The Congo State is accused of employing as soldiers cannibal Negroes. When I was on the Congo, and I accused a tribe of cannibalism it replied: “We are not cannibals, but our neighbours are.” The neighbouring tribe said: “It is not we, it is the next tribe that you will meet”; and that tribe referred us on to the next, and so on continually. They seemed to be ashamed of their cannibalism. They concealed it. Yet there was no doubt as to the existence of this practice. I frequently met with trenches freshly disturbed, from which corpses had been taken to be eaten. It was very seldom that I could discover the guilty. How then in recruiting its troops was the Congo State to distinguish the black cannibals from those who are not cannibals?
I am convinced that since I left Africa King Leopold has done his best to prevent all crime on the Congo. But he is no more responsible for the crimes which may be committed there than for those occasionally committed on the soil of Belgium itself. There are on the Congo 300 officials who report to the Governor-General, who in his turn addresses a summary of these reports to the King. They discharge their mission under the most difficult conditions, and I believe that I may assert that from the Governor-General down to the humblest official there is not one of them guilty of cruelty. Moreover, it is for those who speak of atrocities to furnish proof of them.
I know by experience what a large number of stories are put forward, then refuted, and afterwards resuscitated year after year. These are legends for travellers. Use is made of them with every change of the wind in Africa. Those who relate them are often the prey of climatic maladies.
The Congo has not the most enviable climate in the world. The maladies contracted there are often debilitating, and things are seen and things are described through the malady, which distorts the morale and changes the optic.
I had on the Congo under my orders 300 men—English, Germans, Dutch, Portuguese, Belgians. There were 80 English, but the majority were Belgians. I found no difference between them. All did their best, according to their means. All were, in the course of duty, the object of some charge. I examined the charges minutely, and always found them to be without foundation. That did not prevent these stories reaching Banana, and from there Europe. Well, that is what happened on the Congo in my time; that is what is happening there to-day.
The sentiment that inspires the charges against the Congo is jealousy. The Congo is succeeding better than any other State of Africa.
I do not think that the Congo State would be administered better by France, the United States, or Germany. Under French administration the Congo would retrogress. Germany would content itself with fortifying it in a military sense. And commerce does not develop when it is covered with a coat of mail. Germany does not permit and will not permit the English to penetrate into its territory, except under certain restrictions. England would not have managed the Congo better than King Leopold has done if she had been mistress of it, as she might have become in 1877.
The white man must remain master of the Congo. Drive him out of it, and you will see war arise anew between one native village and another, a return to barbarism. It is difficult to govern so vast a country; yet, in a limited number of years, the King of the Belgians has put an end to the horrible Arab slave trade. I do not think there is another sovereign living who has done so much for humanity as Leopold II.
SIR HARRY JOHNSTON, G.C.M.G., K.C.B.
About a year previous to the publication of Stanley’s vindication of the Congo Administration, appeared a remarkable book, entitled The Uganda Protectorate, written by the distinguished English traveller, Sir Harry Johnston, from which the following passage is taken: