Chapter XXXII: Testimony of Travellers and Thinkers

SIR HENRY M. STANLEY

[Sidenote: Knowledge and Truth.]

It will ever be esteemed a fortunate circumstance by all who have regard for historical accuracy, that the late Sir Henry M. Stanley, discoverer of the course of the Congo, who assisted so materially in the creation of the Congo Free State, did not pass away without recording his opinion of the campaign of calumny against the Congo Administration. Incomparably the greatest authority of his time upon this subject, what Stanley had to say about it must be given here in full. It took the form of an interview with a representative of the press, and was first published in the _Petit Bleu_ (Brussels), 13th November, 1903:

I do not believe [said Sir Henry Stanley] in the charges brought
against the Congo, and I do not share the opinions that inspire
them. I do not think that any State will be inclined to step in,
and to spend the money that Belgium and the King of the Belgians
spend to adapt the darkest part of Darkest Africa to the interests
of commerce. King Leopold lately assigned £120,000 a year to the
Congo administration. He thereafter gave £40,000 and Belgium
£80,000. Tell me, what other country would be ready to do as much?

When I consider the limited number of years which have elapsed
since the Congo became a State, I hold that the work which has been
accomplished there does great honour to Belgium, and I am certain
that not one of the countries who are invited by the newspapers to
put itself in its place would have been able to do better.

You can feel certain that the King of the Belgians interests
himself personally in the smallest detail of the administration. I
do not pretend that he can superintend the acts of each individual,
but what Government, what State could do that? But the recitals
of atrocities, and of bad administration which have of late been
spread about are almost all, if not all, pure reports. Naturally,
if it is question of seeking cause for a quarrel there is no
difficulty in finding it; but if the Congo of 1885 is compared with
the Congo of to-day, it must be allowed that its progress has been
remarkable.

The English Note of the month of August is founded, I am convinced,
on reports stamped with partiality. The assertions of a missionary
have been reproduced, according to whom the natives flee at the
approach of the Congo State officials. They fled before me also
when I was there. The mere apparition of a white man, the simple
sight of an unusual being or object, puts them to flight. That is
part of the animal instinct of self-preservation. Whites and blacks
always approach one another for the first time with a general
sentiment of distrust. Little by little they learn to know one
another, and this sentiment disappears.

The Congo was in truth the darkest part of Africa. To-day with
its forests pierced and open, its routes, its stations, it is in
advance of all other African States. Take the French Congo, German
East Africa, Portuguese West Africa, and compare them! The Congo
State prospers in a greater degree than any other part of the black
continent.

The Congo State is accused of employing as soldiers cannibal
Negroes. When I was on the Congo, and I accused a tribe of
cannibalism it replied: “We are not cannibals, but our neighbours
are.” The neighbouring tribe said: “It is not we, it is the next
tribe that you will meet”; and that tribe referred us on to the
next, and so on continually. They seemed to be ashamed of
their cannibalism. They concealed it. Yet there was no doubt as
to the existence of this practice. I frequently met with trenches
freshly disturbed, from which corpses had been taken to be eaten.
It was very seldom that I could discover the guilty. How then in
recruiting its troops was the Congo State to distinguish the black
cannibals from those who are not cannibals?

I am convinced that since I left Africa King Leopold has done
his best to prevent all crime on the Congo. But he is no more
responsible for the crimes which may be committed there than for
those occasionally committed on the soil of Belgium itself. There
are on the Congo 300 officials who report to the Governor-General,
who in his turn addresses a summary of these reports to the King.
They discharge their mission under the most difficult conditions,
and I believe that I may assert that from the Governor-General
down to the humblest official there is not one of them guilty of
cruelty. Moreover, it is for those who speak of atrocities to
furnish proof of them.

I know by experience what a large number of stories are put
forward, then refuted, and afterwards resuscitated year after year.
These are legends for travellers. Use is made of them with every
change of the wind in Africa. Those who relate them are often the
prey of climatic maladies.

The Congo has not the most enviable climate in the world. The
maladies contracted there are often debilitating, and things are
seen and things are described through the malady, which distorts
the _morale_ and changes the optic.

I had on the Congo under my orders 300 men—English, Germans, Dutch,
Portuguese, Belgians. There were 80 English, but the majority were
Belgians. I found no difference between them. All did their best,
according to their means. All were, in the course of duty, the
object of some charge. I examined the charges minutely, and always
found them to be without foundation. That did not prevent these
stories reaching Banana, and from there Europe. Well, that is what
happened on the Congo in my time; that is what is happening there
to-day.

