide occupants, or that the natives will, as the land is so divided out among bona-fide occupiers, lose their right of roaming over it and collecting the natural fruits which it produces. But His Majesty’s Government maintain that until unoccupied land is reduced into individual occupation, and so long as the produce can only be collected by the native, the native should be free to dispose of that produce as he pleases.
In these circumstances, His Majesty’s Government consider that the time has come when the Powers parties to the Berlin Act should consider whether the system of trade now prevailing in the Independent State is in harmony with the provisions of the Act; and, in particular, whether the system of making grants of vast areas of territory is permissible under the Act if the effect of such grants is in practice to create a monopoly of trade by excluding all persons other than the concession-holder from trading with the natives in that area. Such a result is inevitable if the grants are made in favour of persons or Companies who cannot themselves use the land or collect its produce, but must depend for obtaining it upon the natives, who are allowed to deal only with the grantees.
His Majesty’s Government will be glad to receive any suggestions which the Governments of the Signatory Powers may be disposed to make in reference to this important question, which might perhaps constitute, wholly or in part, the subject of a reference to the Tribunal at the Hague.
I request that you will read this dispatch to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and leave a copy of it with his Excellency.
I am, etc.,
(Signed) LANSDOWNE.
REPLY OF THE CONGO STATE GOVERNMENT TO THE BRITISH DISPATCH OF AUGUST 8TH, TO THE POWERS SIGNATORY TO THE BERLIN ACT
BRUSSELS, September 17, 1903.
The Government of the Independent State of the Congo have examined the dispatch from the Foreign Office, dated the 8th August last, which was communicated to the Signatory Powers of the Berlin Act, and declare themselves in agreement with His Majesty’s Government on two fundamental points, viz., that natives ought to be treated with humanity and gradually led into the paths of civilisation, and that freedom of commerce in the Conventional Basin of the Congo ought to be entire and complete.
They deny, however, that the manner in which the State is administered involves a systematic régime “of cruelty or oppression,” and that the principle of commercial freedom would introduce modifications in the rights of property as universally understood, seeing that there is not a word to this effect in the Berlin Act. The Congo State observes that there is in that Act no provision which would sanction restrictions of any kind on the exercise of the rights of property, or give to one Signatory Power the right of intervention in the interior administration of another. It desires faithfully to observe the Berlin Act, that great International Act which binds all Signatory or Adhering Powers, according to the clear grammatical sense of the text, which none has power either to take from or add to.
The English note observes that it is within the last few years that a definite shape has been assumed by the campaign conducted in England against the Congo State, on the two-fold pretext of the ill-treatment of natives and the existence of commercial monopolies.
It is indeed worthy of remark that this campaign dates from the time when the prosperity of the State became assured. The State had been founded for years, and administered in the same way as it is now; its principles in regard to the State-ownership of vacant lands, and the manner in which its armed forces were organised and recruited, were known to the public, without any interest in the matter being shown by the philanthropists and traders to whose opinion the note begins by referring. This was the period during which the State Budget could only be balanced by means of the King-Sovereign’s subsidies and Belgian loans, and when the commerce of the Congo did not attract attention. The term “Congo atrocities” was at that time only used in connection with “the alleged ill-treatment of African natives by English and other adventurers in the Congo Free State.”[85] After 1895 the trade of the Congo State developed remarkably, and the amount of its exports shows a progressive increase from ten millions in 1895 to fifty millions in 1902. It is also about this time that the anti-Congo movement took shape. As the State gave increased proof of vitality and progress, the campaign became more active, reliance being placed on a few individual and isolated cases with a view to using the interests of humanity as a pretext and concealing the real object of a covetousness which, in its impatience, has betrayed itself in the writings of pamphleteers and in the speeches of members of the House of Commons, in which the abolition and partition of the Congo State has been clearly put forward.
Such being the object in view, it became necessary to bring a whole series of charges against the State. So far as the humanitarian side of the question is concerned, the alleged cases of violence offered to natives have once more been brought forward and re-edited ad infinitum. For in all the meetings, writings, and speeches which have latterly been directed against the State, it is always the same facts which are brought up, and the same evidence which is produced. With regard to the economic side of the question, the State has been accused of having violated the Act of Berlin, notwithstanding the legal opinions of such lawyers as are most qualified to speak to the point, which afford ample legal justification both for its commercial and for its land system. With regard to the political side, a heresy in international law has been imagined, viz., that a State, the independence and sovereignty of which are absolute, should, at the same time, owe its position to the intervention of Foreign Powers.
With regard to the cases of ill-treatment of natives, we attach special importance to those which, according to the note, have been reported in the dispatches of His Majesty’s Consular Agents. At the sitting of the House of Commons on the 11th March, 1903, Lord Cranborne referred to these official documents, and we have requested through his Excellency Sir C. Phipps that the British Government will make known to us the facts alluded to. We repeat the request.
The Government of the State have, however, never denied that crimes and offences are committed in the Congo, as in every other country or colony. The note itself recognises that these offences have been brought before the Tribunals, and that the criminals have been punished. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that the State fulfils its mission; the conclusion actually drawn is that “many individual instances of cruelty have taken place in the Congo State,” and that “the number of convictions falls considerably short of the number of offences actually committed.” This deduction does not appear necessarily to follow. It would seem more logical to say that the severe sentences inflicted will serve as a wholesome example, and that a decrease of crime may on that account be looked for. If some offences have indeed, in the extensive territories of the State, escaped the vigilance of the judicial authorities, this is a circumstance which is not peculiar to the Congo State.
The English note proceeds chiefly on hypotheses and suppositions: “It was alleged ... It is reported ... It is also reported ...” and it even says that “His Majesty’s Government do not know precisely to what extent these accusations may be true.” This is an acknowledgment that, in the eyes of the British Government themselves, the accusations in question are neither established nor proved. And, indeed, the violence, the passion, and the improbability of many of these accusations must raise doubt in an impartial mind as to their genuineness. To give but one example:—a great deal has been made of the statement that, in a train coming down from Leopoldville to Matadi, three carriages were full of slaves, a dozen of whom were in chains and guarded by soldiers. The Governor-General was asked for a report on the case. He replied: “The individuals represented as composing a convoy of slaves were, the great majority of them (125), levies proceeding from the district of Lualaba-Kassai, Lake Leopold II., and the Bangalas to the camp in the Lower Congo. Annexed you will find lists of these persons. As regards the men in chains, they were certain individuals on whom sentence had been passed by the territorial Tribunal at Basoko, and who were on their way to undergo their sentence at the central prison at Boma. They are Nos. 3642 to 3649 on the prison register at Boma.”
In the same way, quite a recent “interview,” in which the usual accusations of cruelty were reproduced, is due to a person formerly in the employ of the State, who was “declared unfit for service,” and who has failed to persuade the State to accept his proposal to write for the press articles favourable to the Administration.
The note ignores the replies, contradictions, and corrections which the attacks on the agents of the State have occasioned at the various times when they have taken place. It ignores the official declarations publicly made by the Government of the State in June last, after the debate in the House of Commons on the 20th May, the report of which is annexed to the note. We also annex the text of these declarations which dealt, by anticipation, with the considerations set forth in the dispatch of the 8th August.
The only fresh cause of complaint which the note brings forward—doubtless with the object of explaining the not unimportant fact that the English Consul, who has resided in the Congo since 1901, does not appear to support, by his personal authority, the accusations of private individuals—is that this agent has been “principally occupied in the investigation of complaints preferred by British subjects.” The impression which one would derive from this is that such complaints have been exceptionally numerous. No doubt the Consul has, on different occasions, communicated with the Administration at Boma in the interests of his countrymen, but the subjects of his representations, if one may judge by such of their number as the English Legation has had to bring to the notice of the Central Government at Brussels, do not appear, either in number or importance, to have been more than matters of everyday administrative routine: some cases in particular concerned the regulation of the succession to property in the Congo left by deceased English subjects; the object in others was to repair errors of judicial procedure, such as occur elsewhere, and it is not even alleged that the proper action has not been taken upon these representations. The same Consul, who was appointed in 1898, wrote to the Governor-General on the 2nd July, 1901, as follows:
“I pray believe me when I express now, not only for myself, but for my fellow-countrymen in this part of Africa, our very sincere appreciation of your efforts on behalf of the general community—efforts to promote goodwill among all and to bring together the various elements of our local life.”
Nor do the predecessors of Mr. R. Casement—for English Consuls with jurisdiction in the Congo were appointed by His Majesty’s Government as long ago as 1888—appear to have been absorbed in the examination of innumerable complaints; at all events, that is not the view taken in the Report (the only one published) by Consul Pickersgill, who, by the mere fact of giving an account of his journey into the interior of the Congo as far as Stanley Falls, disproves the alleged impossibility for the English consular agents to form an opinion de visu in regard to every part of their district.
With regard to the charges against the administrative system of the State, the note deals with taxes, public armed forces, and what is termed forced labour.
It is, at bottom, the contributions made by the Congo natives to the public charges which are criticised, as if there existed a single country or colony in which the inhabitants do not, under one form or another, bear a part in such charges. A State without resources is inconceivable. On what legitimate grounds could the exemption of natives from all taxes be based, seeing that they are the first to benefit by the material and moral advantages introduced into Africa? As they have no money, a contribution in the shape of labour is required from them. It has been said that, if Africa is ever to be redeemed from barbarism, it must be by getting the Negro to understand the meaning of work by the obligation of paying taxes.
“It is a question [of native labour] which has engaged my most careful attention in connection with West Africa and other Colonies. To listen to the right honourable gentlemen, you would almost think that it would be a good thing for the native to be idle. I think it is a good thing for him to be industrious; and by every means in our power we must teach him to work.... No people ever have lived in the world’s history who would not work. In the interests of the natives all over Africa, we have to teach them to work.”
Such was the language used by Mr. Chamberlain in the House of Commons on the 6th August, 1901; and still more recently he expressed himself as follows:
“We are all of us taxed, and taxed heavily. Is that a system of forced labour?... To say that because we put a tax on the native therefore he is reduced to a condition of servitude and of forced labour is, to my mind, absolutely ridiculous.... It is perfectly fair to my mind that the native should contribute something towards the cost of administering the country.”—(House of Commons, 9th March, 1903.)
“If that really is the last word of civilisation, if we are to proceed on the assumption that the nearer the native or any human being comes to a pig the more desirable is his condition, of course I have nothing to say.... I must continue to believe that, at all events, the progress of the native in civilisation will not be secured until he has been convinced of the necessity and the dignity of labour. Therefore, I think that anything we reasonably can do to induce the native to labour is a desirable thing.”
And he defended the principle of taxing the native on the ground that “the existence of the tax is an inducement to him to work.”—(House of Commons, 24th March, 1903.)
Moreover, it is to be observed that in nearly every part of Africa the natives are taxed. In the Transvaal every native pays a “head tax” of £2; in the Orange River Colony he is subject to a “poll tax”; in Southern Rhodesia, Bechuanaland, Basutoland, Uganda, and Natal a “hut-tax” is levied; in Cape Colony we find a “hut-tax” and a “labour tax”; in German East Africa also a tax is levied on huts, payable either in money, in kind, or in labour. This species of tax has also been applied in the Sierra Leone Protectorate, where payment could be made “in kind by rice or palm nuts,” and it has been suggested that work on roads and useful works should be accepted in lieu of payment in money or produce.
The legality of a tax is, therefore, not affected by the mode of its payment, whether in money or in kind, so long as the amount is not excessive. It is certainly not so in the Congo, where the work done by the native does not represent more than forty hours’ work a month. Such work, moreover, is paid for, and the tax in kind thus gives the native as it were some return for his labour.
Payment of taxes is obligatory everywhere; and non-payment involves measures of compulsion. The regulations under which the hut-tax is levied impose on the native, for non-payment, such penalties as imprisonment and forced labour. Nor in the Congo is payment of taxes optional. Repressive measures have occasionally been rendered necessary elsewhere by the refusal of natives to conform to the law, e. g., the disturbances at Sierra Leone, in connection with which an English publicist, speaking of the police force, states:
“Between July, 1894, and February, 1896, no fewer than sixty-two convictions, admittedly representing a small proportion of offences actually committed, were recorded against them for flogging, plundering, and generally maltreating the natives.”
Further instances might be recalled of the opposition encountered among native populations to the institution of governmental regulations. Civilisation necessarily comes into collision with their savage instincts and barbarous customs and habits; and it can be understood that they submit but impatiently to, and even try to escape from, a state of society which seems to them to be restrictive of their licence and excesses. It frequently happens in Africa that an exodus of natives takes place from one territory to another, in the hope of finding beyond the frontier a government less well established or less strong, and of thus freeing themselves from all obligations and restraints. Natives of the State may quite well, under the influence of considerations of this kind, have crossed into neighbouring territories, although no kind of emigration on a large scale, such as is referred to in the English note, has ever been reported by the commandants of the frontier provinces. On the contrary, it is a fact that natives in the Upper Nile region who had settled in British territory have returned to the left bank in consequence of the imposition of new taxes by the English authorities. Besides, if it is these territories which are alluded to, the information contained in the note would seem to be in contradiction with other particulars furnished, for instance, by Sir Harry Johnston.
“This much I can speak of with certainty and emphasis, that from the British frontier near Fort George to the limit of my journeys into the Mbuba country of the Congo Free State, up and down the Semliki, the natives appear to be prosperous and happy.... The extent to which they were building their villages and cultivating their plantations within the precincts of Fort Mbeni showed that they had no fear of the Belgians.”
Major H. H. Gibbons, who was for several months on the Upper Nile, writes:
“Having had occasion to know many officers, and to visit their stations in the Congo State, I am convinced that their behaviour has been much misunderstood by the press. I have quoted as a proof my experience, which is at variance with an article recently published in the English press, in which they are accused of great cruelties.”
The declaration of last June, of which a copy is enclosed, has disposed of the criticisms directed against the public forces of the State, by pointing out that recruitment for them is regulated by law, and that it is only one man in every 10,000 who is affected. To say that “the method of obtaining men for military service is often but little different from that formerly employed to obtain slaves” is to misunderstand the carefully drawn regulations which have, on the contrary, been issued to check abuses. Levies take place in each district; the District Commissioners settle the mode of conscription in agreement with the native chiefs. Voluntary enlistment, and numerous re-enlistments, easily fill up the ranks, which only reach, all told, the moderate total of 15,000 men.
Those who allege, as the note says, that “the men composing the armed force of the State were in many cases recruited from the most warlike and savage tribes” must be unaware that the public forces are recruited from every province, and from the whole population. It is inconceivable that the authorities of a State, with due regard to its interests, should form an army out of undisciplined and savage elements, and instances are to be found—such as the excesses said to have been perpetrated by irregular levies in Uganda, and the revolts which formerly occurred in the Congo—which, on the contrary, render it necessary that special care should be exercised in raising armed forces. The European establishment, consisting of Belgian, Italian, Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish officers, maintains strict discipline, and it would be vain to seek the actual facts alluded to in the assertion that the soldiers “not infrequently terrorised over their own officers.” Such an assertion is as unfounded as the one “that compulsion is often exercised by irresponsible native soldiers uncontrolled by any European officer.” For a long time past the authorities have been alive to the danger arising from the existence of stations of Negro soldiers, who inevitably abuse their authority, as recognised in the Report of Sir D. Chalmers on the insurrection in Sierra Leone. In the Congo such stations have been gradually abolished.
Those who do not refuse to accept patent facts will recognise that, of the reproaches levelled at the State, the most unjust is the statement “that no attempt at any administration for the natives is made, and that the officers of the Government do not apparently concern themselves with such work.”
It is astonishing to come across such an assertion in a dispatch from a government, one of whose members, Lord Cranborne, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, stated on the 20th May last:
“There was no doubt that the administration of the Congo Government had been marked by a very high degree of a certain kind of administrative development. There were railways, there were steamers upon the river, hospitals had been established, and all the machinery of elaborate judicial and police systems had been set up.”
Another member of the House of Commons acknowledged:
“That the Congo State had done good work in excluding alcoholic liquor from the greater part of their domain; that they had established a certain number of hospitals, had diminished smallpox by means of vaccination, and had suppressed the Arab Slave Trade.”
However limited these admissions, still they contradict the assertion now made that “the natives are left entirely to themselves, so far as any assistance in their government or in their affairs is concerned.”
Such does not seem to have been the conclusion at which Mr. Pickersgill, the English Consul, had arrived as long ago as 1898.
“Has the welfare of the African,” he asks, “been duly cared for in the Congo State?” He answers: “The State has restricted the liquor trade.... It is scarcely possible to overestimate the service which is being rendered by the Congo Government to its subjects in this matter.... Intertribal wars have been suppressed over a wide area, and the imposition of European authority being steadily pursued, the boundaries of peace are constantly extending.... The State must be congratulated upon the security it has created for all who live within the shelter of its flag and abide by its laws and regulations.... Credit is also due to the Congo Government in respect of the diminution of cannibalism.... The yoke of the notorious Arab slave-traders has been broken, and traffic in human beings amongst the natives themselves has been diminished to a considerable degree.”
