Chapter XLII: Appendix: Treaty of VIVI (1)

M. August Sparhawk, agent of the International Expedition of the Upper Congo, acting in the name and for the account of the _Comité d’Études_, of the Lower Congo, and Vivi Mavungu, Vivi Mku, Ngusu Mpanda, Benzane Congo, Kapita, have come together the 13th of June, 1880, at the station Vivi, in order to discuss and to decide upon certain measures of common interest.

After full examination they have arrived at the dispositions and engagements which are embodied in the present treaty, to wit:

ARTICLE I.—The aforesaid chiefs of the district of Vivi recognise that it is highly desirable that the _Comité d’Études_ of the Congo should create and develop in their states establishments calculated to foster commerce and trade, and to assure to the country and its inhabitants the advantages which are the consequence thereof.

With this object they cede and abandon, in full property, to the _Comité d’Études_ the territory comprised within the following limits: To the west and north and east the left banks of the river Lulu, and to the south the districts of Kolu and Congo.

ART. II.—The chiefs of the district of Vivi solemnly declare that these territories form an integral part of their states, and that they are able freely to dispose of them.

ART. III.—The cession of the territories specified in the last paragraph of Article I is consented to in consideration of a present represented by the following articles and goods to each one: A uniform coat, a cap, a coral necklace, a knife; and a monthly gift to Vivi Mavungu of two pieces of cloth; to Vivi Mku of one piece of cloth; to Ngusu Mpanda, one piece of cloth; to Benzane Congo, one piece of cloth; to Kapita, one piece of cloth.

ART. IV.—The cession of the territory includes the abandonment by them and the transfer to the _Comité d’Études_ of all sovereign rights.

ART. V.—The _Comité d’Études_ engages itself expressly to leave to the natives the free enjoyment of the lands which they now cultivate to supply their needs. It promises to protect them and to defend their persons and their property against aggressions and encroachments, from whatsoever side, which shall attack their individual liberty or shall seek to take away from them the fruit of their labours.

ART. VI.—The chiefs of the district of Vivi grant, besides, to the _Comité d’Études_—

(1) The cession of all the routes of communication now open or to be opened throughout the whole extent of their states. If the _Comité_ deems it proper it shall have the right to establish and levy for its own profit tolls upon said routes, to defray the expenses incurred in their construction. The routes thus opened shall embrace, besides the routes properly so-called, a breadth of twenty metres right and left therefrom. This breadth constitutes part of the cession, and shall be, like the route itself, the property of the _Comité d’Études_.

(2) The right of trading freely with the natives who form part of their states.

(3) The right of cultivating unoccupied lands; to open up the forests; to cut trees; to gather india rubber, copal, wax, honey, and, generally, all the natural productions which are found there; to fish in the rivers and streams and water-courses, and to work the mines.

It is understood that the _Comité_ can exercise the several rights mentioned in the third paragraph throughout the whole extent of the states of the chiefs of Vivi.

ART. VII.—The chiefs of the district of Vivi undertake to unite their forces to those of the _Comité_ to repel attacks which may be made by intruders, no matter of what colour.

The chiefs, not knowing how to sign, have put their marks, in the presence of the witnesses hereafter designated and who have signed.

[Seal.] AUG. SPARHAWK.
[Seal.] JOHN KICKBRIGHT.
[Seal.] FRANK MAHONEY.
[Seal.] GEOFFREY.

TREATY OF MANYANGA

During the _palabre_ held at Manyanga the 12th of August, 1882, it is agreed between the members hereinafter designated of the Expedition of the Upper Congo:

Dr. Edward Pechuel Loesche, chief of the Expedition;
Capt. Edmund Hanssens, chief of the division of Leopold-Manyanga;
Lieut. Arthur Niles, chief of Manyanga;
First Lieut. Orban, deputy chief of Manyanga;
Edward Ceris, assistant of Pechuel, representing the _Comité_ of the
Upper Congo;

and the chiefs hereafter named of Manyanga—

Makito, of Kintamba;
Nkosi, of Kintamba;
Filankuni, of Kintamba;
Maluka, of Kintamba;
Kuakala, of Kintamba;
Mankatula, of Kintamba-Kimbuku;
Luamba, of Kintamba;

In the name of their subjects.

