The story of the Congo Free State

by Henry Wellington Wack

The State Lands.

The Congo Free State, like all other States, acquired possession of ownerless lands, not by bloody wars which have characterised the acquisitive and “civilising” methods of its principal mentor in morals, but only after treaty with the natives who happened to occupy those lands in their savagery. All lands which the natives occupy with at least the rudiments of peaceful industry are guaranteed to them. What for ages had been unused and undeveloped for the good of mankind, native or foreign, is now being successfully exploited by the State. Before this industrial, civil, and moral era, the vast Congo forests were not even traversed by the indolent native, so long as he could acquire his food in the sluggard idleness which to this day prevails throughout neighbouring African colonies.

The Congo Free State is pursuing a policy for the preservation, of its forests, far in advance of other colonies, by enforcing the replanting of rubber trees and vines as fast as the old growth has been sapped, thus ensuring to future generations the results of Belgian foresight and wisdom.

The Congo Free State does not trade as a State. Like other governments it is interested in the development of the Government domain by its inhabitants. The United States first occupied the wild lands of North America by conquest of, and treaty with, the Indians. It then threw the land open to the pre-emption of its citizens under certain restrictions and impositions; for instance, to improve the land within a certain time, to maintain its yield, to pay taxes, build roads, and in other ways contribute to the cost of administering and improving the State.

The State Develops the Land.

The Concessionaire Companies.

After vainly waiting seven years for the influx of foreign capital and enterprise to freely enter upon its public lands, and assume the burdens and enjoy the gain of developing the forests for the wealth they contained, the Congo Free State proceeded to cause a part of its lands (one-fourth) to be developed en régie (by trustees), in order that the land might at least contribute to the creation and support of the public works to be established within the State for the benefit and betterment of its native population. Another part (one-fourth) of the forests have been conceded to private companies, in harmony with the system followed by France, England, Germany, and Portugal, whose territories are contiguous to the Congo Free State. But here again we have an exhibition of far-seeing statesmanship, almost unparalleled in colonial history. Instead of doling out the State lands absolutely to favoured concessionaires, which has been the invariable practice in other colonies, the Belgians have exacted a tremendous guarantee and a growing revenue from those who exploit the natural resources of its forests, by retaining in some cases a half interest in the capital of the concessionary companies. As an example of practical politics, this admirable system alone constitutes a material heritage to the future of the Congo. The revenue thus annually accruing to the support of the Congo budget must play materially in the development and welfare of the State. Moreover, while the State has such large influence in the internal affairs of its concessionary companies, it has a practical power within the companies in addition to the State law. This dual control should ensure a commercial policy in harmony with the spirit and the letter of the underlying principles of the State’s government. Under this system, the Congo Free State now exports to European markets 5000 tons of rubber annually, where a few years ago this great asset lay hidden in a forest upon which none of the Powers Signatory to the General Act of Berlin desired to spend its means or its labour.

Spoliation and Plunder.

One of the counts in the complaint by certain perfervid pamphleteers in Great Britain against King Leopold is that there is no freedom of commerce in that part of the Congo Basin occupied by the Free State. Freedom of Commerce under the definition of such persons is the indiscriminate right of traders and adventurers, and purveyors of arms and spirituous liquors, to swoop down on the State and private lands of the Congo, incite the native to invade the forest, steal rubber product and sell it to the trader at the latter’s price. One need not dwell upon the preposterous nature of that transparent scheme of commercial freedom. Private property is nowhere open to unlawful invasion. Public property is not open to the spoliation of adventurers and vandals. The 5000 tons of rubber gathered by the several industrial forces at work in the Congo can be purchased by traders as well at Matadi as at Stanley Pool, at Boma as well as at Antwerp, at a proper price. If the freedom of commerce defined by Congophobes were permitted to prevail in any civilised or uncivilised country in the world, anarchy and tribal wars would ensue, all rights of property would be violated, and the larcenous proclivities of the African Negro would be encouraged. In the case of the Congo, a reign of terror would decimate the native population, and denude the forests which the wise laws of the State endeavour to preserve. Upon their ruins the “savagery” of the white man would have succeeded that of the black.

As already indicated, Congo law very properly forbids invaders of the State from buying the product of private property from any one except the owner. In that respect it does not depart from the law of every other country. The desire of adventurers to buy rubber and ivory direct from the natives is not sufficient reason for permitting the latter to trespass upon private property for the purpose of stealing its product. Once establish a traffic on these lines, and you put a premium on the crime of theft, and pit the spear of every native against his brother in their rubber-hunting areas.