Chapter XXXII: The “trade” of the Congo State

It is a little surprising to find that M. Cattier, the Belgian Imperialist, whose masterly indictment of King Leopold’s administration does him infinite honour, should attempt to defend, not the outcome of the system of the _Domaine Privé_ in the shape of compulsory military service for twelve years, forced labour in Government plantations, &c., all of which he condemns, but the legality of the system itself. He states his case as follows. Article V. of the Berlin Act, which forbade monopoly and privilege in the Congo Basin in matters of trade, was meant to apply internationally, and the Congo State was thereby bound not to grant commercial advantages to the subjects of any one nation which it denied to the subjects of another nation. M. Cattier says:

“The Government of the Congo State could not, therefore, adopt
any legislative measure, nor establish any _régime_ conceding
international monopolies or privileges.... All facilities
granted to its subjects in trade matters should be legally
extended to the subjects of other nations.... But this does
not prevent the Congo State from establishing the commercial
_régime_ which it thinks advisable, and no objection can be
raised against its legislative action, when the measures
adopted apply, under the same conditions and in the same
manner, to the subjects of other nationalities, including the
Congo nationality.”

It follows, therefore, according to M. Cattier, that in attributing to himself all vacant lands in the Congo Basin, from which action arose the _Domaine Privé_, and in farming out portions of the _Domaine Privé_ to his financial friends, upon whom he has conferred an absolute monopoly of exploitation in the regions affected, the Sovereign of the Congo State has not violated the Act of Berlin; although M. Cattier admits that by so doing he has committed “a violation of the rights of the natives.”

This curious theory of M. Cattier’s has been dismissed by Dr. Anton (_Professeur agrégé à l’Université d’Iéna_) as a legal quibble, in which opinion I entirely concur. M. Cattier’s views are mutually destructive. Admitting, for the sake of argument merely, that the interpretation he gives to Art. V. of the Berlin Act is, from the strictly legal aspect of the matter, accurate; once M. Cattier attempts to put his case in language that laymen, unversed in legal subtleties, can understand, it breaks down hopelessly. For what does M. Cattier tell us in the passage above? “No objection can be raised against its (the State’s) legislative action when the measures adopted apply under the same conditions and in the same manner to the subjects of all nationalities, including the Congo nationality.” But the measures adopted do not apply equally to all nationalities! Three-fourths of the Congo State is the State’s—that is, the king’s—private property, and is closed to the trade of all nationalities, except the Belgian and “Congo nationality;” not in theory but in fact. Can an Englishman, or a German, or a Chinaman if you like, import European merchandise in the territory, for example, acquired by the _Société Anversoise_, and barter that merchandise against the raw products of the soil, on a basis of a legitimate commercial transaction? Of course they may not. Was not an Austrian arrested—on Lake Moëro, and on, it appears, a British steamer—only a few months ago for trading with the natives in the Katanga region, although he actually had a permit to trade from the Katanga Company, given to him prior to the arrangement arrived at by the Congo State and the Katanga Company to work those territories on joint account? And arrested, too, in such a way that his removal from this world was a matter of moral certainty—handed over to the merciful treatment of King Leopold’s cannibal soldiery, to be transported 2000 miles away; he a white man and unarmed![278] What pitiful sophistries are these which attempt the squaring of the Congo circle! The Congo State, which undertook not to trade directly or indirectly in its dominions, has become not only the largest “exploiter” within it, but in the major portion thereof the exclusive “exploiter.” The king has translated Article V. of the Berlin Act, which reads that “no Power which exercises or shall exercise sovereign rights in the above-mentioned regions, shall be allowed to grant therein a monopoly or favour of any kind in matters of trade,” by conferring upon himself an absolute monopoly, which has made of him the biggest ivory and rubber merchant in the world. In this capacity he can export his produce under special conditions, free of dues, which come out of one of his Majesty’s pockets to go in at the other. All this is diametrically opposed to the provisions of the Berlin Act.