This Report also showed that the labour of the native was remunerated, and gave due credit to the State for its efforts to instruct the young natives, and to open schools.
Since 1898 the general condition of the native has been still further improved. The system of carriers (le portage à dos d’homme), the hardships of which, so far as the native was concerned, were specially pointed out by Mr. Pickersgill, has disappeared from those parts of the country where it was most practised, in consequence of the opening of railways. Elsewhere motor cars are used as means of transport. The “sentry,” the station of Negro soldiers which the Consul criticised, not without reason, no longer exists. Cattle have been introduced into every district. Sanitary commissions have been instituted. Schools and workshops have multiplied.
“The native,” says the enclosed document,[86] “is better housed, better clad, and better fed; he is replacing his huts by better built and healthier dwelling-places; thanks to existing transport facilities, he is able to obtain the produce necessary to satisfy his new wants; workshops have been opened for him, where he learns handicrafts, such as those of the blacksmith, carpenter, mechanic, and mason; he extends his plantations and, taking example by the white man, learns rational modes of agriculture; he is always able to obtain medical assistance; he sends his children to the State school-colonies and to the missionary schools.”
As stated in the House of Commons, it is only right to recognise that the material and moral regeneration of Central Africa cannot be the work of a day. The results so far obtained have been considerable, and these we shall try to consolidate and develop, in spite of the way in which an effort is being made to hamper the action of the State, which in the real interests of civilisation should rather be promoted.
The English note does not show that the economic system of the State is in opposition to the Berlin Act. It does not meet the points of law and fact by means of which the State has demonstrated the conformity of its system of land tenure and concessions with the provisions of that Act. It does not explain either how or why freedom of trade—a term used at the Conference of Berlin in its usual, grammatical, and economic sense—is incomplete in the Congo State because there are landowners there.
The note confuses the utilisation of his property by the owner with trade. The native who collects on behalf of the owner does not become the owner of what is so collected, and naturally cannot dispose of it to a third party, any more than a miner can rob the proprietor of the produce of the mine and dispose of it himself. These rules are in accordance with the principles of justice and are explained in numerous documents, such as legal opinions and judicial decisions, some of which are annexed. His Majesty’s Government do not deny that the State is justified in allotting domain lands to bona-fide occupants, or that the native has no longer any right to the produce of the soil as soon as the “land is reduced into individual occupation.” The distinction is without legal foundation. If the State can part with land, it is because the native is not the owner; by what title could he then retain a right to the produce of property which has been lawfully acquired by others? Could it be contended, for instance, that the Lower Congo Railway Company, or the South Cameroons Company, or the Italian Colonial Trading Company are, on the ground that they are not at present in occupation, bound to allow the native to plunder the territories allotted to them? As a matter of fact, moreover, in the Congo State the appropriation of lands worked on Government account or by the Concessionary companies is an accomplished fact. The State and the companies have devoted large sums, amounting to many millions of francs, to the development of the lands in question, and more especially to that of the forests. There can, therefore, be no doubt that throughout the territories of the Congo the State really and completely works its property, just as the companies really and completely work their concessions.
The state of affairs then which actually exists, and is established in the Independent State, is such that there is really no need, as far as the State itself is concerned, to dwell longer on the theory set forth in the note which deals in turn with the rights of the State, with those of bona-fide occupiers, and those of the natives.
Still this theory calls for the attention of the Powers in view of the serious difficulties which would arise were it to be implicitly accepted.
The note lays down the three following propositions:
“The State has the right to partition the State lands among bona-fide occupants.”
“The natives will, as the land is so divided out amongst bona-fide occupiers, lose their right of roaming over it and collecting the natural fruits which it produces.”
“Until unoccupied land is reduced into individual occupation, and so long as the produce can only be collected by the native, the native should be free to dispose of that produce as he pleases.”
There is no single one of these propositions but apparently excludes the other two, and, as a matter of fact, such contradictions amount to a denial of the right to grant concessions.
If bona-fide occupiers ever existed they have become proprietors; occupation, where it can be exercised is, under all legislative codes, one of the methods by which property can be acquired, and in the Congo State titles of ownership deriving from it have been legally registered. If the land has never been legally occupied, it is without an owner, or, rather the State is the owner; the State can allot it to a third party, for whom such allotment is a complete and absolute title. In either case it is hard to see how the fruits of the soil can be reserved for any but the owner on the pretext that the latter is not able to collect the produce of his property.
By a curious contradiction it is observed in the note that, as a consequence of the allotment of lands by the State, the natives “lose their right of collecting the natural fruits,” and, on the other hand, that they retain the right of disposing of these fruits “until unoccupied land is reduced into [sic] individual occupation.” It is difficult to understand what is meant by a right which belongs to the natives or not according to the action of a third party. Either they lost their rights on the lands being allotted, and in that case they have lost them entirely and completely, or else they have retained them, and are entitled to retain them, although the “land is reduced into [sic] individual occupation.”
Again, what are we to understand by the expressions “bona-fide” occupiers and “individual occupation?” Who is to determine whether the occupier has brought his lands into a state of individual occupation, whether he is able to collect their produce, or whether it is still for the native to do so? In any case, such a question is essentially one to be settled by municipal law.
The note is, moreover, incomplete in another respect. It states that where the land has not yet been worked by those who have a right to it, the option of working should belong to the native. Rights would thus be given to the natives to the prejudice of the Government or of white concessionaires, but the note does not explain how nor by whom the wrong thus caused would be repaired or made good. Though the system thus advocated cannot be applied in the Congo State, as there are no longer any unappropriated lands there, attention should be called to the statement in the interest of white men established in the Conventional Basin. If it is right to treat the Negro well, it is none the less just not to despoil the white man, who, in the interest of all, must remain the dominant race.
From an economic point of view, it would be very regrettable if, in spite of the rights regularly acquired by white men, the domain lands were, even temporarily, handed over to the natives. Such a course would involve a return to their former condition of abandonment, when the natives left them unproductive; for the collection of rubber, the plantation of coffee, cocoa, tobacco, etc., date from the day when the State itself took the initiative: the export trade was insignificant before the impetus it received from Government enterprise. Such a course would furthermore certainly involve the neglect of rational methods of work, of planting and of replanting—measures which the State and the Concessionary companies have assumed as an obligation with a view to securing the preservation of the natural riches of the country.
Never in the Congo, so far as we know, have requests to buy natural produce been addressed to the rightful owners. Up to now the only attempts made have been to buy the produce which has been stolen, and the State, as was its duty, has had those guilty of these unlawful attempts prosecuted.
It is not true, as has been asserted, that the policy of the State has killed trade; it has, on the contrary, created the materials which trade deals in and keeps up the supply; it is thanks to the State that, on the Antwerp market—and soon even in the Congo where the possibility of establishing trade depots is being considered—5000 tons of rubber collected in the Congo can be annually put on sale to all and sundry without privilege or monopoly, while formerly, in 1887, for instance, the rubber export amounted to hardly 30 tons. It is the State which, after having created, at its own expense, the material of trade, carefully preserves the source of it by means of planting and replanting.
It must not be forgotten either that the Congo State has been obliged to rely on its own resources. It was forced to utilise its domain in the public interest. All the receipts of the domain go into the Treasury, as also the dividends of the shares which the State holds in exchange for concessions granted. It has only been by utilising its domain lands, and pledging the greater part of their revenues, that it has been able to raise loans, and encourage the construction of railways by guarantees of interest, thus realising one of the means most advocated by the Brussels Conference for promoting civilisation in Central Africa. Nor has it hesitated to mortgage its domain lands with this object.
The Berlin Act is not opposed to such a course, for it never prescribed the rights of property as there is now an ex post facto attempt to make out, an attempt tending, consciously or not, to the ruin of the whole Conventional Basin of the Congo.
It will not escape the notice of the Powers that the English note, by suggesting a reference to the Court at the Hague, tends to bring into consideration as cases for arbitration questions of sovereignty and internal administration as questions for arbitration which, according to prevailing doctrines, are excluded from arbitral decisions. As far as the present case is concerned, it must be assumed that the suggestion of referring the matter to the Court at the Hague has a general meaning, if it is true that, in the opinion of the English Chambers of Commerce, “the principles and practice introduced into the administration of the affairs of the French Congo, the Congo Free State, and other areas in the Conventional Basin of the Congo being [sic] in direct opposition to the Articles of the Act of Berlin, 1885.” The Government of the Congo State have never ceased advocating arbitration as a mode of settling questions which are of an international nature, and can thus be suitably treated, as, for instance, the divergencies of opinion which have arisen in connection with the lease of the territories of the Bahr-el-Ghazal.
The Government of the Congo State, after careful examination of the English note, remain convinced that, in view of its vagueness, and the complete lack of evidence, which is implicitly admitted, there is no tribunal in the world, supposing there were one possessing competent jurisdiction, which could, far from pronouncing a condemnation, take any decision other than to refuse action on mere supposition.
If the Congo State is attacked, England may admit that she, more than any other nation, has been the object of attacks and accusations of every kind, and the list would be long of the campaigns which have at various times, and even quite recently, been directed against her colonial administration. She has certainly not escaped criticism in regard to her numerous and bloody wars against native populations, nor the reproach of oppressing natives and invading their liberty. Has she not been blamed in regard to the long insurrections in Sierra Leone; to the disturbed state of Nigeria, where quite recently, according to the English newspapers, military measures of repression cost, on one single occasion, the lives of 700 natives, of most of their Chiefs, and of the Sultan; and to the conflict in Somaliland, which is being carried on at the cost of many lives, without, however, exciting expressions of regret in the House of Commons, except on the score of the heavy expense?
Seeing that these attacks have left England indifferent, it is some what surprising to find her now attaching such importance to those made on the Congo State.
There is, however, reason to think that the natives of the Congo State prefer the Government of a small and pacific nation, whose aims remain as peaceful as its creation, which was founded on treaties concluded with the natives.
(Signed) CHR. DR CUVELIER.
ANNEXES[87]
I. Bulletin Officiel de l’État Indépendant du Congo, Juin, 1903.
II. Judgments delivered by the Tribunals of French Congo.
III. Opinions of Messrs, van Maldeghem and de Paepe, Van Berchem, Barboux, and Nys.
FOOTNOTES:
[85] Transactions of the Aborigines Protection Society, 1890-1896, p. 155.
[86] See Annex No. I.
OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CONGO FREE STATE AND GREAT BRITAIN
THE CONGO REJOINER TO CHARGES CONTAINED IN THE REPORT OF CONSUL CASEMENT
The Appendices on pages 591 to 611 are taken from the official correspondence[88] sent by Sir Constantine Phipps, his Britannic Majesty’s Minister at Brussels, to the Marquess of Lansdowne, His Britannic Majesty’s Foreign Secretary, enclosing the reply of the Government of the Congo Free State to the Report of Mr. Roger Casement, British Consul at Boma. Having regard to the voluminous nature of Consul Casement’s report, and the fact that the Congo State’s Note (reply) cites its principal charges against that Government, it is not printed herewith, to expand a volume already extended beyond practical dimensions.
* * * * *
NO. 1
Sir C. Phipps to the Marquess of Lansdowne.—(Received March 14)
BRUSSELS, March 13, 1904.
MY LORD,
I have the honour to enclose the rejoinder on the part of the Congo Government to the Report of His Majesty’s Consul at Boma on the condition of the Congo.
In handing these “Notes” to me this afternoon M. de Cuvelier was instructed to call my attention to the passage where his Government expresses a desire to be placed in possession of the full Report, including names, dates, and places referred to. The “Notes” will be communicated to-morrow to the Representatives of the other Powers.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) CONSTANTINE PHIPPS.
* * * * *
ENCLOSURE IN NO. 1
NOTES BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CONGO FREE STATE ON THE REPORT OF MR. CASEMENT, CONSUL OF HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY, OF THE 11TH DECEMBER, 1903.
(Translation)
During the sitting of the House of Commons of the 11th March, 1903, Lord Cranborne observed:
“We have no reason to think that slavery is recognised by the authorities of the Congo Free State, but reports of acts of cruelty and oppression have reached us. Such reports have been received from our Consular Officers.”
The Government of the Congo State addressed a letter on the 14th March, 1903, to Sir C. Phipps, requesting him to be good enough to communicate the facts which had formed the subject of any reports from British Consuls.
No reply was received to this application.
Lord Lansdowne’s dispatch of the 8th August, 1903, contained the following passage:
“Representations to this effect [alleged cases of ill-treatment of natives and existence of trade monopolies] are to be found ... in dispatches from His Majesty’s Consuls.”
The impression was thus created that at that date His Majesty’s Government were in possession of conclusive evidence furnished by their Consuls; but none the less it seemed clearly necessary that Consul Casement should undertake a journey in the Upper Congo. It would appear, therefore, as if the conclusions contained in the note of the 8th August were at least premature; it equally follows that, contrary to what was said in that note, the British Consul was at liberty to undertake any journey in the interior that he thought fit. In any case it is to be observed that, in spite of the repeated applications of the Congo State, the White Paper [Africa, No. 1 (1904)] recently presented to Parliament does not contain any of these former Consular Reports, which nevertheless would have been the more interesting as dating from a time when the present campaign had not yet been initiated.
The present Report draws attention to the fact that in certain places visited by the Consul the population is decreasing. Mr. Casement does not give the facts on which he bases his comparative figures for 1887 and 1903. The question arises how, during the course of his rapid and hasty visits, he was able to get his figures for this latter year. On what facts, for instance, does he found his assertion that the riverain population of Lake Mantumba seems to have diminished from 60 to 70 per cent. in the course of the last ten years? He states that at a certain place designated as F—— the population of all the villages together does not at present amount to more than 500 souls; a few lines farther on these same villages are spoken of as only containing 240 inhabitants altogether. These are only details, but they show at once what a lack of precision there is in certain of the deductions made by the Consul. It is, no doubt, unfortunately only too true that the population has diminished; but the diminution is due to other causes than to the exercise on the native population of a too exacting or oppressive Administration. It is owing chiefly to the sleeping-sickness, which is decimating the population throughout Equatorial Africa. The Report itself observes that “a prominent place must be assigned to this malady,”[89] and that this malady is “probably one of the principal factors” in the diminution of the population.[90] It is only necessary to read the Rev. John Whitehead’s letter, quoted by the Consul (Annex II. to the Report), to obtain an idea of the ravages of the malady, to which this missionary attributes half of the deaths which take place in the riverain parts of the district. In a recent interview Mgr. Van Ronslé, Vicar Apostolic of the Belgian Congo, who speaks with the authority of one who has had a large experience of African matters, and has resided for long periods in many different localities in the Congo, explained the development of this scourge and the inevitable decay of the population it attacks, whatever the conditions of their social existence; mentioning among other cases the terrible loss of life caused by this disease in Uganda. If to this principal cause of the depopulation of the Congo are added smallpox epidemics, the inability of the tribes at the present moment to keep up their numbers by the purchase of slaves, and the ease with which the natives can migrate, it can be explained how the Consul and the missionaries may have been struck with the diminution of the number of inhabitants in certain centres without that diminution necessarily being the result of a system of oppression. Annex I. contains the declarations on the subject made by Mgr. Van Ronslé. His remarks as to the effect of the suppression of slavery on the numbers of the population are printed elsewhere:
“The people [slave] are for the most part originally prisoners of war. Since the Decree of emancipation they have simply returned to their own distant homes, knowing their owners have no power to recapture them. This is one reason why some think the population is decreasing, and another reason is the vast exodus up and down river.”[91]
“So long as the Slave Trade flourished the Bobangi flourished, but with its abolition they are tending to disappear, for their towns were replenished by slaves.”[92]
The Consul mentions cases, the causes of which, however, are unknown to him, of an exodus of natives of the Congo to the French bank. It is not quite clear on what grounds he attaches blame to the State on their account, to judge at least from the motives by which some of them have been determined—for instance, the examples of such emigration which are given and explained by the Rev. W. H. Bentley, an English missionary. One relates to the station at Lukolela:
“The main difficulty has been the shifting of the population. It appears that the population, when the station was founded in 1886, was between 5,000 and 6,000 in the riverain colonies. About two years later the Chief Mpuki did not agree with his neighbours or they with him. When the tension became acute, Mpuki crossed over with his people to the opposite [French] side of the river. This exodus took away a large number of people. In 1890 or 1891 a chief from one of the lower towns was compelled by the majority of his people to leave the State side, and several went with him. About 1893 the rest of the people at the lower towns either went across to the same place as the deposed chief or took up their residence inland. Towards the end of 1894 a soldier, who had been sent to cut firewood for the State steamers on an island off the towns, left his work to make an evil request in one of the towns. He shot the man who refused him. The rascal of a soldier was properly dealt with by the State officer in charge; but this outrage combined with other smaller difficulties to produce a panic, and nearly all the people left for the French side, or hid away inland. So the fine township has broken up.”[93]
The other refers to the station at Bolobo:
“It is rare indeed for Bolobo, with its 30,000 or 40,000 people, divided into some dozen clans, to be at peace for any length of time together. The loss of life from these petty wars, the number of those killed for witchcraft, and of those who are buried alive with the dead, involve, even within our narrow limits here at Bolobo, an almost daily drain upon the vitality of the country, and an incalculable amount of sorrow and suffering.... The Government was not indifferent to these murderous ways.... In 1890, the District Commissioner called the people together, and warned them against the burying of slaves alive in the graves of free people, and the reckless killing of slaves which then obtained. The natives did not like the rising power of the State.... Our own settlement among them was not unattended with difficulty.... There was a feeling against white men generally, and especially so against the State. The people became insolent and haughty.... Just at this time ... as a force of soldiers steamed past the Moye towns, the steamers were fired upon. The soldiers landed and burnt and looted the towns. The natives ran away into the grass, and great numbers crossed to the French side of the river. They awoke to the fact that Bula Matadi, the State, was not the helpless thing they had so long thought. This happened early in 1891.”[94]
It will be seen that these examples do not attribute the emigration of the natives to any such causes as
“The methods employed to obtain labour from them by local officials and the exactions levied on them.”[95]
The Report dwells at length on the existence of native taxes. It shows how the natives are subject to forced labour of various kinds, in one district having to furnish the Government posts with “chikwangues,” or fresh provisions, in another being obliged to assist in works of public utility, such as the construction of a jetty at Balolo, or the upkeep of the telegraph line at F——; elsewhere being obliged to collect the produce of the domain lands. We maintain that such imposts on the natives are legitimate, in agreement on this point with His Majesty’s Government, who, in the Memorandum of the 11th February last, declare that the industry and development of the British Colonies and Protectorates in Africa show that His Majesty’s Government have always admitted the necessity of making the natives contribute to the public charges and of inducing them to work. We also agree with His Majesty’s Government that, if abuses occur in this connection—and undoubtedly some have occurred in all colonies—such abuses call for reform, and that it is the duty of the authorities to put an end to them, and to reconcile as far as may be the requirements of the Government with the real interests of the natives.
