The story of the Congo Free State

by Henry Wellington Wack

I have seen the statement in several newspapers that the Congo State was created by the Berlin Conference in 1885 and placed in the hands of King Leopold for administration, the Powers reserving a sort of right of guardianship over it. This is entirely erroneous. The Congo was a sovereign State before the Berlin Conference was thought of. The first official acknowledgment of the new State came from the United States in the spring of 1884. It was afterwards formally recognised by the other nations, and it entered the Berlin Conference on an equality with the other Powers. It has never placed itself under the guardianship of any Power or collection of Powers. It has no connection with Belgium except the fact that King Leopold happens to be king of each of them. The two Governments are entirely independent.

One of the great achievements of the Congo State has been the suppression of the Arab slave-traders, who were in the habit of invading Central Africa, carrying off slaves to the eastern markets, and laying waste the country through which they passed. It is estimated that 100,000 natives were killed each year in these slave raids. I recently saw an erroneous statement to the effect that the slave raids are still carried on, and that they are encouraged by King Leopold and his agents as a means of revenue. It is difficult to see how the King or his Government could reap any profit by encouraging the slave-raiders to destroy the villages, and kill off a hundred thousand or so of the inhabitants. Such lack of logic is damaging to the case of the gentlemen who put it forward as a serious argument. As Lord Westbury once said to a young English barrister: “Never make a mistake in your logic; the facts are always at your disposal.”

Melting Latex of Rubber in Forest of Lusambo (Lusambo-Kassai).

In this case, however, the anti-Congo critics have availed themselves of both false logic and false “facts.” The facts are that the slave-raiders were finally vanquished and driven out by the Congo forces in the early nineties, after a severe struggle and at the cost of much Belgian blood. As the present Viceroy of India said some years ago: “The Congo Free State has done a great work and by its administration the cruel raids of the Arab slave-dealers have ceased to exist over many thousand square miles.”

Another prevalent error about the Congo Government is in regard to the treatment of the natives by the officials. An impression has got abroad that there are many atrocities committed.

There have been cases in which the natives have been maltreated by minor officials, but these are isolated cases, and are severely punished by the authorities. Such cases have occurred in all public services where an attempt has been made to govern inferior races. Such things have happened in the Philippines, in British Africa, and in India. No colonising nation can cast a stone at King Leopold on that score. Among a large number of officials scattered over a vast territory there will often be one or two wicked stewards who despitefully use the natives. All that any State can do is to keep vigilant watch and to punish the wrongdoers, and this the Congo State has done. It has even established a Commission for the protection of the natives. By the decree of 1896, this Commission consisted of seven members, three being Catholic priests and four Protestant missionaries.

It has been said, among other things, that the State practically enslaves the natives by forcing them to pay a tax in labour. The tax is light. According to a statement made the other day by Baron de Favereau, it consists of 40 hours’ work per month, and for this work they are paid at the regular rate of wages obtained in the district. It is a tax which helps the State and also helps the native, for it teaches him to work. It is one of the most civilising influences in African colonisation, for it is only by teaching habits of industry to the natives that civilisation can make any progress in the Dark Continent.

The detractors of the Congo administration make a great outcry, but as Burke said in one of his celebrated speeches: “You must not think because the crickets make a great noise that they are the only inhabitants of the field. The cattle browsing in the shade make less stir, but they are infinitely more important.” Those who cry out against the Congo are a small band, and generally of small importance. Their evidence is light in comparison with the testimony of such men as the Count de Smet de Naeyer, the Baron van Eetvelde, Baron Wahis, the Chevalier Descamps, and Mr. Nys, but if these witnesses be considered as in any way prejudiced on account of their official positions, you have only to look at the evidence of Sir Harry Johnston, late British Commissioner to Uganda, as well as the evidence of such men as Cardinal Lavigerie, Paul Leroy-Beaulieu, the great authority on political economy, Mr. Pickersgill, the British Consul, besides the missionaries, such as the Rev. G. Grenfell, of the British Baptist Missionary Society, Mgr. Augouard, Rev. Holman Bentley, Father van Hencxthoven, Rev. Herbert S. Smith, Mgr. Streicher, Rev. Lawson Forfeit, Father Gabriel, and Rev. W. Verner of the American Presbyterian Mission.

The Congo State furnishes a model for civilisation in new countries. A great work has been accomplished in Equatorial Africa, and, as a distinguished missionary said, “Posterity will place the name of Leopold at the head of human benefactors for the princely enterprise, perseverance, and sacrifices contributed by him in such a cause.”