My object is principally to prove that King Leopold’s intervention in the Dark Continent has from first to last been due to selfish motives, and has resulted in the most appalling consequences; whether we confine ourselves to the past and present merely, or whether we look into the future. I must crave forgiveness for having dwelt so largely upon matters of trade. It was, however, necessary, because the king’s native policy is the inevitable sequel of his commercial policy. I must, indeed, revert again to this aspect of the question in order to refute once and for all the untruths so sedulously fostered, that the Congo State is in a nourishing condition and that independent trade is flourishing within it; and in refuting it to show—which is more important—that, were it not for the ivory and rubber which the natives of King Leopold’s preserve are forced to produce at the cost of constant warfare, massacres, and atrocities innumerable, the export returns, and consequently the whole trade of the Congo State, would be practically _nil_, or so small as to be unworthy of attention. This can best be done by giving facts and figures which all the ingenious theorising in the world cannot overcome.

The following table shows the relative proportion of the rubber and ivory exports from the Congo to the total exports:

TABLE I

Total of Total of
Year. Rubber. Ivory. both Exports. all Exports.

Francs. Francs. Francs. Francs.
1898 15,850,987 4,319,260 20,170,247 22,163,481
1899 28,100,917 5,834,620 33,935,537 36,067,959
1900 39,874,005 5,253,300 45,627,305 47,377,401
1901 43,965,950 3,964,600 47,930,550 50,488,394

If the rubber and ivory exports are deducted from the total exports, it will be seen that—apart from these two products—the exports only amounted in 1898 to 1,993,234 francs, in 1889 to 2,132,422 francs, in 1900 to 1,750,096 francs, and in 1901 to 2,557,844 francs, about 97 per cent. of which was represented in each year by kernels and palm-oil shipped almost exclusively from the Lower Congo[279] to Rotterdam, by the Dutch House _Die Nieuwe Afrikaansche Handels Vennootschap_.

The next table provides statistics of the rubber and ivory shipped home by the Congo State, as shipper, being the proceeds of the taxes—_impôts de nature_—levied upon the natives of the _Domaine Privé_. As will be observed, the Congo State is at pains to conceal the real proceeds. Ever since 1893, when the actual returns exceeded the estimates by one-half, the State has never published the former. The correct figures may, however, approximately be arrived at by comparing the estimates with the rubber and ivory disposed of by the State, as vendor, on the Antwerp market. The enormous difference during these last few years between the estimates _and the produce actually sold by the State_, possesses a significance which will not be lost upon my readers. Into whose pocket does the surplus go? But need we ask the question?

TABLE II

VALUE OF PRODUCE (IVORY AND RUBBER) DERIVED FROM THE
“DOMAINE PRIVÉ” IN THE SHAPE OF TAXES (IMPÔTS DE NATURE).

Produce (ivory and
rubber) from the
Year. Published returns. Actual returns. _Domaine Privé_, sold
on the Antwerp market
by the State’s brokers.

Francs. Francs. Francs.
1893 237,057 347,396 Unobtainable.
1894 300,000 } _Ibid._
1895 1,250,000 } 5,500,000
1896 1,200,000 } Withheld 6,000,000
1897 3,500,000 } from public 8,500,000
1898 6,700,000 } knowledge. 9,000,000
1899 10,000,000 } 19,130,000
1900 10,500,000 } 14,991,300[280]