But in this matter the Congo State intends to exercise freely its rights of sovereignty—as, for instance, His Majesty’s Government explain in their last Memorandum that they themselves did at Sierra Leone—without regard to external pressure or foreign interference, which would be an encroachment upon its essential rights.
The Consul, in his Report, obviously endeavours to create the impression that taxes in the Congo are collected in a violent, inhuman, and cruel manner, and we are anxious before all to rebut the accusation, which has so often been brought against the State, that such collection gives rise to odious acts of mutilation. On this point a superficial perusal of the Report is calculated to impress by its easy accumulation not of facts, simple, precise, and verified, but of the declarations and affirmations of natives.
There is a preliminary remark to be made in regard to the conditions in which the Consul made his journey.
Whether such was his intention or not, the British Consul appeared to the inhabitants as the redresser of the wrongs, real or imaginary, of the natives, and his presence at La Lulonga, coinciding with the campaign which was being directed against the Congo State, in a region where the influence of the Protestant missionaries has long been exercised, necessarily had for the natives a significance which did not escape them. The Consul made his investigations quite independently of the Government officials, quite independently of any action and of any co-operation on the part of the regular authorities; he was assisted in his proceedings by English Protestant missionaries; he made his inspection on a steamer belonging to a Protestant Mission; he was entertained for the most part in the Protestant Missions; and, in these circumstances, it was inevitable that he should be considered by the native as the antagonist of the established authorities.
Other proof is not required than the characteristic fact that while the Consul was at Bonginda, the natives crowded down to the bank, as some agents of the La Lulonga Company were going by in a canoe, and cried out: “Your violence is over, it is passing away; only the English remain; may you others die!” There is also this significant admission on the part of a Protestant missionary, who, in alluding to this incident, remarked:
“The Consul was here at the time, and the people were much excited and evidently thought themselves on top.... The people have got this idea [that the rubber work was finished] into their heads of themselves, consequent, I suppose, upon the Consul’s visit.”
In these circumstances, in view of the state of mind which they show to exist among the natives, in view of their impressionable character and of their natural desire to escape taxation, it could not be doubted that the conclusions at which the Consul would arrive would not be other than those set forth in his Report.
To bring out this point, and to show how little value is to be attached to his investigations, it will be sufficient to examine one case, that on which Mr. Casement principally relies; we allude to the Epondo case. It is that of the child II., mentioned on pp. 56, 58, and 78 of the Report.
It is indispensable to enter somewhat at length into the details of this case, which are significant.
On the 4th September, 1903, the Consul was at the Bonginda station of the Congo Balolo Mission, having returned from a journey on the Lopori, during the course of which he had not come across any of those acts of mutilation which it is the custom to attribute to officials in the Congo.
At Bonginda, the natives of a neighbouring village (Bossunguma) came to him and informed him, amongst other things, that a “sentry” of the La Lulonga Company, named Kalengo,[96] had, at Bossunguma, cut off the hand of a native called Epondo, whose wounds were still scarcely healed. The Consul proceeded to Bossunguma, accompanied by the Rev. W. D. Armstrong and the Rev. D. J. Danielson, and had the mutilated native brought before him, who, “in answer to the Consul’s question, charged a sentry named ‘Kalengo’ (placed in the town by the local agent of the La Lulonga Society to see that the people work rubber)” with having done it. Such are the Consul’s own words: it was necessary to establish a relation of cause and effect between the collection of india-rubber and this alleged case of cruelty.
The Consul proceeded to question the chief and some of the natives of the village. They replied by accusing Kalengo; most of them asserted that they were eye-witnesses of the deed. The Consul inquired through his interpreters if there were other witnesses who saw the crime committed and accused Kalengo of it. “Nearly all those present, about forty persons, shouted out with one voice that it was ‘Kalengo’ who did it.”
In order to understand the violence with which the natives accused Kalengo, and the unanimous manner in which the denials of the accused were rejected by his accusers, it is necessary to read the whole of the report of this inquiry, as drawn up by the Consul himself in a kind of procès-verbaux, dated the 7th, 8th, and 9th September (Annex II.). From all quarters accusers appeared, and the excited crowd gave vent to all sorts of accusations: he had cut off Epondo’s hand, chained up women, stolen ducks and a dog! The Consul did not allow his suspicions to be aroused by the passionate character of these accusations; without any further guarantee of their sincerity or further examination into their truth, he looked upon his inquiry as conclusive, and as he had taken upon himself the duties of the Public Prosecutor in making preliminary inquiries into the matter, so he anticipated the decision of the responsible authorities by declaring to the assembled people that “Kalengo deserved severe punishment for his illegal and cruel acts.” He proceeded to dramatise the incident by carrying off the pretended victim, and exhibiting him on the 10th September to the official in command of the station at Coquilhatville, to whom he handed a copy of the record of his inquiry, and on the 12th September he addressed a letter to the Governor-General which he marked as “personal and private,” and in which he makes the incident in question among others a text for an attack on “the system of general exploitation of an entire population which can only be rendered successful by the employment of arbitrary and illegal force.” His inquiry terminated, he immediately started on his return journey to the Lower Congo.
Even if the circumstances had been correctly reported, the disproportion would still have been striking between them and the conclusions which the Consul draws when emphasising his general criticisms of the Congo State. But the facts themselves are incorrectly represented.
As a matter of fact, no sooner did the Consul’s denunciation reach the Public Prosecutor’s Department than M. Gennaro Bosco, Acting Public Prosecutor, proceeded to the spot and held a judicial inquiry under the usual conditions, free from all outside influences. This inquiry showed that His Britannic Majesty’s Consul had been the object of a plot contrived by the natives, who, in the hope of no longer being obliged to work, had agreed among themselves to represent Epondo as the victim of the inhuman conduct of one of the capitas of a commercial company. In reality, Epondo had been the victim of an accident while out hunting, and had been bitten in the hand by a wild boar; gangrene had set in and caused the loss of the member, and this fact had been cleverly turned to account by the natives when before the Consul. We append (Annex No. III.) extracts from the inquiry conducted by the Acting Public Prosecutor into the Epondo case. The evidence is typical, uniform, and without discrepancies. It leaves no doubt as to the cause of the accident, makes it clear that the natives lied to the Consul, and reveals the object which actuated them, namely, the hope that the Consul’s intervention would relieve them from the necessity of paying taxes. The inquiry shows how Epondo, at last brought to account, retracted what he had in the first instance said to the Consul, and confessed that he had been influenced by the people of his village. He was questioned as follows:
Q. “Do you persist in accusing Kalengo of having cut off your left hand?”
A. “No. I told a lie.”
Q. “State, then, how and when you lost your hand.”
A. “I was a slave of Monkekola’s at Malele, in the Bangala district. One day I went out boar-hunting with him. He wounded one with a spear, and thereupon the animal, enraged, turned on me. I tried to run off with the others, but falling down, the boar was on me in a moment and tore off my left hand and [wounded me] in the stomach and left thigh.”
[The witness exhibits the scars he carries at the places mentioned, and lying down of his own accord shows the position he was in when the boar attacked and wounded him.]
Q. “How long ago did this accident happen?”
A. “I don’t remember. It was a long time ago.”
Q. “Why did you accuse Kalengo?”
A. “Because Momaketa, one of the Bossunguma Chiefs, told me to, and afterwards all the inhabitants of my village did so too.”
* * * * *
Q. “Did the English photograph you?”
A. “Yes, at Bonginda and Lulonga. They told me to put the stump well forward. There were Nenele, Mongongolo, Torongo, and other whites whose names I don’t know. They were whites from Lulonga. Mongongolo took away six photographs.”[97]
Epondo of his own accord repeated his declarations and retractions to a Protestant missionary, Mr. Faris, who lives at Bolengi. This gentleman has sent the Commissary-General at Coquilhatville the following written declaration:
“I, E. E. Faris, missionary, residing at Bolengi, Upper Congo, declare that I questioned the boy Epondo, of the village of Bosongoma, who was at my house on the 10th September, 1903, with Mr. Casement, the British Consul, and whom, in accordance with the request made to me by Commandant Stevens, of Coquilhatville, I took to the mission station at Bolengi on the 16th October, 1903; and that the said boy has this day, the 17th October, 1903, told me that he lost his hand through the bite of a wild boar.
“He told me at the same time that he informed Mr. Casement that his hand was cut off either by a soldier or, perhaps, by one of those working for the white men (travailleurs de blanc), who have been making war in his village with a view to the collection of rubber, but he asserts that the account which he has given me to-day is the truth.
“(Signed) E. E. FARIS.
“BOLENGI, October 17, 1903.”
* * * * *
The inquiry resulted in the discharge of the prisoner, which, so far as it concerned the Epondo question, was in the following terms:
“We, Acting Public Prosecutor of the Court of Coquilhatville:
“Having regard to the notes made by His Britannic Majesty’s Consul, on the occasion of his visit to the villages of Ikandja and Bossunguma in the territory of the Ngombe, from which it would appear that a certain Kalengo, a forest guard in the service of the La Lulonga Company,
“(a) Cut off the left hand of a certain Epondo;
“(b) ....;
“(c) ....;
“Having regard to the inquiry instituted by Lieutenant Braeckman, which partly confirms the result of the inquiry instituted by His Britannic Majesty’s Consul, but also partly contradicts it, and to the charges already brought against Kalengo adds that of having killed a native of the name of Baluwa;
“Having regard to the conclusions arrived at by the police employee in question, which tend to raise grave doubts as to the truth of all these charges;
“In view of the fact that all the natives who brought these charges against Kalengo, whether before His Britannic Majesty’s Consul or Lieutenant Braeckman, on being summoned by us, the Acting Public Prosecutor, took to flight, and all efforts to find them have been fruitless; that this flight obviously throws doubt on the truth of their allegations;
“That all the witnesses whom we have questioned during the course of our inquiry declare ... that Epondo lost his left hand from the bite of a wild boar;
“That Epondo confirms these statements, and admits that he told a lie at the instigation of the natives of Bossunguma and Ikondja who hoped to escape collecting rubber through the intervention of His Britannic Majesty’s Consul, whom they considered to be very powerful;
“That the witnesses, almost all inhabitants of the accusing villages, admit that such was the object of their lie;
“That this version, apart from the unanimous declaration of the witnesses and the injured parties, is also the most plausible, seeing that every one knows that the natives dislike work in general and having to collect rubber, and are, moreover, ready to lie and accuse people falsely;
“That it is confirmed by the clearly stated opinion of the English missionary Armstrong, who considers the natives to be “capable of any plot to escape work, and especially the labour of collecting rubber”;
“That the innocence of Kalengo having been thoroughly established, there is no reason for proceeding against him;
“On the above-mentioned grounds, we, the Acting Public Prosecutor, declare that there are no grounds for proceeding against Kalengo, a forest guard in the service of the La Lulonga Company, for the offences mentioned in Articles 2, 5, 11, and 19 of the Penal Code.
“(Signed) BOSCO, “Acting Public Prosecutor.
“MAMPOKO, October 9, 1903.”
* * * * *
We have dealt at length with the above case because it is considered by the Consul himself as being one of the utmost importance, and because he relies upon this single case for accepting as accurate all the other declarations made to him by natives.
“In the one case I could alone personally investigate,” he says,[98] “that of the boy II., I found this accusation proved on the spot without seemingly a shadow of doubt existing as to the guilt of the accused sentry.”
And further on:
“I had not time to do more than visit the one village of R——, and in that village I had only time to investigate the charge brought by II.”[99]
And elsewhere:
“It was obviously impossible that I should ... verify on the spot, as in the case of the boy, the statements they made. In that one case the truth of the charges preferred was amply demonstrated.”[100]
It is also to this case that he alludes in his letter of the 12th September, 1903, to the Governor-General, where he says:
“When speaking to M. le Commandant Stevens at Coquilhatville on the 10th instant, when the mutilated boy Epondo stood before us as an evidence of the deplorable state of affairs I reprobated, I said, ‘I do not accuse an individual, I accuse a system.’”
It is only natural to conclude that if the rest of the evidence in the Consul’s Report is of the same value as that furnished to him in this particular, it cannot possibly be regarded as conclusive. And it is obvious that in those cases in which the Consul, as he himself admits, did not attempt to verify the assertions of the natives, these assertions are worth, if possible, still less.
It is doubtless true that the Consul deliberately incurred the certain risk of being misled owing to the manner in which he interrogated the natives, which he did, as a matter of fact, through two interpreters—“through Vinda, speaking in Bobangi, and Bateko, repeating his utterances ... in the local dialect[101]; so that the Consul was at the mercy not only of the truthfulness of the native who was being questioned, but depended also on the correctness of the translations of two other natives, one of whom was a servant of his own, and the other apparently the missionaries’ interpreter.[102] But any one who has ever been in contact with the native knows how much he is given to lying; the Rev. C. H. Harvey[103] states that:
“The natives of the Congo who surrounded us were contemptible, perfidious, and cruel, impudent liars, dishonest, and vile.”
It is also important, if one wishes to get a correct idea of the value of this evidence, to note that while Mr. Casement was questioning the natives, he was accompanied by two local Protestant English missionaries, whose presence must alone have necessarily affected the evidence.[104]
We should ourselves be going too far if from all this we were to conclude that the whole of the native statements reported by the Consul ought to be rejected. But it is clearly shown that his proofs are insufficient as a basis for a deliberate judgment, and that the particulars in question require to be carefully and impartially tested.
On examining the Consul’s voluminous Report for other cases which he has seen, and which he sets down as cases of mutilation, it will be observed that he mentions two as having occurred on Lake Mantumba[105] “some years ago.”[106] He mentions several others, in regard to the number of which the particulars given in the Report do not seem to agree,[107] as having taken place in the neighbourhood of Bonginda,[108] precisely in the country of the Epondo inquiry, where, as has been seen, the general feeling was excited and prejudiced. It is these cases which, he says, he had not time to inquire into fully,[109] and which, according to the natives, were due to agents of the La Lulonga Company. Were these instances of victims of the practice of native customs which the natives would have been careful not to admit? Were the injuries which the Consul saw due to some conflict between neighbouring villages or tribes? Or were they really due to the black subordinates of the Company? This cannot be determined by a perusal of the Report, as the natives in this instance, as in every other, were the sole source of the Consul’s information, and he, for his part, confined himself to taking rapid notes of their numerous statements for a few hours in the morning of the 5th September, being pressed for time, in order to reach K—— (Bossunguma) at a reasonable hour.[110]
Notwithstanding the weight which he attached to the “air of frankness” and the “air of conviction and sincerity”[111] on the part of the natives, his own experience shows clearly the necessity for caution, and renders rash his assertion “that it was clear that these men were stating either what they had actually seen with their eyes or firmly believed in their hearts.”[112]
Now, however, that the Consul has drawn attention to these few cases—whether cases of cruelty or not, and they are all that, as a matter of fact, he has inquired into personally, and even so without being able to prove sufficiently their real cause—the authorities will of course look into the matter and cause inquiries to be made. It is to be regretted that, this being so, all mention of date, place, and name has been systematically omitted in the copy of the Report communicated to the Government of the Independent State of the Congo. It is impossible not to see that these suppressions will place great difficulties in the way of the magistrates who will have to inquire into the facts, and the Government of the Congo trust that, in the interests of truth, they may be placed in possession of the complete text of the Consul’s Report.