The sentiment that inspires the charges against the Congo is
jealousy. The Congo is succeeding better than any other State of
Africa.

I do not think that the Congo State would be administered better by
France, the United States, or Germany. Under French administration
the Congo would retrogress. Germany would content itself with
fortifying it in a military sense. And commerce does not develop
when it is covered with a coat of mail. Germany does not permit and
will not permit the English to penetrate into its territory, except
under certain restrictions. England would not have managed the
Congo better than King Leopold has done if she had been mistress of
it, as she might have become in 1877.

The white man must remain master of the Congo. Drive him out of
it, and you will see war arise anew between one native village
and another, a return to barbarism. It is difficult to govern so
vast a country; yet, in a limited number of years, the King of the
Belgians has put an end to the horrible Arab slave trade. I do not
think there is another sovereign living who has done so much for
humanity as Leopold II.

SIR HARRY JOHNSTON, G.C.M.G., K.C.B.

About a year previous to the publication of Stanley’s vindication of the Congo Administration, appeared a remarkable book, entitled _The Uganda Protectorate_, written by the distinguished English traveller, Sir Harry Johnston, from which the following passage is taken:

In spite of an element of Arab civilisation which the slave-trader
had certainly implanted in the Congo Forest, he had made himself
notorious for his ravages and cruelties. Numbers of natives had
been horribly mutilated, hands and feet lopped off, and women’s
breasts cut away. These people explained to me that these
mutilations—which, as only a Negro could, they had survived—had
been the work of the Manyema slave-trader and his gang, done
sometimes out of wanton cruelty, sometimes as a punishment for
thieving or absconding. May it not be that many of the mutilated
people of whom we hear so much in the northern and eastern part
of the Congo Free State are also the surviving results of Arab
cruelty? I am aware that it is customary to attribute these
outrages to the native soldiery and police employed by the Belgians
to maintain order or to collect taxes; and though I am fully aware
that these native soldiers and police under imperfect Belgian
administration, _as under imperfect British control_, can commit
all sorts of atrocities (as we know they did in Mashonaland and in
Uganda), every bad deed of this description is not to be laid to
their charge, for many outrages are the work of the Arab traders
and raiders in these countries, and of their apt pupils the
Manyemas. 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 appeared to be prosperous and happy
under the excellent administration of the late Lieutenant Meura and
his coadjutor, Mr. Karl Eriksson. 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, while the Dwarfs equally asserted the goodness of the
local white men.

Great value attaches to the evidence of Sir Harry Johnston, it being impossible to impute to him any particular bias. He travelled independently, visiting the Congo on three occasions—1882-83, 1891-96, and 1900. In a letter published in the _Daily Chronicle_ (London) of 28th September, 1903, he thus further expresses his opinion of the Congo Administration:

I was present on the Congo at the birth of the Congo Free State.
In 1882-1883 I paid a prolonged visit of eight months to Stanley.
During the course of this visit I travelled up the Congo nearly
as far as the point where it crosses the Equator. I came into
continual contact with the Belgian officers and officials who had
been sent out on the part of the _Comité d’Études du Haut-Congo_ to
assist Stanley. I may mention that I was “nobody’s” man. I paid my
own travelling expenses, and had no reason to espouse any one cause
more than another. I conceived, however, the highest admiration for
Sir Henry Stanley, personally, and for the work he was doing. I
convinced myself over and over again by constant cross-examination
of the natives of the Congo, and of Zanzibaris and Somalis, that
Sir Henry was always just and never cruel, and that the first
interests he had at heart were those of the natives of Africa. His
memory still lingers in all the regions from the mouth of the Congo
to Zanzibar, and any one who doubts the justice of my opinion has
only to do as I have done through many years—question the natives
as to their impressions of “Bula Matadi” (the Breaker of Stones).
Nor did I at that date see anything to object to in the conduct
of the Belgian officers, for many of whom I entertained feelings
of warm friendship and esteem. The work of such men as Nilis, Van
Gèle, Hanssens, Coquilhat, Braconnier, Janssen, and Roger, not to
mention others, was such as no missionary could or did find fault
with.

And again:

Subsequently when I returned to the vicinity of those regions as
Commissioner for British Central Africa, I came a good deal into
contact with the Belgian officers sent to control those countries.
I never received any complaints from natives or Europeans at that
time which tended to show that the natives were ill-treated by the
Belgians.

