“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 small-pox 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 over-estimate 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 criticized, 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 inclosed document,[4] “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 recognize 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 civilization 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 utilization 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 _bonâ 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 _bonâ 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.