ARTICLE I.—Hereafter the territory of Manyanga, heretofore belonging to the chiefs before cited, situated north and south of the river, and bounded on the west by the stream Luseto, and by the stream Msua Mungua on the east, shall be the sole property of the _Comité d’Études_ of the Upper Congo.

ART. II.—The chiefs and their subjects, their villages, their plantations, their domestic animals, and fishing apparatus shall be placed under the protection of the Expedition.

ART. III.—In all political affairs of the populations of the district protected and acquired, their quarrels, differences, elections of chiefs, shall be submitted to the decision of the member of the Expedition who shall be present at the station.

If the people of Manyanga shall be attacked by neighbouring tribes, the Expedition shall defend their women and children and their property by all the means in their power. If the Expedition shall be attacked by another tribe, the men shall be bound to defend the station.

ART. IV.—In consequence of the rights acquired and protection afforded, no stranger whatsoever can build or open a road or carry on commerce in the territory of Manyanga.

ART. V.—At the request of the chief of the station, the chief of the district shall put at his disposition the necessary number of labourers, men or women, for the work of the station and the service of the caravans.

ART. VI.—Besides the sum stipulated, which has been remitted in goods to the assembled chiefs in payment for their territories, and for which they have given a receipt, the chiefs shall receive monthly presents on condition that they remain true friends and voluntarily perform the services asked of them.

ART. VII.—The first chief of Manyanga, Makito, residing at Kintamba, receives the flag of the Expedition, which he will raise in his village in sign of the protection exercised by the Expedition.

[Here follow the crosses and signatures.]

TREATY OF LEOPOLDVILLE

29th of April, 1883.

We, the undersigned, chiefs of the district of N’Kamo, of Kuiswangi, of Kimpe, and of all the districts extending from the river Congo to Leopoldville and to Ntamo, up to the river Lutess and the mountains of Sama Sankori, have resolved to put ourselves, as well as our heirs and descendants, under the protection and patronage of the _Comité d’Études_ of the Upper Congo, and to give power to its representative at Miamo to regulate all disputes and conflicts that may arise between us and foreigners of whatsoever colour, residing out of the district or territory of N’Kamo, in order to prevent strangers, animated by wicked intentions or ignorant of our customs, from exciting embarrassments or endangering the peace and security and independence which we now enjoy.

By the present act we also resolve to adopt the flag of the _Comité d’Études_ of the Upper Congo, as a sign for each and all of us that we are under its sole protection.

We also solemnly and truly declare that this is the only contract we have ever made, and that we will never make any contract with any European or African without the concurrence and agreement of the _Comité d’Études_ of the Upper Congo.

To the above resolution we freely put our marks.

NGALIEMA, his X mark.
MAKARI, his X mark.
NUMBI, his X mark.
MANWALE, his X mark.
NYASKO, his X mark.

TREATY WITH THE KING OF NIADI

STEPHANIEVILLE

Between, on the one side, Captain John Grant Elliott, commissioner
and representative of the _Comité d’Études_ of the Upper Congo,
and, on the other hand, M’Wuln M’Boomga, King of Niadi, in his
own name, and in that of his heirs and successors, the following
contract has been made and signed in the presence of the witnesses
whose signatures are below given:

ARTICLE I.—The party first named engages himself to make to the second party named above an immediate payment of 60 yards of _savelist_, 20 pieces of superior stuffs, 8 pieces of ratteen stuff, and a keg of powder. He, moreover, engages to make to the above-named party of the second part, his heirs and successors, a monthly payment, which shall commence in four months, with arrears from the date of this contract, of four pieces of stuffs, and to continue always this payment, if, in compensation therefor, the party of the second part, in his name and in that of his heirs and successors, makes an absolute and immediate sale of a certain portion of territory sketched further on, described in Art. II., the territory selected by the first-named party, and over which the flag of the _Comité d’Études_ of the Upper Congo, that is to say, a blue flag with a yellow star in the centre, has been raised.

ART. II.—The country ceded by the above-named article is described below, and accepted by the contracting parties, Captain John Grant Elliott and the King.

1. Six miles towards the west, from the junction of the Niadi and the Ludema, and following the banks of the Niadi (Niari).