Lastly comes this convincing pronouncement:

In 1900, whilst at work in Uganda, I had occasion to visit the
adjoining regions of the Congo Free State along and across the
Semliki River. In this portion of the Congo Forest (into which
my expedition penetrated for about thirty miles west of the
Semliki) I questioned many natives—Pigmies, Babira, Bambuba,
Lendu, Bakonjo, and Basongora. From none of them did I receive the
slightest complaint as regards the treatment they received from
the Belgians, and indeed the sight of their villages, plantations,
and settlements, the fact that they so freely came and talked to
the white man, were sufficient to show that they were perfectly
content with their present lot. The Belgian and Swedish officers
whom I met in this portion of the territory of the Congo Free
State were men of the best character. In short, this portion of
Congo territory left little to be desired, and in some respects
was better organised than the adjoining districts of the British
Protectorate. One Musongora chief complained to me that the native
soldiers in Belgian employ had taken away some of his wives. He
expressed himself so dissatisfied with this treatment that he asked
permission to cross over into British territory. That permission
was given him; but when he found that he had to pay the hut tax on
Uganda soil he returned to his old quarters. In addition to the
foregoing experiences I might say that I took into my employ about
this time natives of many districts along the Upper Congo, from
the country of Bangala on the west to the mouth of the Aruwimi
on the east. I did this with the idea of making studies of their
languages, and they lived with me for about a year, accompanying
me on all my journeys through the Uganda Protectorate. I did not
ask the permission of the Belgians to recruit these people, for
the very good reason that, having apparently complete liberty of
action, they had walked through the Congo Forest to the British
frontier to offer themselves for work. It cannot be said therefore
that the Belgians selected people especially to fill my ears with
pleasing stories as to Belgian administration. I questioned these
natives of villages all along the great northern bend of the Congo.
Not one of them had any complaint to make against the Belgians.
When I was preparing to leave Uganda to return to England I offered
these men (who were accompanied by their wives) plots of land in
the Uganda Protectorate; but they were quite decided in wishing
to return to their homes on the Upper Congo; and so far as I know
they did so, as every facility was given them in that direction.
It strikes one that if these particular people were living under a
reign of terror they would hardly have been so eager to return to
their homes with the wages they had earned.

The absolute impartiality of Sir Harry Johnston’s review of the Congo Administration well appears in the few following words; in which it will be noted, that while he claims no immaculate perfection on behalf of _every_ Belgian official, he compares them _as a body_, and that not to their disadvantage, with his own countrymen:

There are, no doubt, bad Belgians, as there have been bad, cruel,
and wicked Englishmen and Scotchmen, amongst African pioneers. In
the early days of African enterprise I have seen too many misdeeds
of my own countrymen in Africa to be very keen about denouncing
other nations for similar faults.

MAJOR JAMES HARRISON

This eminent authority on the Congo has recorded his impressions of the social and economic conditions prevailing in that country, and of the false statements regarding them disseminated by interested parties, in the following letter, which appeared in the London _Times_ of June 10, 1904:

_To the Editor of the “Times”_

SIR,—Having just returned from a shooting trip across the Congo
Free State from the Nile to Boma, on the West Coast, I naturally
feel much interested in the correspondence now going on with
regard to that country. As I came down the Congo River a copy of
Mr. Casement’s report was lent me to read, and I was more than
surprised at the contents of a letter written by Lord Cromer, which
was inserted as a prelude to the more serious indictment following.

Now, Sir, had this letter been published alone it might not have
seemed so serious, but taken in conjunction with what followed it
formed a most damaging article.

As my experience of the Government of the Lado Enclave is so
entirely opposite to the view taken of it by Lord Cromer, I feel
compelled, in fairness to the Belgian officials, to give my
views of the country and its Government. That I am not alone in
discovering so much that is good in the Belgian administration of
the Lado Enclave is vouched for by other English officers who have
hunted and travelled among the natives beyond the waters west of
the Nile.

I assume from Lord Cromer’s report, and from what I was told
at Lado, that he only landed at the Kiro and Lado stations,
so that the greater part of his report must have been founded
on information supplied by others, which, besides being often
incorrect, might possibly have reference to times gone by, when, I
believe, a certain official was promptly dismissed the service for
unfair treatment of the natives.

Lord Cromer compares the deserted appearance of the west banks of
the Nile with the east bank between Kiro and Lado.

My experience of this part was that you could hardly see anything
of the west bank, owing to the channel lying well over to the east,
and endless _sudd_ stretching to the west. The reasons for natives
not living near the bank I give later on.