It will thus be seen that, out of a total rubber and ivory export from the Congo State in 1898 amounting to 20,170,247 francs (see Table I.), the _Domaine Privé_ taxes produced 9,000,000 francs, or close upon one-half; and that out of a total rubber and ivory export in 1899, amounting to 33,935,537 francs, the _Domaine Privé_ taxes produced 19,130,000 francs, or not far short of two-thirds. The illustration is in itself sufficient to destroy the theory of commercial prosperity so assiduously propagated by King Leopold and his friends, in order to deceive public opinion. Such “prosperity” entails the death of many human beings. What could, indeed, be more eloquent of the true condition of affairs! The total exports from the Congo State in 1899 are found (see Table I.) to amount to 36,067,959 francs, of which 33,935,537 francs are represented by rubber and ivory, in which the Congo State’s share as tax-gatherer is no less than 19,130,000 francs. The Congo State asserts that it does not trade. It merely imposes taxes which every “civilised” Power (Heaven save the mark!) has the right to do; yet it incorporates in its so-called trade figures the yield of its taxes! What becomes, then, of this flourishing trade we hear so much about? On the evidence produced, it sinks for 1889 to 16,937,959 francs (36,067,959 minus 19,130,000) instead of 36,067,959 francs, which the world is invited to believe. In reality it does not amount to anything like 16,937,959 francs, for the simple reason that there is no “trade” at all in the Congo State north of Leopoldville; and that, if we extract from the remaining figures the exports from the Lower Congo, where genuine trade, sadly hampered by taxation, alone exists, the balance is represented by the shipments of the _Domaine Privé_ subsidiary monopolies in which the Congo State benefits to the extent of 50 per cent.; and by the shipments of the Thys Trust, which is a monopoly within a monopoly, although conducted, it is but right to add, on different lines. Such is the “trade” of the Congo State, the most gigantic fraud which ever came into being to work misery upon mankind.

It would be unjust not to recognise that all this sordid history has aroused loathing and distress in the hearts of many honourable Belgians—not confined to the Party which opposes Colonial policy for Belgium—mainly, as I believe, on the ground that King Leopold, in the course of his illegalities and intrigues, will end by compromising the neutrality of his country. It would be as equally unjust not to express admiration for the indomitable energy displayed by Colonel Thys in constructing the railway to Leopoldville, as to include in the condemnation of King Leopold’s POLICY in Africa all the Belgians who have been employed at one time or another in the State service. Sir Harry Johnston has recently lent the weight of his name in favour of the Congo State, in respect to the “very small portion” of the State which he has visited. Sir Harry Johnston might have added that the rubber laws are not in full operation in the “very small portion” of the country he visited, and that the Belgian officers with whom he came in contact have not been employed in that degrading business, their duties in that particular region being confined to strengthening the obscure political aims which King Leopold is pursuing in the Nile Valley. For a description of the state of affairs prevailing south of the “very small portion” of the Congo State alluded to, Mr. Grogan’s volume, and Mr. Robert Codrington’s recently published “Travel and Trade Routes in Northern Rhodesia and adjacent Parts of East Central Africa,”[281] together with the revelations attending the treatment meted out to the late Mr. Rabinek by the officials of the State, may be consulted with advantage. It would be an insult to Sir Harry Johnston—who has himself condemned the system of territorial concessions—to suggest that he desires in any way to bolster up the Congo State; but it is certainly a thousand pities that he has committed himself, even partially, to statements which, however accurate in themselves, cannot fail to exercise an unfortunate influence, without making himself acquainted with the general system under which the Congo State is run. When the nature of that system is understood, it becomes an outrage upon common sense and common decency to write one word in extenuation of the system, or of the man who has originated it.

M. Cattier, to whose work I have several times alluded, represents the type of Belgian who, convinced of the necessity of a colonial programme for Belgium, has sufficient perspicacity to realise, and sufficient courage to assert, that the policy of King Leopold in the Congo State carries within it the germs of death. How true this is, the reader must judge for himself; but it is at least significant that among a section of French Colonial writers who think they see in the recent abandonment of M. Beernaert’s Annexation Bill, at the king’s dictation, the final postponement by Belgium and the consequent assertion—at some future date—of France’s right of pre-emption, are beginning to ask themselves whether the king’s ultimate aim is not to continue for some years longer his “ruinous exploitation” of the Congo State; and then, when uprisings have reached such a scale that the king’s cannibal army, however large it may by that time have become, is powerless to cope with them; and when whole tracts of the richest and most easily accessible rubber districts have been irretrievably impaired, to offer the squeezed lemon, for a consideration, to his Gallic neighbours. If the pernicious _régime_ which King Leopold has inaugurated in Africa were confined to the Congo State, it would still be sufficient, one might have thought, to stir the conscience of Europe, if not for the sake of her own dignity outraged in the violation of solemn obligations, if not for the sake of humanity, then for the sake of the future relations of black man and white man in Central Africa. But, as we have seen, the _régime_ is spreading, and with every year that passes it threatens more acutely all legitimate European enterprise in Africa.[282]