It is not to be wondered at if the Government of the Congo State take this opportunity of protesting against the proceedings of their detractors who have thought fit to submit to the public reproductions of photographs of mutilated natives, and have started the odious story of hands being cut off with the knowledge and even at the instigation of Belgians in Africa. The photograph of Epondo, for instance, mutilated in the manner shown, and who has “twice been photographed,” is probably one of those which the English pamphlets are circulating as proof of the execrable administration of the Belgians in Africa. One English review reproduced the photograph of a “cannibal surrounded with the skulls of his victims,” and underneath was written: “In the original photograph the cannibal was naked. The artist has made him decent by ... covering his breast with the star of the Congo State. It is now a suggestive emblem of the Christian-veneered cannibalism on the Congo.”[113] At this rate it would suffice to throw discredit on the Uganda Administration if the plates were published illustrating the mutilations which, in a letter dated Uganda, 16th December, 1902, Dr. Castellani says he saw in the neighbourhood of Entebbe itself: “It is not difficult to find there natives without noses or ears, etc.”[114]
The truth is, that in Uganda, as in the Congo, the natives still give way to their savage instincts. This objection has been anticipated by Mr. Casement, who remarks:
“It was not a native custom prior to the coming of the white man; it was not the outcome of the primitive instincts of savages in their fights between village and village; it was the deliberate act of the soldiers of a European Administration, and these men themselves never made any concealment that in committing these acts they were but obeying the positive orders of their superiors.”[115]
That Mr. Casement should formulate so serious a charge without at the same time supporting it by absolute proof would seem to justify those who consider that his previous employment has not altogether been such as to qualify him for the duties of a Consul. Mr. Casement remained seventeen days on Lake Mantumba, a lake said to be 25 to 30 miles long and 12 to 15 broad, surrounded by a dense forest.[116] He scarcely left its shores at all. In these circumstances it is difficult to see how he could have made any useful researches into the former habits and customs of the inhabitants. On the contrary, from the fact that the tribes in question are still very savage, and addicted to cannibalism,[117] it would seem that they have not abandoned the practice of those cruelties which throughout Africa were the usual accompaniments of barbarous habits and anthropophagy. In one portion of the districts which the Consul visited, the evidence of the English missionaries on this point is most instructive. The Rev. McKittrick, in describing the sanguinary contests between the natives, mentions the efforts to pacify the country which he formerly made through the chiefs: “... We told them that for the future we should not let any man carrying spears or knives pass through our station. Our God was a God of peace, and we, His children, could not bear to see our black brothers cutting and stabbing each other.”[118] “While I was going up and down the river,” says another missionary, “they pointed out to me the King’s beaches, whence they used to despatch their fighting men to capture canoes and men. It was heartrending to hear them describe the awful massacres that used to take place at a great chief’s death. A deep hole was dug in the ground, into which scores of slaves were thrown after having their heads cut off; and upon that horrible pile they laid the chief’s dead body to crown the indescribable human carnage.”[119] And the missionaries speak of the facility with which even nowadays the natives return to their old customs. It would seem, too, the statement made in the Report,[120] that the natives now fly on the approach of a steamer as they never used to do, is hardly in accordance with the reports of travellers and explorers.
Be this as it may, it is to be observed that nowhere in the territory which is the scene of the operations of the A. B. I. R. Company did the Consul discover any evidence of acts of cruelty for which the commercial agents might have been considered responsible. The coincidence is remarkable, since it so happens that the A. B. I. R. Company is a concessionary company, and that it is the system of concessions to which are constantly attributed the most disastrous consequences for the natives.
What it is important to discover from the immense number of questions touched on by the Consul, and the multiplicity of minor facts which he has collected, is whether the sort of picture he has drawn of the wretched existence led by the natives corresponds to the actual state of affairs. We will take, for instance, the district of the Lulonga and the Lopori, as the head-stations of the missions of the Congo Balolo Mission have been established there for years past. These missions are established in the most distant places in the interior, at Lulonga, Bonginda, Ikau, Bongandanga, and Baringa, all of which are situated in the scene of operations of the La Lulonga and A. B. I. R. Companies. They are in constant communication with the native populations, and a special monthly review, called Regions Beyond, regularly publishes their letters, notes, and reports. An examination of a set of these publications reveals no trace, at any time previous to April, 1903—by that date, it is true, Mr. Herbert Samuel’s motion had been brought before Parliament—of anything either to point out or to reveal that the general situation of the native populations was such as ought to be denounced to the civilised world. The missionaries congratulate themselves on the active sympathy shown them by the various official and commercial agents,[121] on the progress of their work of evangelisation,[122] on the facilities afforded them by the construction of roads,[123] on the manner in which the natives are becoming civilised, “owing to the mere presence of white men in their midst, both missionaries and traders,”[124] on the disappearance of slavery,[125] on the density of the population,[126] on the growing number of their pupils, “especially since the State has issued orders for all children within reach to attend the mission schools,”[127] on the gradual disappearance of the primitive customs of the natives,[128] and lastly, on the contrast between the present and the past.[129] Will it be admitted that these Christian English missionaries, who, during their journeys, visited the various factories, and witnessed markets of rubber being held, would, by keeping silence, make themselves the accomplices of an inhuman or wrongful system of government? Among the conclusions of one of the Annual Reports of the Congo Balolo Mission is to be found the following: “On the whole, the retrospect is encouraging. If there has been no great advance, there has been no heavy falling off, and no definite opposition to the work.... There has been much famine and sickness among the natives, especially at Bonginda.... Apart from this, there has been no serious hindrance to progress....”[130] And speaking incidentally of the beneficial effect produced by work on the social condition of the natives, a missionary writes: “The greatest obstacle to conversion is polygamy. Many evils have been put down, e. g., idleness, thanks to the State having compelled the men to work; and fighting, through their not having time enough to fight.”[131] These opinions of missionaries appear to us to be more precise than those expressed in a Report on every page of which it may be said one finds such expressions as: “I was told,” “it was said,” “I was informed,” “I was assured,” “they said,” “it was alleged,” “I had no means of verifying,” “it was impossible for me to verify,” “I have no means of ascertaining,” etc. Within a space of ten lines, indeed, occur four times the expressions, “appears,” “would seem,” “do not seem.”[132]
The Consul does not appear to have realised that native taxes in the Congo are levied in the shape of labour, and that this form of tax is justified as much by the moral effect which it produces, as by the impossibility of taxing the native in any other way, seeing that, as the Consul admits, the native has no money. It is to this consideration that is due the fact, to give another example, that out of 56,700 huts which are taxed in North-Eastern Rhodesia 19,653 pay that tax “in labour,” while 4938 pay it “in produce.”[133] Whether such labour is furnished direct to the State or to some private undertaking, and whether it is given in aid of this or that work as local necessities may dictate, one ground of justification is always to be found in what the Memorandum of the 11th February last recognises is the “necessity of the natives being induced to work.” The Consul shows much anxiety as to how this forced labour should be described; he is surprised that if it be a tax it is sometimes paid and recovered by commercial agents. Strictly speaking, of course, it cannot be denied that the idea of remunerating a person for paying his taxes is contrary to the ordinary notions of finance; but the difficulty disappears if it is considered that the object in view has been to get the natives to acquire the habit of labour, for which they have always shown a great aversion. And if this notion of work can more easily be inculcated on the natives under the form of commercial transactions between them and private persons, is it necessary to condemn such a mode of procedure, especially in those parts where the organisation of the Administration is not yet complete? But it is essential that in the relations of this nature which they have with the natives, commercial agents, no less than those of the State, should be kind and humane. In so far as it bears on this point the Consul’s Report will receive the most careful consideration, and if the result of investigation be to show that there are real abuses and that reforms are called for, the heads of the Administration will act as the circumstances may require.
But no one has ever imagined that the fiscal system in the Congo attained perfection at once, especially in regard to such matters as the assessment of taxes and the means for recovering them. The system of “chieftaincies,” which is recommended by the fact that it enables the authorities and the native to communicate through the latter’s natural chief, was based on an idea carried into practice elsewhere:
“The more important Chiefs who helped the Administration have been paid a certain percentage of the taxes collected in their districts, and I think that if this policy is adhered to each year, the results will continue to be satisfactory and will encourage the Chiefs to work in harmony with the Administration.”[134]
The Decree on the subject of these Chieftaincies[135] laid down the principle of a tax, and its levy in accordance with “a table of contributions to be made every year by each village in produce, forced labour, labourers, or soldiers.” The application of this Decree has been provided for by deeds of investiture, tables of statistics, and particulars of contributions, forms of which will be found in Annex IV. In spite of what is stated in the Report, this Decree has been carried out so far as has been found compatible with the social condition of the various tribes; numerous deeds of investiture have been drawn up, and efforts have been made to draw up an equitable assessment of the contributions. The Consul might have found this out at the Commissioners’ offices, especially in the Stanley Pool and Equator districts which he passed through; but he neglected as a rule all official sources of information. No doubt the application of the Decree was at first necessarily limited, and it is possible that the result has been that for a certain time only such villages as were within a short distance from stations have been required to pay taxes; but this state of things has little by little altered for the better in proportion as the more distant regions have become included in the areas of influence of the Government posts, the number of villages subject to taxation has gradually increased, and it has been found possible to levy taxes on a greater number of persons. The Government aim at making progress in this direction continuous, that is to say, that taxation should be more equitably distributed, and should as much as possible be personal; it was with this object that the Decree of the 18th November, 1903, provided for drawing up “lists of native contributions” in such a way that the obligations of every native should be strictly defined.
“Article 28 of this Decree lays down that within the limits of Article 2 of the present regulations (that is to say, within the limit of forty hours’ work per month per native) the District Commissioners shall draw up annual lists of the taxes to be paid, in kind or duration of labour, by each of the natives resident in the territories of their respective districts. And Article 55 punishes ‘whoever, being charged with the levy of taxes, shall have required of the natives, whether in kind or labour, contributions which shall exceed in value those prescribed in the tables of taxes.’”
It is matter of common notoriety that the collection of taxes is occasionally met by opposition, and even refusal to pay. The proofs of this, which are to be found in the Report of the Consul for the Congo, are borne out by what has happened, for instance, in Rhodesia:
“The Ba-Unga (Awemba district), inhabitants of the swamps in the Zambesi delta, gave some trouble on being summoned to pay taxes.”[136]
“Although in many cases whole villages retired into the swamps on being called upon for the hut-tax, the general result was satisfactory for the first year (Luapula district).”[137]
“Milala’s people have succeeded in evading taxes.”[138]
“A few natives bordering on the Portuguese territory, who, owing to the great distance they reside from the native Commissioners’ Stations, are not under the direct supervision of the Native Commissioners, have so far evaded paying hut-tax, and refused to submit themselves to the authority of the Government. The rebel Chief, Mapondera, has upon three occasions successfully eluded punitive expeditions sent against him. Captain Gilson, of the British South Africa Police, was successful in coming upon him and a large following of natives, and inflicting heavy losses upon them. His kraal and all his crops were destroyed. He is now reported to be in Portuguese territory. Siji M’Kota, another powerful Chief, living in the northern parts of the M’toko district, bordering on Portuguese territory, has also been successful in evading the payment of hut-tax, and generally pursuing the adoption of an attitude which is not acceptable to the Government. I am pleased to report that a patrol is at present on its way to these parts to deal with this Chief, and to endeavour to obtain his submission. It will be noted that the above remarks relate solely to those natives who reside along the borders of our territories, and whose defiant attitude is materially assisted by reason of this proximity to the Portuguese border, across which they are well able to proceed whenever they consider that any meeting or contact with the Native Commissioner will interfere in any way with their indolent and lazy life. They possess no movable property which might be attached with a view of the recovery of hut-tax unpaid for many years, and travel backwards and forwards with considerable freedom, always placing themselves totally beyond the reach of the Native Commissioner.”[139]
The above is an instance of those “punitive expeditions” to which the authorities are occasionally obliged to resort, as also of the native custom, which is not peculiar to the natives of the Congo, of moving into a neighbouring territory when they are seeking to evade the operation of the law. Whether in the process of collecting native taxes there have been cases in the Congo, amongst those mentioned by the Consul, in which the limits of a just and reasonable severity have been overstepped is a question of fact which investigation on the spot can alone ascertain, and instructions to this effect will be given to the authorities at Boma.
We are also unable to accept, on the information at present before us, the conclusions of the Report in regard to the conduct of the forest guards in the employ of the A. B. I. R. and La Lulonga Companies. These subordinate officers are represented by the Consul as being exclusively employed in “compelling by force the collection of india-rubber or the supplies which each factory needed.”[140] It is true that another explanation has been given—though not, indeed, by a native—according to which the business of these same forest guards is to see that the india-rubber is harvested after a reasonable fashion, and especially to prevent the natives from cutting the plants.[141] It is, indeed, well known that the law has made rigorous provision for preserving the rubber zones, has regulated the manner in which they are to be worked, and has made planting and replanting obligatory, with a view to avoiding the complete exhaustion of the rubber plant, which has occurred, for instance, in North-Eastern and Western Rhodesia.[142] A heavy responsibility in this direction lies on the companies and private persons engaged in developing the country, and it is obvious that they are bound to exercise the most careful superintendence over the way in which the harvest is collected. The object for which these forest guards are employed, therefore, may well be quite different from that alleged by the Consul; in any case, the complaints which have been made on this head will form a subject for inquiry in the Congo, as also the other remark of the Report that the manner in which these forest guards are armed is excessive, and liable to abuse. It is here to be observed that in calculating the number of these forest guards the Consul is obliged to rely on hypothesis,[143] and that he himself admits “I have no means of ascertaining the number of this class of armed men employed by the A. B. I. R. Company.”[144] He mentions that the gun of one of these men was marked on the butt “Depôt 2210.” But it is evident that such a mark can only have the significance which the Consul would like to see in it in so far as it can be proved that it refers to the numbering of the arms used in the Concession, and such is not the case, since this particular mark “Depôt” is not used either by the officials of the State or those of the Company, and it would seem that it is an old manufactory or store mark. In regard to the manner of arming the capitas, the Consul can hardly be ignorant that the higher authorities have always given great attention to the matter, which is, indeed, one surrounded with difficulties, seeing that while on the one hand it is necessary to consider the question of the personal protection of the capita, on the other the possibility of the arms in question being used for improper purposes must not be lost sight of. It is not only in the Circular of the 20th October, 1900, which the Consul has reprinted, that this question is dealt with; there is a whole collection of Circulars on the subject, among which may be mentioned those of the 12th March, 1897, 31st May and 28th November, 1900, and 30th April, 1901. Copies of them are annexed as proof of the fixed determination of the Government to see that the law relating to this question is strictly enforced (Annex V.). Yet, in spite of all these precautions, the Consul has ascertained that several capitas were not provided with permits (perhaps they might have been found at the head office), and that two of them were furnished with arms of precision.[145] But these few infractions of the rule are obviously not enough to prove the existence of a sort of vast armed organisation destined to strike terror into the natives. On the contrary, the Circular of the 7th September, 1903, printed in Annex VII. of the Consul’s Report, is a proof of the care taken by the Government that the regular black troops should always be under the control of European officers.[146]
Such are the preliminary remarks suggested by Mr. Casement’s Report, and we reserve to ourselves the right of dealing with it more in detail as soon as the Government shall be in possession of the results of the inquiry which the local authorities are about to make. It will be observed that the Government, in its desire not to seem to wish to avoid the discussion, has not raised a question in regard to the manner, surely unusual, in which His Britannic Majesty’s Consul has acted in a foreign country. It is obviously altogether outside the duties of a Consul to take upon himself, as Mr. Casement has done, to institute inquiries, to summon natives, to submit them to interrogatories as if duly authorised thereto, and to deliver what may be styled judgments in regard to the guilt of the accused. The reservations called for by this mode of procedure must be all the more formal, as the Consul was thus intervening in matters which only concerned subjects of the Congo State, and which were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the territorial authorities. Mr. Casement, indeed, made it his business himself to point out how little authorised he was to interfere when on the 4th September, 1903, he wrote to the Governor-General: “I have no right of representation to your Excellency save where the persons or interests of British subjects dwelling in this country are affected.” It is thus obvious that he was aware that he was exceeding his duties by investigating facts which concerned only the internal administration, and so, contrary to all laws of Consular jurisdiction, encroaching on the province of the territorial authorities.
“The grievances of the natives have been made known in this country by ——, who brought over a petition addressed to the King, praying for relief from the excessive taxation and oppressive legislation of which they complain.”
These lines are extracted from the Report for 1903 of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, and the natives referred to are the natives of the Fiji Isles. The Report goes on:
“The case has been brought before the House of Commons. The grievances include forced labour on the roads, and restrictions which practically amount to slavery; natives have been flogged without trial by magistrate’s orders, and are constantly subject to imprisonment for frivolous causes. Petitions lodged with the local Colonial Secretary have been disregarded. Mr. Chamberlain, in reply to the questions asked in Parliament, threw doubt upon the information received, but stated that the recently appointed Governor is conducting an inquiry into the whole situation in the Fiji Islands, in the course of which the matter will be fully investigated.”
