The story of the Congo Free State

by Henry Wellington Wack

The opinion of Cardinal Gibbons upon this point well appears in a letter addressed by His Eminence to the Honorary Secretary of the Congo Reform Association, of which the following is the full text.

HIS EMINENCE, CARDINAL GIBBONS

(American)

Baltimore, Oct. 21, 1904.

The Honorary Secretary,
Congo Reform Association.

Sir,—I avail myself of the first opportunity which has presented itself to acknowledge your letter of the 18th instant. In that letter you call my attention to certain resolutions adopted by the Peace Congress at Boston. I fail to see in these resolutions any vote of censure upon the Congo Free State. They express rather a desire for information in regard to the international status of that State.

It appears that those who voted for the resolutions were in need of enlightenment on the subject, but this information lies near at hand. There is no need to appeal to any tribunal. Diplomatic history, diplomatic correspondence concerning the Independent State of the Congo, and the acts and the protocols of the Conference of Berlin, as well as of the Conference of Brussels, all prove conclusively that the Congo Free State is an independent sovereign State, and that the powers have no right of guardianship or intervention.

Your letter also refers to certain documents, such as the British Parliamentary White Book, Africa, No. 7 (1904), which, however, has not escaped my attention. Permit me to say that this book, instead of proving your contention, proves the exact contrary, and shows that both the administration and the courts of the Congo are using their endeavours to correct such evils as may exist—for no human government is perfect.

The interpellation in the Belgian Chamber of Representatives, to which you refer, seems to have been simply a fruitless attempt on the part of the Socialist leader to annoy the Government. The very fact that the Chamber considered Mr. Vandervelde’s charges against the Congo, and refused to sympathise with him in his views, is in itself a significant indication of the baselessness of his accusations.

In your letter you are also pleased to say that in speaking in defence of the Congo Government I have spoken “unwittingly,” and to imply that I have not considered the facts nor weighed the evidence. I can assure you that I have not spoken without due consideration. As to the evidence, it is overwhelmingly against your contention.