Franciscan Sisters at the Mission of St. Gabriel of the Falls (Oriental Province).
The mining laws of the State are embodied in the decrees of June 8, 1888, and March 20, 1893. They provide, amongst other things, that the purchase of land from the State or from individuals does not “confer the right of working the mineral riches beneath the surface”; that “mineral riches remain the property of the State”; that “no person can work a mine except by virtue of a special concession from the State”; that “the Government fixes by decree the regions where mining researches are authorised either in favour of all persons without distinction, or of the persons specified in the decrees.” A licence fee of 2500 francs and other fees are imposed upon those who, having discovered mineral-bearing properties, desire to work them. A mining concession is limited to an area not exceeding 24,000 acres. Article 4 of the decree of March 25, 1893, provides that:
Whoever shall discover a mine in the regions where he is authorised to make researches in conformity with Article 3, can obtain a right of preference for ten years for the concession of this mine, on condition that he complies with the regulations laid down in the present Decree.
All mining concessions are limited to a term of ninety-nine years. On its expiration the State succeeds to the property as it stands. A system of royalties on the product of the mine is stipulated in all concessions. Such royalties shall not be less than one dollar a year on each 2.47 acres. These fixed annual charges may be commuted by arrangement with the State.
In commenting upon the criticism which British merchants and their allies have uttered against the entire land system of the Congo Free State, an eminent Belgian closely identified with those who support the Congolese policy has said:
It is an easy matter to point out, in an undertaking such as the Congolese enterprise, the inherent imperfections and difficulties of the task, and the accidental defects in the instruments which the State is called upon to employ.
It is, however, very unfair to hide under a bushel the good results which have been obtained, and the progress which has been realised, and to expose on a pinnacle a few exceptional and regrettable facts, to draw a conclusion from particular cases to the detriment of the general rule, and to condemn wholesale an institution which draws forth the admiration even of its enemies, and of which a witness, certainly to be little suspected, has been able to say: “In the whole history of Colonial life, there is no example on record of such a result obtained in such a short period of time.”
We are far from overlooking the important rôle which criticism plays in a matter which is as yet so little advanced as the art and science of colonisation, but in order to play this rôle properly, the critic must remain impartial.
After all, if these severe criticisms have been at times formulated, there are ample compensations in many authoritative comments from abroad. For instance, M. de Lanessan, formerly Minister of the Admiralty in France, says:
“Belgium has shown that, in matters of colonisation, she possesses more practical and rational ideas than ourselves, and a better understanding of the methods of modern colonisation.”