Such are also our conclusions in regard to Mr. Casement’s Report.
CHR. DE CUVELIER.
BRUSSELS, March 12, 1904.
FOOTNOTES:
[87] Copies have been sent to the Library of each House of Parliament.
[88] See Africa, No. 7, 1904, presented to both Houses of Parliament, June, 1904.
[89] Report, p. 21.
[90] Idem, p. 26.
[91] M. Boudot, missionary of the Congo Balolo Mission. Regions Beyond, December, 1901, p. 337.
[92] W. H. Bentley, Pioneering on the Congo, ii., p. 229.
[93] Idem, p. 243.
[94] Pioneering on the Congo, by the Rev. W. Holman Bentley, ii. pp. 235-236.
[95] Report, p. 29.
[96] K. K. in Africa, No. 1 (1904).
[97] See Annex No. III.
[98] Report, p. 58.
[99] Report, p. 58.
[100] Idem, p. 56.
[101] See Annex No. II. (enclosure No. 6 in III.).
[102] Regions Beyond, 1900, p. 198.
[103] Idem., January-February, 1903, p. 53.
[104] See Annex No. II. “Present: Rev. W. D. Armstrong and Rev. D. J. Danielson of the Congo Balolo Mission of Bonginda, Vinda Bidilou (Consul’s head man) and Bateko as interpreters, and His Britannic Majesty’s Consul.” This passage is omitted in Annex No. 6 of the Consul’s Report (p. 78).
[105] Report, p. 34.
[106] Idem, pp. 76 and 77.
[107] Cf. Idem, pp. 54 and 55 and p. 58.
[108] Idem, pp. 54, 55.
[109] Idem, p. 56.
[110] Idem, p. 56.
[111] Idem, p. 62.
[112] Idem, p. 57.
[113] Review of Reviews, February 14, 1903.
[114] The Tribuna of Rome.
[115] Report, Annex No. IV., p. 77.
[116] Idem, p. 30.
[117] Report, Annex No. IV., p. 30.
[118] “Ten Years at Bonginda.” D. McKittrick, Regions Beyond, 1900, p. 21.
[119] “Congo Contrasts.” M. Boudot, Regions Beyond, 1900, p. 197.
[120] Report, p. 34.
[121] Regions Beyond, 1900, p. 150; 1902, p. 209.
[122] Idem, passim.
[123] Idem, 1900, p. 150.
[124] Idem, 1901, p. 27.
[125] Idem, 1900, p. 199.
[126] Idem, 1900, pp. 243, 297, 306.
[127] Idem, 1901, p. 40; 1902, p. 315.
[128] Idem, 1901, p. 40.
[129] Idem, 1900, p. 196.
[130] Idem, 1901, p. 43.
[131] Idem, 1901, p. 60.
[132] Report, p. 28.
[133] Reports on the Administration of Rhodesia, 1900-1902, p. 408.
[134] Reports on the Administration of Rhodesia, 1900-1902, p. 408.
[135] Decree of the 6th October, 1891 (Bulletin Officiel, 1891, p. 259).
[136] Reports on the Administration of Rhodesia, 1900-1902, p. 409.
[137] Idem, p. 410.
[138] Idem, p. 410.
[139] Idem, 1900-1902, pp. 145, 146.
[140] Report, p. 44.
[141] Annex III., p. 26.
[142] Reports on the Administration of Rhodesia, 1900-1902, pp. 397, etc.
[143] Report, p. 57.
[144] Idem, p. 42.
[145] Report, p. 43.
[146] The Circular of the 7th September, 1903, has reference to the “prohibition” to despatch armed soldiers in charge of black non-commissioned officers, and not, as would appear from the incorrect copy produced by the Consul, to the “instruction.”—(Annex VII. of the Report, p. 80.)
Memorandum
Lord Lansdowne’s dispatch of the 19th April, 1904, a copy of which was handed to the Congo Government on the 27th April by his Excellency Sir Constantine Phipps, calls for certain remarks.
With regard to the opinion to which this dispatch takes exception, “that the interests of humanity have been used in this country as a pretext to conceal designs for the abolition of the Congo State,” it will be well to remember that a Member of the House of Commons declared that he would prefer “to see the Valley of the Congo pass into the hands of a foreign Power,” and that some pamphlets described the “disruption of the Congo Free State,” the “partition of the Congo Free State among the Powers,” as absolute and immediate necessities, and even went so far as to suggest the bases of such a partition; while the organs of the English press contemplated one of two alternatives, either that “advocated by the more thorough-going critics of the present Administration, namely, the disruption of the Congo Free State,” or “the partition of the Congo territory among the great Powers whose possessions in Africa border those of the Congo Free State,” or declared that “what Europe ought to do, under the leadership of Great Britain, is summarily to sweep the Congo Free State out of existence.” The Congo State Note of the 17th September has called attention to these suggestions, of which we merely point out the tenor in this instance, and which all aimed at despoiling the Sovereign-King, and at dispossessing him of the State which was his own creation—suggestions which are entirely incompatible with respect for rights and treaties, and with the motives of a purely humanitarian and philanthropic nature by which the enemies of the State allege themselves to be exclusively animated in the passionate campaign which they are conducting against it.
In reply to the objections raised by His Majesty’s Government against the communication of the entire text of Mr. Casement’s Report, the Government of the Congo State points out that it has asked for the complete Report precisely with a view to transmitting it to the competent judicial and administrative authorities, without which this communication would be purportless. The anxiety to obtain an impartial inquiry and the rights of the defence render it an imperative necessity that the men accused should be informed, in a precise and fully detailed manner, of the acts laid to their charge; the fear that the persons accused might be able, by means of the knowledge they would have of the details, to influence or suppress evidence, does not appear to be justified by the mere fact that the natives, who, in the Epondo case, had given mendacious information to the Consul, subsequently avoided presenting themselves before the Magistrate presiding over the inquiry; the flight of these witnesses is explained more naturally by the fact that they were conscious of the grave fault they had committed in wittingly deceiving the English Consul. If the Congo Government be permitted to give an assurance, which it does willingly, that any case of suborning witnesses, or any attempt to do so, would form the subject of a prosecution, it is evidently not within its power to prejudice or quash such legal measures as persons who might find themselves wrongfully accused might consider it necessary to take, either in the interests of their honour or their dignity.
The Government of the Congo State regrets that His Majesty’s Government does not deem it necessary to communicate to it the other previous Consular Reports to which Lord Lansdowne’s dispatch of the 8th August, 1903, alluded. As was stated in the notes of the 12th March last, these reports possessed the interest of having been written at a date anterior to the inception of the present discussion.
A copy of this Memorandum will be addressed to the Powers to whom copies of Lord Lansdowne’s dispatch of the 19th April last was transmitted.
ADMINISTRATION, CONGO FREE STATE, BRUSSELS, May 14, 1904.
FEATURES OF THE LAND SYSTEM IN THE AFRICAN COLONIES OF GERMANY, GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND PORTUGAL
The following notes are taken from the Bulletin Officiel of June, 1903, reporting to the Sovereign the accounts of the Congo Free State for the nineteenth year of its existence. The apt comparisons and pointed remarks upon the land system of the State are the work of M. le Chevalier de Cuvelier, Secretary of State for the Congo Free State, an official of great executive ability, to whose tremendous energy is due much of the later prosperity and progress which the Congo State enjoys to the chagrin of its detractors. Chevalier de Cuvelier has been engaged twenty years in the work of creating and developing the State. His official utterances have the quality of long experience behind them.
* * * * *
“During the twenty years that the rule of the State possession of vacant lands has been inscribed in the laws of the Congo State, not one of the Powers Signatory of the Berlin Act has pointed it out as being contrary to that International Act, either at the time of the publication in the Official Bulletin of the regulation of 1885, or on the occasion of any of the public applications made by the State on successive occasions either in exploiting en régie certain lands of the Domain with the object of assuring to the Treasury indispensable resources, or in granting concessions to certain societies for the purpose of carrying out works of general utility and contributing towards the public expenses.
“It can be said on the contrary that the Powers which, together with the Congo State, are in possession of territory in the zone of commercial liberty—France, Germany, Great Britain, Portugal—have followed the same principles, and considered, like it, that the Berlin Act no more excluded the right of property on the part of the State than it excluded that of private individuals.
“In German East Africa the regulation of 1st September, 1891, says:
“‘ARTICLE 1.—The Government alone has the right to take possession of vacant lands in the limits of the German sphere of influence in East Africa fixed by the Anglo-German Convention of 1st July, 1890, excepting for the length of the coast strip which was formerly part of the Zanzibar sultanate, and in the provinces of Usambara, Nguru, Usegua, Ukami, and the island of Mafia.’
“By the prior arrangement of 20th November, 1890, between the Imperial Government and the Deutsch Ostafrikanische Gesellschaft, the vacant lands of these latter regions were already found to be assigned to that Company. The produce of the exploitation of the forests throughout these territories, in the terms of Article 4 of the contract of 5th February, 1894, was to be shared in equal halves between the [German] Government and the Company.
“The [German] regulation of the 26th November, 1895, readmits the principle:
“‘ARTICLE 1.—Under reserve of the rights of property, or of other real rights that individuals or judicial persons, native chiefs or villages, may advance, as well as rights of occupation by third parties resulting from contracts effected with the Imperial Government, all vacant land in German East Africa belongs to the Crown.’
“The circular of the Imperial Governor von Liebert, dated 29th April, 1900, explains that:
“‘By the transference to the Empire of the sovereignty, all pretensions to landed property derived from the sovereign rights, real or apparent, of chiefs, sultans, etc., have passed to the Empire. All land which has not been proved to be the private property of an individual, or of a community, is to be considered as the property of the Crown.’
“Under the powers of the regulations of 1895, concessions have been granted in the terms taken, for example, from the acts of the concession for the Urangi Society (1896) and the Gold Syndicate of Usinja (1899):
“‘The Society receives the right to acquire under the prescriptions of the land regulation of 26th November, 1895, a superficies of 100 square kilometres, either by contract with the natives, or by taking provisional possession of vacant lands.’
“In the Cameroons, the south-east portion of which forms part of the zone of liberty of commerce, there exists a regulation of the German Emperor of 15th June, 1896, the first article of which is identical with the first article of the regulation of 26th November, 1895, for German East Africa.
“The Society of the South Cameroons has obtained there, 16th January, 1899, a charter of concession which grants it the property of the domain lands situated between the 12th degree of West longitude, the 4th degree of North latitude, and the political frontiers of the Cameroons to the South and to the East.
“In the French Congo, Article 19 of the order of the Government Commissioner General of 26th September, 1891, decrees:
“‘Waste lands and abandoned lands, to the ownership of which no one can legitimately lay claim, will be considered as belonging to the State and will form part of the colonial domain. They can under that head be alienated or conceded in the terms of the 5th and following articles. Lands considered waste are those which are neither legally occupied nor utilised in reality by any one.’
“Decrees passed in 1899 granted a totality of some forty concessions embracing almost the whole of the French territory.
“In British East Africa, the powers given by the Royal Charter, 3d September, 1888, to the Imperial British East Africa Company, whilst Article 16 forbids it to grant any commercial monopoly, confer upon it the right to ‘concede all lands for a period or in perpetuity, by right of pledging them or otherwise.’
“After the British Protectorate was substituted for the Company, the question of vacant lands was regulated in the following manner, in accordance with the terms of the report of Mr. (now Sir) H. H. Johnston, Her Britannic Majesty’s Special Commissioner, dated 27th April, 1900:
“‘The land question may now be considered as partially solved over the greater part of the Uganda Protectorate. Over all the more thickly-inhabited countries the waste or unoccupied lands belong to Her Majesty the Queen, having been transferred to the Crown, in most cases by agreement with the chiefs, after payment of indemnities; in some other cases, as in Unyoro, as the result of conquest.... By Proclamation it has been forbidden to any foreigner to acquire land from the natives in any part of the Uganda Protectorate without the prior assent of the Uganda Administration.... A large area of the Kingdom of Uganda is guaranteed to the possession of its native occupants. The rest of the land, including the forests, has now been transferred by agreement to the Crown on behalf of, and in trust for, the administration of the Uganda Protectorate.’
“Finally the land régime in the Portuguese Colonies, especially in Angola, is regulated by the decree of 9th May, 1901, the first article of which stipulates:
“‘The State domain in the countries beyond the sea are all lands which at the date of the publication of this law do not constitute a private property, acquired according to the terms of Portuguese legislation.’
“The Congolese law protects the natives in the enjoyment of the lands that they occupy, and in fact not only are they not disturbed in that enjoyment, but it even extends their cultivation and their plantations in proportion with their necessities. Manifold are the measures taken by the Congo State in order to safeguard the natives against all spoliation:
“‘No one has the right to dispossess the natives of the lands which they occupy.’ (Order of 1st July, 1885, Article 2.)
“‘The lands occupied by native populations under the authority of their chiefs shall continue to be governed by local customs and uses.’ (Decree of 14th September, 1886, Article 2.)
“‘All acts or conventions which would tend to expel the natives from the lands that they occupy, or to deprive them, directly or indirectly, of their liberty, or of their means of existence are forbidden.’ (Decree of 14th September, 1886, Article 2.)
“‘When native villages are surrounded by alienated or leased lands, the natives shall be able, as soon as the official measurement has been effected, to extend their cultivation without the consent of the proprietor, or the lessee, over the vacant lands which surround their villages.’ (Decree of 9th April, 1893, Article 6.)
“‘The members of the Commission of Lands will specially examine whether the lands asked for should not be reserved either for requirements of public utility, or in view of permitting the development of native cultivation.’ (Decree of 2nd February, 1898, Article 2.)
“‘The other Powers have not understood otherwise than the Congo State the obligations which are imposed upon them in this require in favour of the natives. So the decrees of concessions in the French Congo contain in the 10th Article the clause that:
“‘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 surroundings of these lands shall be fixed by the decisions of the Governor of the Colony, which shall equally determine the lands over which the natives shall preserve the rights of hunting and fishing.’
“In German East Africa, the regulation of the 27th November, 1895, Article 2, stipulates:
“‘ARTICLE 2.—If on fixed lands, chiefs, villages, or other native communities assert rights based upon a pretended sovereignty, or if these rights belong to them, it will be necessary to take them into account so far as possible, and to endeavour before anything to arrive at a friendly arrangement in virtue of which the territory necessary for the existence of the community shall be reserved, and the remainder placed at the disposal of the Government.
“‘If this arrangement is not brought about, the Governor decides.’
“Commenting upon this arrangement, the circular of 29th April, 1900, of the Imperial Governor von Liebert [Germany] gives the following instructions:
“‘In principle there should only be left to the natives the lands of which they have absolute need for their system of exchange, and for the existence of their village communities. Nevertheless, in order not to give rise to political complications, care will be taken provisionally, in the practical execution of this rule, not to show too much rigour, and especially is it recommended not to extend the taking possession of property without an owner except in regions which are under a strong administration.’
“The Portuguese decree of 9th May, 1901, says:
“‘ARTICLE 2.—The right of natives to lands habitually cultivated by them, which are comprised in the sphere of the concessions, is recognised; a certain extent of land shall be reserved for the habitation and the agricultural work of those residing there.’”
