Moreover, it is to be observed that in nearly every part of Africa the natives are taxed. In the Transvaal every native pays a “head tax” of £2; in the Orange River Colony he is subject to a “poll tax”; in Southern Rhodesia, Bechuanaland, Basutoland, Uganda, and Natal a “hut-tax” is levied; in Cape Colony we find a “hut-tax” and a “labour tax”; in German East Africa also a tax is levied on huts, payable either in money, in kind, or in labour. This species of tax has also been applied in the Sierra Leone Protectorate, where payment could be made “in kind by rice or palm nuts,” and it has been suggested that work on roads and useful works should be accepted in lieu of payment in money or produce.
The legality of a tax is, therefore, not affected by the mode of its payment, whether in money or in kind, so long as the amount is not excessive. It is certainly not so in the Congo, where the work done by the native does not represent more than forty hours’ work a month. Such work, moreover, is paid for, and the tax in kind thus gives the native as it were some return for his labour.
Payment of taxes is obligatory everywhere; and non-payment involves measures of compulsion. The regulations under which the hut-tax is levied impose on the native, for non-payment, such penalties as imprisonment and forced labour. Nor in the Congo is payment of taxes optional. Repressive measures have occasionally been rendered necessary elsewhere by the refusal of natives to conform to the law, e. g., the disturbances at Sierra Leone, in connection with which an English publicist, speaking of the police force, states:
“Between July, 1894, and February, 1896, no fewer than sixty-two convictions, admittedly representing a small proportion of offences actually committed, were recorded against them for flogging, plundering, and generally maltreating the natives.”
Further instances might be recalled of the opposition encountered among native populations to the institution of governmental regulations. Civilisation necessarily comes into collision with their savage instincts and barbarous customs and habits; and it can be understood that they submit but impatiently to, and even try to escape from, a state of society which seems to them to be restrictive of their licence and excesses. It frequently happens in Africa that an exodus of natives takes place from one territory to another, in the hope of finding beyond the frontier a government less well established or less strong, and of thus freeing themselves from all obligations and restraints. Natives of the State may quite well, under the influence of considerations of this kind, have crossed into neighbouring territories, although no kind of emigration on a large scale, such as is referred to in the English note, has ever been reported by the commandants of the frontier provinces. On the contrary, it is a fact that natives in the Upper Nile region who had settled in British territory have returned to the left bank in consequence of the imposition of new taxes by the English authorities. Besides, if it is these territories which are alluded to, the information contained in the note would seem to be in contradiction with other particulars furnished, for instance, by Sir Harry Johnston.
“This much I can speak of with certainty and emphasis, that from the British frontier near Fort George to the limit of my journeys into the Mbuba country of the Congo Free State, up and down the Semliki, the natives appear to be prosperous and happy.... The extent to which they were building their villages and cultivating their plantations within the precincts of Fort Mbeni showed that they had no fear of the Belgians.”
Major H. H. Gibbons, who was for several months on the Upper Nile, writes:
“Having had occasion to know many officers, and to visit their stations in the Congo State, I am convinced that their behaviour has been much misunderstood by the press. I have quoted as a proof my experience, which is at variance with an article recently published in the English press, in which they are accused of great cruelties.”
The declaration of last June, of which a copy is enclosed, has disposed of the criticisms directed against the public forces of the State, by pointing out that recruitment for them is regulated by law, and that it is only one man in every 10,000 who is affected. To say that “the method of obtaining men for military service is often but little different from that formerly employed to obtain slaves” is to misunderstand the carefully drawn regulations which have, on the contrary, been issued to check abuses. Levies take place in each district; the District Commissioners settle the mode of conscription in agreement with the native chiefs. Voluntary enlistment, and numerous re-enlistments, easily fill up the ranks, which only reach, all told, the moderate total of 15,000 men.
Those who allege, as the note says, that “the men composing the armed force of the State were in many cases recruited from the most warlike and savage tribes” must be unaware that the public forces are recruited from every province, and from the whole population. It is inconceivable that the authorities of a State, with due regard to its interests, should form an army out of undisciplined and savage elements, and instances are to be found—such as the excesses said to have been perpetrated by irregular levies in Uganda, and the revolts which formerly occurred in the Congo—which, on the contrary, render it necessary that special care should be exercised in raising armed forces. The European establishment, consisting of Belgian, Italian, Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish officers, maintains strict discipline, and it would be vain to seek the actual facts alluded to in the assertion that the soldiers “not infrequently terrorised over their own officers.” Such an assertion is as unfounded as the one “that compulsion is often exercised by irresponsible native soldiers uncontrolled by any European officer.” For a long time past the authorities have been alive to the danger arising from the existence of stations of Negro soldiers, who inevitably abuse their authority, as recognised in the Report of Sir D. Chalmers on the insurrection in Sierra Leone. In the Congo such stations have been gradually abolished.