This accursed _Domaine Privé_, and all the evils it has brought with it, cannot last for ever. Like all such “negations of God” it will perish. But what will remain behind for Europe, when the Congo State has passed away, to deal with? A vast region, peopled by fierce Bantu races, with an undying hatred of the white implanted in their breasts; a great army of cannibal levies, drilled in the science of forest warfare, perfected in the usage of modern weapons of destruction[283]—savages whose one lesson learned from contact with European “civilisation” has been improvement in the art of killing their neighbours; disciplined in the science of slaughter; eager to seize upon the first opportunity which presents itself of turning their weapons against their temporary masters; rendered more desperate, more dangerous, more debased than before the advent of King Leopold’s rubber collectors, who, by way of regeneration, have grafted upon the native’s failings, born of ignorance, the worst vices of the Africanised civilisation of modern Europe—cupidity, hypocrisy, cruelty, and lust.

In their own most obvious interests, for the sake of humanity and right, in the name of enlightened statesmanship and political common sense, the Powers cannot allow the disease introduced into West and Central Africa by King Leopold of Belgium to be farther extended. Nor do their responsibilities end there. The source of the disease must be dealt with. The canker must be rooted out and cast upon the dunghill. The Congo State must be called to account for its crimes against civilisation; for its outrages upon humanity; for the unparalleled and irreparable mischief it has committed.

And what a warning lies here for the Western nations! The Congo State is the living embodiment of the evil counsels, so lavishly, so thoughtlessly given in connection with native policy in West Africa. In the Congo State we see what these counsels lead to when put into practice. All this talk about the puerility of preserving land tenure, the futility of maintaining native institutions, the efficacy of punitive expeditions, the necessity of teaching the native “the dignity of labour,” the cry for territorial concessions, the advocacy of monopoly, and all legislative acts framed in accordance with these views, or with some of them, tend to produce in greater or less degree a state of affairs in Western Africa similar to that which prevails on the Congo. In the case of the Powers, the motives may be of the very best, the intentions honest and sincere; but if once the thin end of the wedge be driven home; if once legislation be passed or acts sanctioned which are founded upon a repudiation of the inherent right of the native to his land and the fruits thereof; if once it be officially admitted that it is legitimate to force the native to give under compulsion that which is purchasable on fair terms, we are committed to a policy of reaction of which no man can prophesy the consequences or the end. To those conceptions Tropical Africa opposes her vastness, her climate, and the prolific nature of her peoples. They can be tried; apparent success may attend them for a time; lasting success they will never secure. Tropical Africa _cannot permanently be held down by force_, and in attempting to do so by placing modern engines of destruction in the hands of Africans, Europe will be but digging the grave of her ambitions on African soil.

But Europe can achieve a great work in Tropical Africa for good, and benefit her own peoples in doing so. To divorce the two is impossible. Evil wrought in Tropical Africa will have its aftermath in Europe. The European has need of the Negro, and the Negro of the European. In occupying the country of the Negro, Europe has assumed a great responsibility. It is well, perhaps, European statesmen should occasionally be reminded, that for Europe to forget the moral responsibility in pursuing the material ends is to invite a certain Nemesis. These pages cannot be more fittingly closed than by recalling the words of a wise and good woman, who understood the nature and immensity of the problem:

“Not only do the negroes not die off in the face of white civilisation in Africa, but they have increased in America, whereto they were taken by the slave trade. This fact urges on us the belief that these negroes are a great world race—a race not passing off the stage of affairs, but one that has an immense amount of history before it. The moulding of that history is in the hands of the European, whose superior activity and superior power in arts and crafts give the mastery; but all that this mastery gives is the power to make the future of the negro and the European prosperous, or to make it one of disaster to both alike. Whatever we do in Africa to-day, a thousand years hence there will be Africans to thrive or suffer for it.”[284]

E. D. M.