CONCESSIONAIRES, PRIVATE FIRMS, AND COMMERCIAL TRADING COMPANIES IN THE CONGO FREE STATE
There are at present over four hundred commercial establishments carrying on trade in the Belgian Congo, among which are the following:
* * * * *
Société Anonyme Belge pour le Commerce du Haut-Congo, 31 establishments; Abir, 28; Nieuwe Afrikaansche Handels Vennootschap, 28; Société Anversoise du Commerce au Congo, 22; Comité Spécial du Katanga, 21; Hatton & Cookson [Liverpool], 16; Comptoir Commercial Congolais, 13; Valle & Azevedo, 12; Magasins Généraux, 12; Compagnie du Congo Portugais, 10; Compagnie du Lomami, 9; Freitas & Barreira, 9; Produits Végétaux du Haut-Kasai, 8; Plantations de la Lukula, 7; Crédit Commercial Congolais, 7; L’Enterprise Africaine, 7; Société Isangi, 7; La Helgika, 6; Shanu, 6; L’Equatoriale Congolaise, 5; La Congolia, 4; La Loanje, 4; Produits du Mayumbe, 4; La Lulonga, 4; Comptoirs Congolais Velde, 4; Les Produits du Congo, 4; Samuel, 4; Shanusi Agbabiaka, 4; Les Plantations Lacourt, 3; Société Forestière et Commerciale du Haut-Congo, 3; Plantations du Lubefu, 3; Ferreira Viegas, 3; La Djuma, 3; Syndicat Commercial et Agricole du Mayumbe, 3; Mouture et Panification, 2; Ikelemba, 2; Société d’Agriculture et de Plantations au Congo, 2; Compagnie Agricole du Mayumbe, 2; Ferreira Frères, 2; Traffic Congolais, 2; Société Africa, 2; Société l’est du Kwango, 2; Dana Bernabe, 2; Carrico Frères, 2; Ribiero, 2; Ferreira & Figueiredo, 2; Vicoso & Martins, 2; A. N. Figueiredo, 2; Plantations Coloniales la Luki, 1; Compagnie Sucrière Européene et Coloniale, 1; La Mayumbienne, 1; L’Urselia, 1; La Kassaïenne, 1; Citas, 1; Compagnie Française du Haut-Congo, 1; Compagnie Bruxelloise pour le Commerce du Haut-Congo, 1; La Centrale Africaine, 1; Harms & Marcus, 1; D’Heygere, 1; Lemos et Irmôo, 1; Compagnie Franco-Belge, 1; Rocha Santos et Cie., 1; Agme, 1; Docteur Villa, 1; Messageries Fluviales, 1; Folgosa, 1; Joao da Fonseca, 1; Rebello Luiz, 1; Felgueiras, 1; Branca da Giovanni, 1; Gomez, 1; Nogueira, 1; Shanu, 1; Sabaï Smith, 1; Thomas, 1; Disu Aremu, 1; Smithe, 1; Adiolo Balawao, 1; John Andrew, 1; Mana, 1; Somano Fayamo, 1; Radji Ibadan, 1; Davidson Williams, 1; Macole, 1; Georges Southey, 1; Lania, 1; Abondu Ramano, 1; Mamadu Adejene, 1; Moses Williams, 1; John Sani, 1; J. W. Davis, 1; John David, 1; John Uriah, 1; Toki, 1; Adekule, 1; Mabadu Vango, 1; N’chiama Lello, 1; Choko Malo, 1; Mafonda N’Baka, 1; Simpson, 1; Sacra Mancoga, 1; Latete Bako, 1; Peto N’Foa, 1; Malenda Longo, 1; Chioma Moundoungou, 1; Sacra Shimbanda, 1; Hall Chamberlain, 1.
PRINCIPAL CONGO OFFICIALS IN BRUSSELS, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION
Ministers of State: Baron VAN EETVELDE, Chevalier DESCAMPS. Treasurer-General: M. H. POCHEZ. Secretaries-General: M. le Chevalier A. DE CUVELIER, Department of Foreign Affairs and Justice; M. H. DROOGMANS, Department of Finances; Commandant C. H. LIEBRECHTS, Department of the Interior. Directors: M. A. BAERTS, Chef de Cabinet; M. N. ARNOLD, Auditor; M. ED. KERVYN, Director of the Department of Foreign Affairs; M. DE KEUZER, Director of the Department of Finances; Le Major LOMBARD, and Commandant F. LEBRUN, Directors of the Department of the Interior. Chief of Division: M. G. OLYFF, Chief of Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs.
OFFICIALS OF THE LOCAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE CONGO FREE STATE
Governor-General: Général Baron WAHIS. Vice-Governors-General: FUCHS, WANGERMÉE, COSTERMANS. Secretary-General: VAN DAMME. Directors: Of Justice: A. GOHR. Of Finance: DELHAYE. Of Agriculture: BROHÉE. Of Public Works: ITTEN. Court of Appeal: President, Interior Administration: Baron G. NISCO. Judges: HORSTMANS, A. GOHR. Court of First Instance: Judge: T. BEECKMAN. Prosecuting Attorney: F. WALEFFE. Magistrates (Territorial Judges and Substitutes): See Chapter XXII. Public Force: Commander-in-Chief: Major WARNANT. Chief of the District of Boma, COSTERMANS. Banana, Dr. CASSÉ. Matadi, DERACHE. The Cataracts, DELHAYE. Stanley Pool, MAHIEU. Lake Leopold II., STORMS. The Equateur, STEVENS. The Bangalas, GÉRARD. The Ubanghi, BERTRAND. The Uelle, WACQUEZ. Chief of the Zone: Rubi Uelle, POURBAIX. Uere Bomu, HOLM. Bomokandi, SAROLÉA. Gurba Dungu, SAMAES. Enclave of Lado, SERESCHE.
Chief of the District of the Aruwimi, PIMPURNIAUX. Lualaba, CHENOT. Kwango, DUVIVIER. Oriental Prov., DE MEULEMEESTER. Chief of the Zone of Haut-Ituri, ENGH. Ponthierville, CORDELLA. Manyema, VERDICK. Stanley Falls, FEDERSPIEL. Ruzizi-Kivu, TOMBEUR.
THE BELGIAN MINISTER TO THE UNITED STATES
Baron LUDOVIC MONCHEUR, Belgian Legation, Washington, D.C.
Baron Moncheur graduated at the University of Louvain (Belgium) in philosophy, letters, and law, with the highest honours. He entered the diplomatic service of Belgium at the age of twenty-five, and was successively Attaché to the Belgian Legation at The Hague in 1883; Second Secretary, Belgian Legation at Vienna, 1885; First Secretary, Belgian Legation at Berlin, 1887; Counsellor of the Belgian Legation at Rome, 1892; Chargé d’Affaires at Luxembourg, 1897; Minister Resident of Belgium to Mexico, 1898; Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Belgium to the United States, 1901. He is a member of the Geographical Society of Antwerp, and author of La Terre chaude Mexicaine and From Tampico to the Pacific.
The Baroness Moncheur is a daughter of the Hon. Powell Clayton, United States Minister to Mexico.
INDEX
A
A. B. I. R., 608
Aborigines’ Protection Society, 369, 374; damaging estimate of its work and methods, note, 376 et seq., 451 et seq., 456, 478
Africa, formerly called the “Dark Continent,” 2; its value unrecognised, ibid.; diamonds in, ibid.; its climate once thought to be fatal to Europeans, ibid.; portioned by Europe in eighteenth century to facilitate slave trade, 129
Africa, Central, slavery in, 5; creation of International Association for its exploration and civilisation, 12; its healthfulness insisted upon by Livingstone and Stanley, 17; large sections claimed by England, France, Portugal, and Germany, ibid.; review of, 64 et seq.; nomadic habits of its people, 223; their superstition, ibid.; its consequences, 224; the iron horse in, 252; its real curse, 289
African Exploration Fund, 29; London Geographical Society contributes £250, ibid.; Belgian Committee collects 500,000 francs, ibid.
African explorers, Gladstone’s opinion of, 4
Albert Edward, Lake, 56, 208
Albert Nyanza, Lake, 52, 56
Albertville, 58
Alcohol, in Congo Free State, 138; its prohibition, 273; in Lagos, note, 289, 311
Alvensleben, Count Von, 136; speech at second Brussels Conference, 143
American Baptist Missionary Union, 299, 300; fifteen grants of land to, 387
American Congo Mission, two grants of land to, 387
American Indians, Wheaton on their political status, 71
American Secretary of State (Mr. Fish) on political status of savages, 72
Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, treaty of, 553 et seq.; its ratification by United States, 559
Anglo-Portuguese Convention, 21; it is quashed, ibid.
Anti-slavery meeting at Cologne, 131
Anti-Slavery Society, of Belgium, founded by Cardinal Lavigerie, 91
Arab slave-traders, 5
Armstrong, Rev. W. D. See Epondo.
Arnot, Mr. Frederick Stanley, on native punishments, 426
Arntz, Prof. Égide, 105; argument by, 516
Aruwimi, 52, 179
Ascenso, Signor, Italian physician, remarks on Congo Free State, 428 et seq.
Askaris, a Congolese tribe employed by Stanley as carriers, 39
Atrocities, Congo, 578, 595 et seq.
Austria-Hungary, 68
Avakubi, 219, 220, 221
Azandés, 158
B
Bacon on progress of States, 18
Bacteriological Institute, 268
Bahr-Djur, 213
Bahr-el-Ghazal, France objects to Great Britain leasing it to Congo Free State, 208, 210; British scheme to break lease, 210, 211, 213; vast mineral wealth discovered there, 214
Baker, Sir Samuel, employed by Khedive of Egypt, 4; discovers Lake Albert, ibid.
Bakumu, cannibal tribe, 46; Stanley’s encounters with, ibid.
Balolo, the “men of iron,” 46
Bangala, 74
Bankes, Mr. J. Eldon, K. C., 341
Banning, M. Emile, 136
Bantu race, 309
Banzyville, 53
Baoilis, 153
Baptist Missionary Society of London, 299, 300
Baraka, 59
Barbour, Rev. Thomas S., presents memorial to Congress, 387 et seq., 396
Baron A. Descamps. See Descamps, Baron A.
Baron de Courcel. See Courcel.
Baron Dhanis. See Dhanis.
Baron Gericke d’Herwijen. See D’Herwijen.
Baron Lambermont. See Lambermont, Baron.
Baron Nisco. See Nisco, Baron.
Baron Van Eetvelde. See Eetvelde, Baron Van.
Batetelas, 52; their grievance, 216, 218, 220, 221, 222; their revolt crushed, 222
Baudouinville, 58, 59
Beernaert, M., Belgian Minister of Finance, speech by, 97
Belgian and French boundary, 46
Belgian Anti-Slavery Society, raises volunteer corps to protect individual liberty, 200; despatches three missionary expeditions to Congo, ibid.
Belgian Society of the Upper Congo, 178
Belgique, La, twin-screw steamer employed by Stanley, 39
Bena Kalunga, 194
Benedetti, M. Antoine, 373; appointed chief commissary of Congo State, 376; pretends he is opposed to Congo Government, 377
Bergamoyo, 33
Berlin Conference, 23, 26, 94, 308, 309; the General Act of, its full text, 530 et seq.
Bernard, Montague, on de jure and de facto governments, 69
Besche, De, 218
Bia, Lieutenant, 47
Bigwood, Mr., 353
Bird, Strode & Bird, Messrs., solicitors, 341
Bishop Taylor Self-Supporting Mission, 300; seven grants of land to, 387
Bismarck, Prince, convenes International Conference at Berlin to regulate “African Question,” 23; speech, ibid.; speech, 26; speech at close of Berlin Conference, 94
Black and White comments upon Lord Lansdowne’s dispatch of August 8, 1903, 459
Blood-brotherhood, 160
Blue Mountains, 52, 53
Bluntschli, M., on the rights of new States, 527
Bokala, 50
Boma, a native fort, 187, 188, note; description of, by Dr. Hinde, 191
Bosco, M. Gennaro, public prosecutor. See Epondo.
Bosoko, 179
Boston Peace Conference, 389
Boula Matari, native name for Stanley, 235
Boulger, Mr. Demetrius C., 165, note, 188
Bourée, M., 136
Bourne, Mr. Fox, Secretary Aborigines’ Protection Society, 372, 373, 386
Bowara, 54
Brabant, Duke of (see Leopold II.), 4, 65
Brassem, Lieut., 47
Brazza, De, 262
Britain, Great, recognises Portugal’s claims to Congo River, 20; declines to aid Stanley, 65; appeals to King Leopold to call conference at Brussels to concert measures for suppression of slavery on East Coast of Africa, 132; land system of its African colonies, 612 et seq.
British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, 610
British Baptist Society Corporation, fifteen grants of land to, 387
British colonies, crown lands in, 329; system of government attacked, 589
British expedition to Congo, 43
Brussels, International Conference of Geographers (1876) at, 7, 134; Brussels Second Conference (1889-90), declaration of General Act of, 552 et seq.; ratification by United States, 559 et seq.
Bruyn, De, 181, 183
Bryon, M., 34
Bull, John, paints the map red, 19; some of his traits, 366 et seq.; his missionaries at work for his merchants, 388
Burdo, M., 36
Burrows, Captain Guy, is charged by Belgian officers with libel, 340 et seq.; claims to have silenced Captain Salusbury, 348; is announced to contribute series of articles on Congo Free State to Wide World Magazine, 351; agrees with R. A. Everett & Co. as to publication of book about Congo, ibid.; his agreement with Mr. John George Leigh, 353
Burton, Sir Richard, discovers Lake Tanganyika, 4, 58
Busira-Momboya River, 335
C
Cambier, Lieut., 32; assumes command of Belgian expedition, 33; reaches Mirambo’s territory, ibid.; becomes “blood-brother” of Mirambo, ibid.; founds station on Lake Tanganyika, 34; learns of death of Wautier, ibid.; hands over command to Captain Ramaeckers, 36, 253, 256
Cameron, Commander Lovett, on native punishments, 425
Campbell, Mr. John, M.P., derides anti-Congo agitation, 370
Canada, British, concessions in, 328
Canisius, M., 349
Cannibalism, 161; State circular on repression of, 566 et seq.
Caoutchouc. See Rubber.
Cape-to-Cairo Railway, 208
Cardinal Lavigerie, 90
Carlyle, Thomas, his philosophy, 63
Carriers, their insubordination, 34
Casement, Mr. Roger, his Britannic Majesty’s consul, 175, 234; Congo Government’s reply to his report refused publication by London editors, 369; suppression of parts of his report favourable to Congo Free State, 371, 465, 475 et seq., 477; notes by Congo Administration on his report, 591 et seq.
Cassart, Lieut., 185
Cataracts of Mokoangi, 54
Cataracts Railway, 252; cost of travelling upon, 255
Cataracts of Zongo, 54
Catholic Herald, 371 et seq.
Cattle, 269
Central Africa. See Africa, Central.
Chaltin, Commandant, 190; strikes severe blow at Dervishes, 201, 219; his action for libel against Captain Guy Burrows, 340 et seq.
Charing Cross Hospital, London, 267
Chieftaincies, native, 239
Chige, battle at, 182, 183
Chimay, Prince de, 135
Christian and Missionary Alliance, 300
Christy, Dr., English physician, remarks on Congo Free State, 430 et seq.
Chronique, 461
Cicatrisation, 156
Cinnamon, 268
Clarke, Sir Edward, K.C., 341; his speech in case against Captain Guy Burrows and Messrs. R. A. Everett & Co., 342 et seq., 363, 364
Cloves, 269
Coal, discovery of, 291
Cocoa, 268; State reward for native cultivation of, 269
Coffee, 53, 268; State reward for native cultivation of, 269
Cologne, anti-slavery meeting at, 131
Colonel Strauch. See Strauch.
Comité d’ Études du Haut-Congo formed at Brussels, 29; its name changed to International Association of the Congo, 39; Stanley enters its service, ibid.
Commerce, Chamber of, of Manchester (England), correspondence with British Secretary for Foreign Affairs re Upper Congo, 529 et seq.
Commerce, Chamber of, of State of New York, resolution of, 528 et seq.
Concessionary companies, 116; their contracts with the State and their operations, 322 et seq.
Congo Bololo Mission, 299; seven grants of land to, 387
Congo, Conventional Basin of the, its limits, 206
Congo Free State, its evolution, 2; conceived by King of the Belgians and Stanley, 22; its flag, 26; extent, 44; boundary with North-eastern Rhodesia, 47; its natural wealth, 51; early legislation in, 66; a properly organised government previous to General Act of Berlin Congress, 67; recognised as such by Powers previous to that Act, ibid.; declaration concerning, by General Sanford, 79; recognised as a friendly government by American Secretary of State Frelinghuysen 80; makes treaties with United States in 1884 and 1885, 92; freedom of trade established in, by General Act of Berlin Conference, ibid.; treaties with various powers, 93; attacked by Sir Charles Dilke in British Parliament, 96; develops land, 115; concessionaire companies in, 116; alcohol in, 138; import duties, 140; cost of founding the State, 145; bequeathed by Sovereign to Belgium, 149; population, 151; origin of races, 152 et seq.; Public Force, 164; prohibits trade in firearms, gunpowder, and other explosives, 200; regulates contracts of service, ibid.; creates volunteer corps to protect individual liberty, ibid.; delimitation of its territory, 206; its enemies, 223; displacement of population, 225; internal administration, 228; nationality of its servants, 230; Department of Justice, 231, intrigues against, 235; its means of communication with Europe, 249; scientific stations in, 264; climate, 265; influx of Europeans and Americans, ibid.; trade and revenue, 277; receives from King Leopold annual subsidy of 1,000,000 francs, 278; exports and imports, 280-286; Herr Eberhard Von Schkopp on trade of, 287; declining trade with England, 290; discoveries of gold, coal, and copper in, 291; revenue, 292; expenditure, 294 et seq.; monetary system, ibid.; missions in, 299; schools, 301; origin of land system, 313; unappropriated lands declared property of, 314; dealings with foreign squatters upon lands in Congo Basin, 316; adopts Torrens Act system of transferring land titles, 317; appoints Land Commission, 318; authorises natives to work mines on own account, 319; recognises certain local customs as valid, 320; its various land tenures, 322; traders’ alleged grievances against, 330 et seq.; domain of the crown, its extent, 335 et seq.; its forests finest in the world, 336; its mining laws, ibid. et seq.; campaign against, begun in America, 387; its value generally recognised, 447; replies to Lord Lansdowne’s dispatch of August 8, 1903, 458; reception of reply by British press, 460; instructions respecting officials and natives, 569; text of reply to British dispatch of August 8, 1903, 577 et seq.; official correspondence with Great Britain, 590; notes on Mr. Casement’s report, 591 et seq.; concessionaires, private firms, and trading companies therein, 616 et seq.; principal officials in Brussels, 617; principal local officials, ibid.