Again, Lord Cromer contrasts the peaceful, settled state and
the confidence of the tribes under English rule on the Nile as
compared with those on Belgian territory; yet within a few months
of his visit a whole British force was annihilated on the Bahr el
Ghazal, while in the Game Ordinance published last year it stated:
“The whole of the left bank of the Nile is at present closed to
sportsmen, owing to the unsettled state of the natives.”

Since my return I see that yet another British force has been
severely handled by the natives. Through the whole of my Congo
trip, absolutely alone, I wandered about, visiting 50 different
tribes and hundreds of villages, armed as a rule with a camera,
umbrella, and, at times, a collecting gun. Yet I had no unpleasant
experiences; on the contrary, I was received with kindness far
different to any I ever met with when hunting among British African
natives.

As I went up the Nile I heard the same stories Lord Cromer did—as
to how all the natives were flying across the river from the
Belgian country owing, I was told, to ill-treatment. As I spent a
month hunting all the district 40 miles inland from Lado and Kiro,
looked after by the two big Bari chiefs, Kenion and Fariala, I took
great interest in learning all I could, and, owing to my capitow
talking Arabic, the chiefs’ favourite language, I had excellent
chances for finding out all I wanted.

To my question as to whether many of their tribes went over the
river, and why, they replied: “A few boys ran away the other side,
but mostly bad boys who won’t work.” Asked again, if a few good men
went, and, if so, why, they answered: “English pay in money; some
boys, if once had money, like it better than being paid in cloth or
beads,” but no mention of ill-treatment.

Lord Cromer considers because the native villages happen at these
particular posts to be several hours’ distant, that this is also
owing to bad treatment. I wish to point out that the villages must
either be right on the Nile bank, or inland where they are, for
the whole country between is waterless during four months. Another
reason given for not living on the Nile was that in olden days the
few who did so were all killed or taken prisoners by the Dervishes;
hence the survivors kept clear of waterways.

Again, there are no sites for villages near the river, as nearly
all the banks, lying low, are covered with marsh and _sudd_,
harbouring millions of mosquitoes, whereas a few miles inland there
is good water, not a single mosquito, plenty of game, with good
grass and tillage land.

When I visited Gondokoro every one was complaining at having the
station on the Nile, instead of a few miles inland, for similar
reasons.

One of the wisest rules of the Congo is not to allow native
villages adjoining the posts; and I hear we are copying the same on
the West Coast; it means a reduction of 75 per cent. in sickness.

That no natives live near Lado arises from purely natural causes.
Lord Cromer would find plenty of posts in the interior, with
thousands of natives settled as near as they are allowed to.

Another statement, that “the soldiers are allowed full liberty to
plunder the natives,” is by no means correct. During my journey
I saw hundreds of soldiers being sent off on different work—such
as postal, Government despatches, fetching in porters, etc.; but
not one ever left without having received cloth, beads, or wire
sufficient to purchase all necessary food. I quite admit a few of
the soldiers helped themselves now and again, and I found the worst
sinners in this respect were our own Sierra Leone boys, a number of
whom take service in the Congo. Should their acts be reported they
are quickly dealt with.

During my trip I must have employed over 1200 porters. I can only
say I never came across a more cheerful, well-disposed set of men.
I never had the least trouble with them, though asking them to
march 30 and 40 miles a day. How often I thought of my woes and
worries in British Central Africa, never knowing how many porters
would run away each night, though only marching ten miles a day!
Had all the accounts of ill-treatment and non-payment been true,
would men have come in so readily and worked for me as these
carriers did? Many an hour at night I used to spend getting them
to talk about the country, its ways, and any grievances. I found,
naturally, two or three officers who were evidently disliked (no
doubt I will be added to that list after our long marches); but,
on the other hand, they talked of many officers as their “white
fathers.” As for the way in which the Belgians have opened out
the country, it is wonderful. The posts are now all well-built
brick houses, and in a few months’ time most of the barracks will
be similar; excellent roads connect many of the posts, while all
sorts of vegetables and fruit are being grown, cattle and sheep
also being introduced in many parts. Though I was told in Khartoum
by several of our officers who had been stationed on the frontier
how well the Lado Enclave was run, I was quite astonished at such
progress. I am glad to see my views are shared by Major Gibbons and
Captain Bell, both of whom have had chances of seeing life inland
from the Nile.

