The story of the Congo Free State

by Henry Wellington Wack

Grievances of Traders.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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