Congo, Lower, 201; charted by buoys, 250, 252
Congo, Middle, 46, 201
Congo Question, 3
Congo Reform Association (of Liverpool), its specious arguments, 315; letter to, from editor of Catholic Herald, note, 371, 374, 452; establishes its American headquarters at Boston, 467
Congo Reform Association, Secretary of, 372; enters into correspondence with Mr. Benedetti, and requests interview with him, 378, 379; introduces Mr. Benedetti to Mr. John Holt, 380; his agreement with Mr. Benedetti, 381 et seq.; receives letter from Mr. Benedetti, 383, 384, 386; presents memorial to President Roosevelt, asking for American intervention in affairs of Congo Free State, 388; abuses King Leopold at Boston Peace Congress, 395; is estimated by Major James Harrison, 409 et seq.; publishes book attacking government of French Congo, 447 et seq.; ceases hostility to French Congo, ibid.; the Congo coroner, 468; specimen of his vituperative fanfaronade, 470 et seq.
Congo River, its source, 45; discovered by Livingstone, ibid.; its harbours and shipping, 250; Sir Travers Twiss on free navigation of, 502; navigation of, as provided for in General Act of Berlin Conference, 536 et seq.
Congo, Upper, 44, 187; slavery finally extinguished on, 201, 252
Copal, 272
Copper, discovery of, 291
Coquilhat, Captain, 165
Corriere Toscano, 463
Count Van der Straeten Ponthoz. See Ponthoz.
Courcel, Baron de, speech at International Conference, Berlin, 27
Cranborne, Viscount. See Salisbury, Marquess of.
Crespel, Captain, commands first Belgian expedition, 32; arrives at Zanzibar, ibid.; his death, ibid.
Crispe, Mr., K. C., 341, 357
Cromer, Lord, reports upon migratory habit of Soudan population, 226, 454
Crystal Mountains, 47
Curse of Central Africa, The, title of book by Captain Guy Burrows, 353
Curzon, Viscount, Viceroy and Governor-General of India, his opinion of the Congo Free State Government, 422
Cuvelier, Chevalier de., Secretary of State of Congo Free State, 293
D
Daily Chronicle, letter to, from Sir Harry Johnston, 401 et seq.
Daily News, 369, 371, 372, 373, 374
Daily Telegraph (London), Stanley’s letters to, 38
D’Arenberg, Prince F., 453
Davis, Mr. Alexander, his opinion of the Congo Free State Government, extracted from his book, The Native Problem in South Africa, 418 et seq.
Defence of Congo Free State, 577 et seq.
Dekere, 54
De Keyser, Captain Henri Joseph Leon, his action for libel against Captain Guy Burrows, 340 et seq.; is awarded £500 damages and costs, 363
Delcommune, Lieut., 47, 55, 184, 185
Delecourt, Lieut., 220
Derscheid, Lieut., 47
Descamps, Baron A., his work entitled New Africa, 74; exposition of international law, 81; on Government Civilisation in New Countries, 110, 257, 293; exposition of early Congolese policy, 309; analysis of theory of State ownership of vacant lands, 315
Dhanis, Lieut. (afterwards Baron), 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, note 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194; his final report on Arab campaign, 195, 219, 220, 221, 222
D’Herwijnen, Baron Gericke, 141
Diego Cam, discoverer of the Congo, 42
Dilke, Sir Charles, attacks Congo Free State in British Parliament, 96, 370, 447, 455
Dirfi, 220
Doorme, Lieut., 187
Doumergue, M. Gaston (French Colonial Minister), decree consolidating legislation for French West Africa, 338 et seq.
Droeven, 218
Dubreucq, Commandant, his action for libel against Captain Guy Burrows, 340 et seq.
Duchesne, Lieut., 182
Dufile, railroad to Redjaf, 256
Dufourny, A., President of the Federation for the Defence of Belgian Interests Abroad, 395
Dupont, Professor, assistant at Court of Inquiry, 476
Dutalis, Lieut., 35
Dutrieux, Dr., 33
E
Edward, King of England, visits Paris, 448
Eetvelde, Baron Van, 136; report on conscription, 168; report on civilisation of native races, 202; reviews complete work of Congo Free State, 203
Egypt, Khedive of, employs Sir Samuel Baker, 4; is coerced by Europe to suppress slave-trading on the Upper Nile, 6; employs Sir Samuel Baker and General Gordon to govern the Soudan, ibid.
Ekongo, King of, 42; his conversion to Christianity, ibid.; old kingdom of, 43
Elephants, Indian, experiment with, 35; abundant in Kivu forest, 57, 272
Emin Pasha, 53, 60, 188
Employees, dismissed, misrepresentations by, 580
En Avant, steamer employed by Stanley, 39
England, claims large sections of Africa, 17; decreasing trade with Congo Free State, 290; its cause, ibid.
Epondo case, 595 et seq.
Equateurville, 46, 50
Etienne, M. Eugène, dissertation on the French Congo and Congo Free State, 324 et seq.
Étoile Belge, 346, 355
Evening Transcript, 463 et seq.
Everett, Messrs. R. A. & Co., London publishers, legal action against for libel, 340 et seq.; letter from, to Secretary of State of Congo Free State, 351 et seq.
Expedition, British, to Congo, 43
Exports from Congo Free State, 1903 (statistics of), 280; value of, ibid.; comparison with previous years, 281
F
Fashoda, 212, 213
Favereau, Baron de, 478
Federation for the Defence of Belgian Interests Abroad, 389; address to President Roosevelt, 390, 479
Fetish doctor, 223, 224, 225
Fiji Islands, 610
Force Publique, 216
Foreign Christian Missionary Society, 300
Forfeit, Mr. William, remarks on Congo Free State, 427 et seq.
Flanders, Count of, becomes President of National Committee of International Association for the Exploration and Civilisation of Central Africa, 13
France, war with Germany, 4; claims large sections of Africa, 17; sets up her flag at Brazzaville, 19; denounces Anglo-Portuguese Convention, 21; recognises International Association as a friendly Government, 22; land system of its African colonies, 612 et seq.
Franciscans, 301
Francqui, Lieut., 47, 59, 184
Fraud, A gross, 157
Frelinghuysen, F. F., American Secretary of State, recognises Congo Free State as a friendly Government, 80
French and Belgian boundary, 46
French Sheldon, Mrs., on atrocities in Congo Free State, 445
Frere, Sir Bartle, becomes Governor of the Cape, 12; letter to, from Mr. H. Nixon, on baneful influence of Aborigines’ Protection Society, 377
Fuchs, M., reports on Public Force, 170; suggests (in his capacity of Vice-Governor-General) plan to control migration of natives, 226; report of July, 1904, 229; report on routes for motor cars, 263
G
Gandu, 181, 217, 218
Garenganze Evangelical Mission, 300
General Anzeiger, 461
Germaine, Mr., K. C., 341
Germany, war with France, 4; claims large sections of Africa, 17; wants part of East Africa, 19; denounces Anglo-Portuguese Convention, 21; recognises International Association as a friendly Government, 22; invites Powers to confer in Berlin, ibid.; land system of its African colonies, 612 et seq.
Ghent, Sisters of Charity, 301
Gibbons, Cardinal, 438; letter to Secretary Congo Reform Association, 439 et seq.
Gibbons, Major H. H., opinion of Congo State, 583
Gillain, Commandant, 187, 194, 217, 218
Ginger, 268
Gladstone, his opinion of African explorers, 4
Globe, The, letter from Lord Mountmorres to, 441 et seq.
Gois Kapopa, 184
Gold, discovery of, 291
Goldsmid, Sir Frederic, his report on Portuguese claims, 21
Gongo Lutete. See Lutete.
Gongo Machoffe, 219
Goodwill, English Baptist mission steamer, 300
Gordon, General, is employed by Khedive of Egypt to govern Soudan, 6; appointed by King Leopold to chief command on the Congo, 41; British Government claim his services, ibid.
Gortchakoff, Prince, 68
Grant discovers sources of the Nile and Lake Victoria, 4
Granville, Lord, 20; on development of trade in Central Africa, 530
Great Britain. See Britain, Great.
Grégoire, M., assistant at Court of Inquiry, 476
Grenfell, Mr. George, English missionary, remarks on Congo Free State, 427; on administration of justice in, 568 et seq.
Grey, Mr., English civil engineer, remarks on Congo Free State, 435 et seq.
Grison, Rev. Father, missionary in charge of St. Gabriel’s, Stanley Falls, 301; extracts from his diary, 302; his strenuous life, 306, 307
Guinness, Dr. H. Grattan, lectures in Scotland on atrocities in Congo Free State, 424 et seq., 427
Guinness, Mrs. H. Grattan, her testimony different from that of her husband, 425
H
Hamburgische Börsen Halle, Neue, its estimate of British opinion of Congo Free State, 333 et seq.
Hamed-ben-Mohamed, note, 179
Hanssens, Captain, 40
Harbey, Rev. C. H., testifies as to lying proclivities of natives, 600. See Epondo.
Harrison, Major James, 369, 374; letter to London Times, 404 et seq.; remarks upon side issue raised by Secretary of Congo Reform Association, 409 et seq.
Head, Mr. George, M.A., demolishes arguments of Secretary of Congo Reform Association at Boston Peace Congress, 396
Head tax, in British colonies, 582
Health committees, 268
Heffter, his theory of the existence of a State, 528
Henderson, Mr. John, his comments on Consul Casement’s report, 466 et seq.
Henry, Commandant, 220, 221, 222
Heusch, De, Lieut., 194; is killed in battle, ibid.
Heuval, Dr. Van den, 35
Heymans, Captain, 54
Hinde, Dr. Sidney, 179, 183, note, 188; his description of a boma, note, 191
Hodister, 178
Holland, Queen of, 143
Holt, Mr. John, Liverpool merchant, 373; pays Mr. Benedetti £40, 383, 384; his trading company loses its case against the _Compagnie Française du Congo Occidental_ before the Council of Appeal at Libreville, 450
Horses, 269
Hospital for Natives, Boma, 268
Humanitarianism, pretext of, 578
Hut tax, in British colonies, 582, 605
Hygienic Commission, Boma, 265
I
Import duties, 140
Imports into Congo Free State, 1903, 282, 283, 284, 286; compared with imports of previous years, 286
Independance Belge, 352, 353, 374
Influenza, 187
International Association for the Exploration and Civilisation of Central Africa, creation of, 12; General Sanford (United States Minister at Brussels) becomes member, 13; receives influential support, ibid.; receives report of Commission of Eight, 25; founds station on Lake Tanganyika, 34; stations created by, 491; its recognition by United States as a friendly Government recommended by Senator Morgan, 492; treaties with Germany, Great Britain, France, and Portugal, 544 et seq.; declaration exchanged with Belgium, ibid.
International Missionary Alliance, 300; eleven grants of land to, 387
Irebu, 56
Itembo, 52
Itimbiri, 251
Ituri, forest of, 52
Ivory, tax on, 178, 272; export duty on, 278
J
Janssen, M. Camille, 165
Janssens, M., president of Committee of Inquiry, 476
Japan, domainal system of, 334
Jesuits, 301
Johnston, Sir Harry, G. C. M. G., 152; quotation from his book, The Uganda Protectorate, 400 et seq.
Juan II., King of Portugal, 42
Junker, Dr., German explorer, 53; on native punishments, 425
Jürgens, 218
K
Kabambari, 191
Kabinda, 43; attacked by Batetelas, 217, 218
Kabindas, a Congolese tribe employed by Stanley as carriers, 39
Kakongos, 153
Kalengo. See Epondo.
Karema, 34
Kassai, 50
Kassali, Lake, 48
Kasson, Mr., United States Plenipotentiary, 107
Kassongo, 47, 181, 182, 187, 188, 189, 191, 193, 221
Katanga, 48; copper deposits in, ibid.; soon to be reached by railroad, 48, 184
Katué, 221
Khartoum, 214
Khedive of Egypt employs Sir Samuel Baker, 4
Kibala Mountains, the African Switzerland, 48
Kiranga-cha-gungo, largest inland volcano in world, 57
Kirk, Sir John, 136, 426
Kipango, 186
Kivu, Lake of, 57
Kleine Journal, 462
Konings, 218
Kwango, 50
L
La Liberté, 460
La Lulonga Society. See Epondo, 608
Labour, question of native, 581
Labudi, 47
Lado, Enclave of, 210
Lado territory, 219
Laeken, Brussels, King Leopold’s palace, 248
Lagos, British colony of, its revenue, 1898-1901, note, 289; sixty-five per cent. of revenue derived from alcoholic liquor, 311; wasteful methods of dealing with rubber and timber, 323; decline of prosperity in, ibid., 374, 468; its revenue reviewed by the Lagos Standard, 469 et seq.
Lake Albert Edward, 56
Lake Albert Nyanza, 52, 56
Lake Kassali, 48
Lake Kivu, 57
Lake Leopold II., discovered by Stanley, 56
Lake Matumba, 46, 53
Lake Moero, 49
Lake Tanganyika. See Tanganyika.
Lambermont, Baron, attends Brussels Conference (1876), 8; reports upon safeguards for native races, 26; drafts final act of International Conference, ibid.; on slavery, 89; his definition of free trade, 111; presides over Second Brussels Conference, 136
Land system, features of the, in the African colonies of Germany, Great Britain, France, and Portugal, 612 et seq. (See Congo Free State, 586)
Lange, De, Belgian officer, 192
Lansdowne, Marquess of, 450; his dispatch to the Powers Signatory to the Berlin Act, 457 et seq.; its reception by British press, 460, 465; dispatch to the Powers Signatory of the General Act of Berlin respecting alleged cases of ill-treatment of natives and the existence of trade monopolies in Congo State, 573 et seq.
Launay, Count de, 298
Laveleye, M. Emile, 105
Lavigerie, Cardinal, 90; founds Belgian Anti-Slavery Society, 91; visits Belgium, 134, 426
Lawrence, William Beach, on what constitutes a State, 528
Le Marinel, Lieut., 178, 179
Leigh, Mr. John George, his agreement with Captain Guy Burrows, 353
Leopold II. (King of the Belgians and Sovereign of the Congo Free State), his accession to Belgian throne, 2; believes Africa promising outlet for surplus European population, 3; his magnificent physique and personal accomplishments, ibid.; perceives opportunity to civilise Central Africans and found Belgian colony, ibid.; his scheme disregarded, ibid.; speech before Belgian Senate in 1860, 4; his philanthropy, 6; considers how the slave trade in Africa can be abolished, ibid.; convenes an international conference of geographers in Brussels (1876) to discuss the subject, 7; his circular letter, ibid.; his speech, 8; becomes President of International Association for the Exploration and Civilisation of Central Africa, 12; speech before National Committee, 14; his desire for new markets for Belgian manufactures, 17; his prescience, ibid.; spends largely of his private fortune to suppress slavery, 18; appeal to British Government, 21; recognised by Powers as Sovereign ruler of Congo Free State, 28; becomes honorary President of the Comité d’Études du Haut-Congo, 29; invites Stanley to Brussels, 39; induces him to enter service of International Association of the Congo (new name of the Comité d’Études du Haut-Congo), ibid.; plans campaign of exploration, 60; a true friend to Stanley, 65; his early declaration, ibid.; letter to his ministers, 99; authorised by Belgian Chamber to assume sovereignty of Congo Free State, 101; his acknowledgment, ibid.; receives congratulations and is visited by Lord Mayor of London, 101, 102; is appealed to by British Government to call conference at Brussels to concert measures for suppression of slavery on East Coast of Africa, 132; letter to M. Beernaert, 147; bequeaths sovereignty of Congo Free State to Belgium, 149; note, 179; confers title of Baron on Captain Dhanis, 195; his plans to suppress slavery excite little interest, 197; depletes his fortune to achieve his object, 198; receives scant support outside Belgium, ibid.; his Majesty’s mandate, ibid.; his first object realised, 205; his political foresight, 210; his energy and industry, 248; Laeken, his palace at Brussels, ibid.; his châlet at Ostend, ibid.; his immense expenditure on Congo State, 276; impossible to recover, 277; grants annual subsidy of 1,000,000 francs to Congo State, 278; his early declarations consistently carried out, 320; Captain Guy Burrows dedicates book to, 347; is abused by Secretary of Congo Reform Association at Boston Peace Congress, 395; Congo Free State likely to fulfil his expectations, 447
Leopoldville, 46; fortnightly communication with Stanley Falls, 251; treaty of, 489
Leroi, Captain, 219, 220
Leslie, Rev. W. H., of American Baptist Missionary Union, 411; contributes article on Congo to Missionary Review of the World, 414
Liebrechts, Mr., Secretary-General of Congo Free State, letters to from Captain Burrows, 347 et seq.