I met during my wanderings several English and American traders
having concessions both in Uganda and the Congo. These men have to
visit all the villages. They all said the same thing—that there was
nothing wrong with the Government of the Enclave. I also had a long
and interesting talk with Father Maguire, of the Roman Catholic
mission station at Amadi. He spoke most warmly in praise of the
work done by the Belgians in such a few years. He said: “Think of
what this country was only a few years ago, overrun with Dervishes,
decimated by the slave-dealers, the natives all cannibals—and now
you walk in here with only an umbrella as a protection.”

I can only add that I admire the excellent work being done by such
men as Commissioner General George Witerwulge, Commandants Ravello
(Lado), Menwnaer (Redjaf), Wacquez (Buta), Holmes (Dungu), Grazione
(Lodka), and all the many other officers, too numerous to mention,
who are quietly working hard, day after day, opening out those vast
regions to civilisation; and I shall never forget the kindness met
with at the hands of all, from the Nile to Boma.

I must apologise for trespassing on your valuable space, but if I
were to try and refute many of the statements I have seen in print
I should have to trespass considerably more.

Yours truly,
JAMES J. HARRISON.

Bachelors’ Club, London,
June 6th.

P. S.—Since writing the above I see in to-day’s _Morning Post_
quotations from some English trader in Matadi. He says: “From
all I hear, things up country are worse than ever. In the Mayumbe
country, behind Boma even, the State has begun collecting rubber by
force from the natives.”

As I happened to travel home on the same boat as Mr. Ave, an
American missionary, who has for some years been in charge of this
Mayumbe district, his statements to me may be of interest. Mr. Ave
said all these reports were untrue; that the district was governed
by an officer who was most kind and considerate in all his dealings
with the natives; that he had carefully readjusted the taxation
so as to fall as fairly as possible with regard to villages and
population of same; and that the officer was universally respected
by all the natives as a kind and just man. The same _Morning Post_
article seems to be slightly inconsistent. It quotes one Equatorial
missionary as saying that “the white man will be swept out of the
Congo and a revolution will take place within two years,” while
farther on it quotes the Matadi trader “as deprecating the founding
of a new post for 1,000 soldiers at Bomasundi.”

Surely, if the first assumption is correct, the wisdom of the
second is sound. I am glad to find since my return that few people
take notice of or believe those wonderful statements, copied from a
more wonderful paper—the _West African Mail_.

This is the way Major James Harrison a few days later demolishes a side issue raised by Mr. Morel. The letter is addressed to the Editor of the _Morning Post_ (London), and appeared in that journal of June 25, 1904:

Mr. Morel in your paper to-day himself answers the question asked
him by others, viz., Why has the Congo Reform Association noticed
my statements? If they were incorrect surely his letter would have
dealt with them, instead of which all he can say is that I am
attacking a man of Mr. Casement’s standing.

While quite ready to take full responsibility for any letter
or interview alluded to by Mr. Morel, I absolutely deny having
attacked the character of our Consul in any way, nor did I find
in Boma Belgian officers “showering abuse” on him. Like myself
they (and most people over here with whom I have discussed it)
did not think it a wise appointment, and certainly it placed Mr.
Casement in an awkward and unenviable position; but after all he
would only carry out his orders. But as to the travelling about on
a mission steamer I most strongly assert it was a most unfortunate
error. It is well known to all natives on which side most of the
Protestant and Baptist missionaries are, and to expect them to
give contradictory evidence in such circumstances was attributing
to them virtues unpossessed. I have noted Mr. Morel places much of
the Belgian evidence (say, the Epondo case) out of court for the
selfsame reasons. After the using of a mission steamer I hardly see
that any work Mr. Casement might have been interested in originally
could make any difference. Still, for his own sake it might be
wise if Mr. Morel stated exactly what occupations or duties he was
interested in, say, between 1885 and 1900. I trust Mr. Morel in his
next letter will deal more fully with my “absurdities” put forward
in my letter, and not have to simply try and find an imaginary
attack on a gentleman for whom, through mutual friends, I have
every respect.

My object in entering this Congo controversy is to try and
place before the English public a more broad-minded view of the
question, and while making allowances for the well-nigh insuperable
difficulties the Congo Government have had to contend with, at the
same time try to help on improvements for the future, rather than
dwell entirely on the past. I can assure Mr. Morel that I am by no
means alone in my “absurd views,” but will be supported by others
who have lately crossed the whole Congo State, blessed with an open
mind.

Yours, &c.,
JAMES J. HARRISON.

Bachelors’ Club, London,
June 24th.