Mr. Morel in your paper to-day himself answers the question asked him by others, viz., Why has the Congo Reform Association noticed my statements? If they were incorrect surely his letter would have dealt with them, instead of which all he can say is that I am attacking a man of Mr. Casement’s standing.

While quite ready to take full responsibility for any letter or interview alluded to by Mr. Morel, I absolutely deny having attacked the character of our Consul in any way, nor did I find in Boma Belgian officers “showering abuse” on him. Like myself they (and most people over here with whom I have discussed it) did not think it a wise appointment, and certainly it placed Mr. Casement in an awkward and unenviable position; but after all he would only carry out his orders. But as to the travelling about on a mission steamer I most strongly assert it was a most unfortunate error. It is well known to all natives on which side most of the Protestant and Baptist missionaries are, and to expect them to give contradictory evidence in such circumstances was attributing to them virtues unpossessed. I have noted Mr. Morel places much of the Belgian evidence (say, the Epondo case) out of court for the selfsame reasons. After the using of a mission steamer I hardly see that any work Mr. Casement might have been interested in originally could make any difference. Still, for his own sake it might be wise if Mr. Morel stated exactly what occupations or duties he was interested in, say, between 1885 and 1900. I trust Mr. Morel in his next letter will deal more fully with my “absurdities” put forward in my letter, and not have to simply try and find an imaginary attack on a gentleman for whom, through mutual friends, I have every respect.

My object in entering this Congo controversy is to try and place before the English public a more broad-minded view of the question, and while making allowances for the well-nigh insuperable difficulties the Congo Government have had to contend with, at the same time try to help on improvements for the future, rather than dwell entirely on the past. I can assure Mr. Morel that I am by no means alone in my “absurd views,” but will be supported by others who have lately crossed the whole Congo State, blessed with an open mind.

Yours, &c.,
James J. Harrison.

Bachelors’ Club, London,
June 24th.

CHAPTER XXXIII
TESTIMONY OF TRAVELLERS AND THINKERS
(Continued)

American Opinion.

The three authorities whose testimony was given in the preceding chapter are all distinguished travellers of British nationality. It is now proposed to lay before the reader the opinions held upon Belgian Administration in the Congo by three well-known Americans—Mr. James Gustavus Whiteley of Baltimore, member of the Institute of International Law, who has represented the United States Government at several international congresses; the Rev. W. H. Leslie, a missionary of the American Baptist Missionary Union; and Mr. Mohun, a former United States Consul at Boma.

MR. JAMES G. WHITELEY

It is unfortunate that so many false impressions about the Congo have been accepted without examination. For example, there is a popular belief that the King runs the Congo “for revenue only,” and that he oppresses the natives in order to extort money from them. The exact opposite is the truth. The King receives no revenue from the Congo Government; on the contrary the State owes its very existence to the generosity of the King, who advanced several million dollars to keep the Government going in its early struggle for existence. It is true that there are in the Congo extensive Crown lands, the revenue from which belongs to the King, but His Majesty refuses to take the receipts from this land and has turned the money into a fund for the erection of schools, the encouragement of science, and similar purposes. He does not even manage the fund himself, but has placed it in the hands of three trustees.