Lindi, 221
Lindt, Van, Lieut., 189
Lippens, 181, 183
Livingstone, Dr., enters Congo region, 1860, and discovers lakes Moero and Bangweolo, 4; found by Stanley in 1871, ibid.; says white man can live in Central Africa, 17, 197
Livingstone Inland Mission, 299
Lomami, 49, 50, 51, 181, 182, 183, 217, 218
Lopori, 49
Lothaire, Commandant, 194, 217, 218, 219
Lua, 54
Luahilimta, 57
Lualaba, 47, 177, 186, 251
Lualaba-Kassai, 201
Luapula, 47
Lubefu, 50, 335
Lubuga, 57
Lubukine, 194
Lufila, 47
Lufupa, 47
Lukenie River, 335
Lulongo, 49, 50
Luluabourg, 74, 201; outbreak of Batetelas at, 216, 218
Lumber, 272
Lunda country, 74
Lusambo, 179, 201, 217
Lusana, 183
Lutete, Gongo, 179; his personality, 180, 181, 182, 184; is court-martialled and shot, 190; disastrous consequences of that event, 191, 216
M
Mabode, 52
Maes, Dr., 32; his death, ibid.
Maguire, Dr., English missionary, remarks on Congo Free State, 429 et seq.
Mahagi, 212
Malet, Sir Edward, attends International Conference at Berlin, 24; speech, 27
Maloney, Mr. J. A., on native punishments, 426
Malumba, Batetela mutineer, murdered by one of his followers, 221
Manning, Cardinal, 131
Manyema, collectors of ivory, 59, 182; country of, 191, 218, 221
Marès, M. Roland de, 384
Marno, M., 32
Marriage, Christian, among natives, 273
Martens, Prof., 136
Martin of Bohemia, cosmographer 42
Matadi, 47, 252, 253; trains from, 255
Matumba, Lake, 46, 53, 56
Mayombés, 153
Mayumbe Railway, 256
Mbomu, 54, 208, 209, 210
Meshra-er-Rek, 213
Mfini, 56
Mgonda-Mkali, 33
Michaux, Captain, 182, 183, 184, 218
Middle Congo, 46, 48
Mirambo, 33; his conflict with Simba, 36
Missionaries, 299, 300, 301, 385, 387, 411, 424, 425, 427, 429; deceived by native witnesses, 233
Missions, Protestant, 299
Modes et Robes à la Congo, 154
Moero, Lake, 49; south-eastern boundary between British territory and Congo Free State, 59
Moharra, Munie, 181, 184, 185, 186
Mohun, Mr., formerly United States Consul at Boma, 411; his opinion of Congo Free State Government, 415 et seq.
Mokoangi, Cataracts of, 54
Molieka, 52
Moltke, Von, 180
Moncheur, Baron, Belgian Minister to United States, 389; career, 618
Mongalla, 52
Moore, English naturalist, 57; discovers zoölogical remains of a dead sea, 59
Morgan, Senator, of Alabama, presents memorial to Congress, 388; submits Report from Committee on Foreign Relations recommending United States to recognise International African Association as friendly government, 492
Morning Advertiser, comments upon Lord Lansdowne’s dispatch of August 8, 1903, 458 et seq.; betrays some British desires, 459
Morning Post, 369; letter to from Major James Harrison, 409; from Mr. Grey, 435 et seq.
Morrison, Rev. Mr. W. M., of Lexington, Va., 385; fails to obtain land concessions and special privileges, 386; his statements compared with facts, 387, 388, 396, 456
Mountains, Blue, 52, 53
Mountains, Crystal, 47
Mountains, Kibala, 48
Mountains, Pallaballa, 252, 253
Mountmorres, Lord, 374; starts on journey through Congo Free State, 440; letter from, to London Globe, 441 et seq.
Mpala, 37
Msiri, 48
Münster Westphal, 462
Musserongés, 153
Mwadi, 184
Mwana Mkwanga, Arab camp at, 191
N
Natives, Commission for Protection of, report of first meeting, 572 et seq.; alleged to be ill-treated, 573 et seq.
Nerincx, Professor A., coadjutor of Baron Moncheur, 389
Netherlands, Prince Henry of, becomes President of the National Committee of the International Association for the Exploration and Civilisation of Central Africa, 13
New York Herald, Stanley’s letters to, 38
New York Press, 464
Neyn, M. De, assistant at Court of Inquiry, 476
Niadi Kwilu Basin explored, 73
Niadi, treaty with King of, 490
Niam-Niam, tribe inhabiting Bahr-el-Ghazal country, 214
Niangara, 53
Niger, navigation of the, as provided for in General Act of Berlin Conference, 541 et seq.
Nisco, Baron, President of Court of Appeal, 232; member of Court of Inquiry, 476
Nôtre Dame, Sisters of, 301
Nutmegs, 269
Nyangwe, 45, 52, 59, 181, 182, 186, 187, 188, 217, 221
Nys, M. Ernest, 77
Nzilo, 47
O
Obi, 220
Omdurman, battle of, 213
Ordeal by poison, 159; State Circular on repression of, 566 et seq.
Ostend, King Leopold’s châlet at, 248
Our Lady of Perpetual Help, Roman Catholic Mission steamer, 300
Ourroussof, Prince, 136
P
Padrão Foreland, 42
Pallaballa Mountains, 252, 253
Palmerston, Lord, on recognition of States by British Government, 528
Panga Falls, 53
Parliament, British, debate in, 580
Partition of Congo State, 578 et seq., 610
Peace, English Baptist Mission steamer, 300
Pepper, 268
Petit Bleu, interview with Stanley published in, 397
Phare de la Loire, 461
Philippeville, SS., 477
Phipps, Sir Constantine, his Britannic Majesty’s minister at Brussels, dispatch on protection of natives, 561 et seq.
Photographs, faking of, 371 et seq., 602 et seq.
Pigmies, 156
Poison, ordeal by, 159
Polidori, Signor, Italian physician, remarks on Congo Free State, 428 et seq.
Poll tax, in British colonies, 582
Polygamy, 163, 273
Ponthier, Captain, 190, 191, 193
Ponthoz, Count Van der Straeten, on safeguarding native races, 26
Pope Leo XIII., encyclical on abolition of slavery in Brazil, 90; receives Central African Christian Negroes, ibid.; his speech, ibid.
Popelin, Captain, commands second Belgian expedition, 35; death of, 37
Population, displacement of, 225; diminution of, 591 et seq.
Portugal, claims large sections of Africa, 17; claims Congo River, 19; land system of its African colonies, 612 et seq.
Postal Service, 244
Prémontré Fathers, 301
Prestation, natives’ contribution of labour towards support of State, 294
Public Force, 164
Public Ledger, 465
Puttkamer, Herr Von, Governor of the Cameroons, his opinion of the navigation of the Congo River, 252
Q
Queen of Holland, 143
R
Ramaeckers, Captain, commands fourth Belgian expedition, 36; joins his colleagues at Tanganyika, ibid.; takes over command from Cambier, ibid.; death of, 37
Rashid, 179, 189, 190, 194
Redemptionists, 301
Redjaf, 201; railroad to Dufile, 256
Reed, Henri, American Baptist Mission steamer, 300
Rejoinder of Congo State to charges in Consul Casement’s Report, 590 et seq.
Reply of Congo State to British Dispatch, Aug. 8, 1903, denying that Administration involves systematic cruelty to natives, 577 et seq.
Revenue, various sources of, 279
Rhodes, Cecil, 208; prophetic utterance by, 454
Rhodesia, North-eastern, and Congo Free State boundary, 47; taxes in, 605 et seq.
Riba Riba, 178
Ridley, Mr. Justice, tries suit for libel brought by Belgian officers against Messrs. R. A. Everett & Co. and Captain Guy Burrows, in London, 340 et seq.; his charge to jury, 358
Roger, M., 36
Roman Catholic Mission, forty-four grants of land to, 387
Roosevelt, President, 388, 389
Royal, steamer employed by Stanley, 39
Rubber (caoutchouc), its cultivation and collection, 270; its varieties, 272; export duty on, 278; decrease in export of, from eight British colonies, 324 et seq.
Rubi, 52
Rudolph, Archduke, of Austria, becomes President of National Committee of International Association for the Exploration and Civilisation of Central Africa, 13
Ruki, 50
Rumeliza, chief of Ujiji, 191, 193, 194
Rusisi, 57
S
Sacred Heart of Mary, Sisters of the, 301
Sacred Heart, Priests of the, 301
Salisbury, Marquess of, his opinion of the Congo Free State Government, 423, 456, 584
Salisbury, Marquess of (the late), his opinion of the Congo Free State Government, 423
Salusbury, Captain, his allegations against Congo Free State denied by Captain Guy Burrows, 346
Sambas Plateau, 50
Sanford, General (United States Minister at Brussels), becomes member of International Society for the Exploration and Civilisation of Central Africa, 13; declaration by, 79; founds, with M. Georges Brugmann, Exploring Expedition, 276
Sankuru, 50, 179, 336
Sannaes, Lieut., 221
San Salvador, 43
Scherlink, Lieut., 183
Scheut Fathers, 301
Schkopp, Herr Eberhard Von, his remarks upon Congolese trade, 287
School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, 267
Schumacher, Dr. De, member of Court of Inquiry, 476, 478
Scott, Mr. G. A., 341
Sefu, 179, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 190
Semlika, boundary between British and Belgian possessions, 56
Semliki, 221
Seyyid Burghash, Sultan, 32
Shanu, British subject of Lagos, tries to induce Mr. Benedetti to join anti-Congo campaign, 377 et seq.
Sierra Leone, convictions for maltreatment of natives in, 582
Simba, his conflict with Mirambo, 36
Sir Bartle Frere. See Frere, Sir Bartle.
Sir Charles Dilke. See Dilke, Sir Charles.
Sir Frederic Goldsmid. See Goldsmid, Sir Frederic.
Sir Harry Johnston. See Johnston, Sir Harry.
Sir John Kirk. See Kirk, Sir John.
Sir Travers Twiss. See Twiss, Sir Travers.
Slavery in Central Africa, 5; slavery defined, 83; antiquity of, ibid.; Christ the first liberationist, 84; first awakening to infamy of slavery, ibid.; England’s traffic in slaves, ibid.; her retribution, 85; America’s civil war to abolish, ibid.; still extant in some countries, ibid.; England’s efforts to suppress, 86; horrors of, 87; Baron Lambermont on, 89; Pope Leo XIII.’s encyclical on, 90; its strange uses before the founding of Congo Free State, 274; Congo State accused of, 294; declaration concerning, in General Act of Berlin Conference, 535 et seq.
Sleeping sickness, 225; no known cure for, 266
Smallpox, 187, 221, 225, 266
Smet de Naeyer, Count de, 478
Soudan, migratory habit of its population, 226
South Africa, British punitive expeditions in, for collection of taxes from natives, 607
Spain, King of, becomes President of National Committee of International Association for the Exploration and Civilisation of Central Africa, 13
Speke, Captain, discovers Lake Tanganyika, and sources of the Nile and Lake Victoria, 4, 58
St. Paul de Loanda, 43
Standard, The, comments upon Lord Lansdowne’s dispatch of August 8, 1903, 459
Stanley Falls, 46, 52, 179, 181, 194, 220, 221; fortnightly communication with Leopoldville, 251
Stanley, Henry Morton, Sir, discovers Dr. Livingstone, 4; says white man can live in Central Africa, 17; visits Congo in interest of King Leopold, 20; demonstrates importance of Congo River in letters to _New York Herald_ and London Daily Telegraph, 39; founds and fortifies station at Vivi, 40; constructs road from Vivi to Isanghila, ibid.; founds a station at Manyanga, ibid.; learns of French founding Brazzaville, and replies by founding Leopoldville, ibid.; goes to Brussels to report progress, ibid.; returns to Central Africa, February, 1883; his achievements impossible without King Leopold’s aid, 65, 197; Boula Matari, native name for, note, 235; insists upon necessity of railroad round the thirty-two cataracts, 253, 262, 274, 275; on a common measure of civilisation, 277; writes introduction to book by Captain Guy Burrows, 347; the true motive of the anti-Congo campaign, 370; his opinion of Congo Free State Government, 397 et seq.; Congo Free State likely to fulfil his expectations, 447
Stanley Pool, 50, 252
Stanleyville, railroad from, to Great Lakes, 256
Stephanieville, treaty of, 490
Stokes, executed for selling arms to State’s enemies in time of war, originally Protestant missionary, 307, 373, 452
Storm, Lieut., founds station at Mpala, 37
Strauch, Colonel, President of the Comité d’Études du Haut-Congo, 29, 67
Sugar, 53, 272
Svensson, 218
Swanton, Mr., 341
Swedish Missionary Society, 300; nine grants of land to, 387
T
Tanganyika, Lake, effort to found station at, 34; the first station of the International Association for the Exploration and Civilisation of Central Africa, ibid.; partitioned equally between Congo Free State and German East Africa, 58; discovered in 1858 by Burton and Speke, ibid.; first circumnavigated by Stanley, ibid., 191, 194, 200, 208
Taxation, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain ridicules native exoneration from, 581 et seq.; defends theory of, 582
Taxation of natives, 114; their migration to avoid, 224; personal, the bases of, 293; reduction of direct, ibid.
Telegraph, 59
Telegraph service, 245
Telephone, 59
Telephone service, 245
Terrell, Mr., 136
Tervueren, Brussels, Museum, containing objects illustrating Central African life, 265
Thomas, Mr. Lewis, 341
Thys, Lieut., 256
Times, The, 373, 384; letter from Major James Harrison, 404 et seq., 459; French criticism of, 460
Tippo Tip, 59, note, 179, 180, 181, 183, 189, 194
Tobacco, 53, 272
Tobback, M., resident for Congo Free State at Stanley Falls, 189
To-Day, 466
Trappistines, 301
Trappists, 301
Tuckey, James Kingston, British explorer, 43
Twiss, Sir Travers, 105; on free navigation of the Congo, 502
U
Ubanghi, 53, 208, 251
Uelle, 53, 177, 201, 208, 209
Uelle Railway, proposed extension, 54
Uganda Protectorate. See Harrison, Major.
Ujiji, 191
United States, particulars of their origin recorded, 1; recognises International Association as a friendly Government, 22; makes treaties with Congo Free State in 1884 and 1885, 92, 199
Upper Congo, 44; Belgian Society of the, 178
Uranga, 49
Usamba Plateau, 49
V
Van Dorpe, Captain, 165
Van Gele, 53
Vanilla, 269
Vattel on manner of acquiring sovereignty of free country, 527
Vivi, first station founded by Stanley, 40; road from, to Isanghila made by Stanley, ibid.; treaty of, 487
Vivian, Lord, 136; speech at Second Brussels Conference, 142
Vohsen, Consul, 453
Von Bornhaupt, Herr, 453
Von Gotzen, Count, discoverer of volcano Kiranga-cha-gungo, 57
Von Moltke. See Moltke, Von.
W
Waddas, 53
Wagenia, a riverain tribe, 186, 187
Wahis, Colonel (afterwards General Baron Wahis), 253; speech describing Congolese conditions twenty years ago, 479 _et seq._
Washington, Mr. Booker, 424
Wauters, A. J., note, 188
Wautier, Lieut., 33; his death, 34
West Africa, journal of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, 450 et seq.
Wheaton, on recognition of States, 69; on political status of American Indians, 71
White Fathers, 301
Whiteley, Mr. James Gustavus, of Baltimore, his opinion of the Congo Free State Government, 411 et seq.
Widows, strangling, 158
Wingate, Sir Reginald, 454
Winton, Sir Francis de (Governor-General of Congo during absence of Stanley), formulates land system, 313
Wissmann, 262
Wissmann Falls, 50
Wolf, Eugène, admonition from, 462
Wouters, De, Lieut., 185, 188, 193, 194; his death, 195
Wulfers, Rev. Father, of the Romee Mission, Yanonghi, 302; extracts from his diary, 303-305
Y
Yambuya, 52
Young Africa, one-screw barge employed by Stanley, 39
Z
Zanzibar, Englishmen murdered by brigands at, 35
Zongo, Cataracts of, 54
Transcriber’s Notes
pg xiii Changed: Soldiers’ Mess, Suruango, 1903 (Uelle) 189 to: Soldiers’ Mess, Suruango, 1903 (Uelle) 186
pg vii Changed: Preface v to: Preface iii
pg 19 Changed: her desire for huge territorities to: her desire for huge territories
pg 85 Changed: because of the strangely prevalent opinon to: because of the strangely prevalent opinion
pg 128 Changed: a crime of high treason againt humanity. to: a crime of high treason against humanity.
pg 140 Changed: King Leopold’s rapid acheivements to: King Leopold’s rapid achievements
pg 156 Changed illustration: Native to Death for Canibalism to: Native to Death for Cannibalism
pg 286 Changed: English Possessions (East Coast, Africa) 5,210.079 to: English Possessions (East Coast, Africa) 59,210.73
pg 387 Changed: The campaign against the Cong to: The campaign against the Congo
pg 425 Changed: written by Mrs. H. Gratten Guinness to: written by Mrs. H. Grattan Guinness
pg 604 Changed: by work on the social condtion to: by work on the social condition