2. Ten miles from the same confluence, towards the south, and following the banks of the Ludema.

3. Ten miles towards the east, from the confluence above named, and following the course of the Niadi (Niari).

4. Ten miles towards the south, from the same confluence, and following the Ludema.

5. Ten miles to the north of the Niadi (Niari), on each side from that point of the Niadi opposite the mouth of the Ludema, running back five miles towards the north.

GRANT ELLIOTT,
WULN M’BOOMGA.

Witnesses:

VON SHAUMANN,
LEGAT,
DESTRAIN.

OTHER TREATIES, DISTRICTS CEDED, AND STATIONS CREATED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE CONGO, AND WHICH FORM THE CHIEF
PLACES OF THE STATES POSSESSED BY THIS ASSOCIATION ON THE CONGO AND
ON THE NIADI KWILU IN THE YEAR 1883.

Stations: Vivi, Isanghila, Manyanga, Lutete, Leopoldville, Msuata, Bolobo, Rudolfstadt, Baudoinville, Franktown, Stanley Niadi, Stephanieville, Anvers, Gideemba, Lukolela, Equateur, Philippeville, Bulangungu, Mboka, Mkula, Grantville, Massabe.

Treaties and Districts ceded: Vivi, Yellala, Sala Kidougo, Ganghila, Sadika Banzi, Ingha, N’Sanda, Kionzo, N’Bambi M’bongo, Talaballa, Issanghila, Ndambi M’bongo, M’Kelo, Fua na Sondy, Konimovo M’Bongo, Yanga, Kamsalou, M’binda, Sakali Boadi, Tchouma Ranga, Tombukile, Ngoma, N’Zadi, Tchincala, Banza ngombi, Manyanga, Bandanga, Banza, M’bou, Sello, Loufountchou, Kimbanda, Ngombi, Leopoldville, Kimpoko, Kinshassa, Kintambou, Souvoulou, M’bala, Woutimi (south), Woutimi (north), Msuata, Bolobo, Matchibouga, Tchissanga, Kitabi, Zientu, Mengo, Franktown, Goudou, Ganda, Fouindoukifout, Makouba Banga, Sitambe, Bieba, Moyby, Matalila, N’Zombo, Ganda Kobombo, Mabuka, Chinnifor, Mudenda, Nyange, Lubu, Zoa, N’Gewlla Chunikonbo, M’Gwella, Sangha, Charli, Mikasse, Moulangas, Mackanga, Ludema, Ungoonga, Buconzo, Matenda, Tanga Dibiconga, Licarnga, Bumianga, Chibanda N’Kuni, Kingi, Anversland, Buda, Towha, Gideemba, Sushwangi.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

_March 26, 1884—Ordered to be printed_

Mr. Morgan, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following

REPORT

(To accompany S. Res. 68 and Mis. Doc. 59)

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom were referred Senate Mis. Doc. No. 59 and Senate Joint Resolution 68, relating to the occupation of the Congo Country, in Africa, have had the same under consideration, and report a substitute for the same, and recommend its passage.

The President, in his annual message to this Congress, expresses the sentiment of the people of the United States on the subject of our future relations with the inhabitants of the valley of the Congo, in Africa.

Our attitude towards that country is exceptional, and our interest in its people is greatly enhanced by the fact that more than one-tenth of our population is descended from the negro races in Africa.

The people of the United States, with but little assistance from the Government, have established a free republic in Liberia, with a constitution modelled after our own, and under the control of the negro race. Its area is 14,300 square miles; its population is about 1,200,000 souls; its commerce is valuable; its government is successful, and its people are prosperous.

The necessity for a negro colony in Liberia was suggested by the fact that slaves found in vessels captured for violations of the slave-trade laws and treaties were required to be returned to Africa when that was practicable, and it was impossible, and it would have been useless and cruel, to send them back to the localities where they were first enslaved. Humanity prompted certain private citizens of the United States to organise the American Colonisation Society in aid of the return of captured slaves to Africa and to find a congenial asylum and home for negroes who were emancipated in the United States.

Henry Clay was, for many years, president of this association, and assisted it with the influence of his great name and broad philanthropy.

The success of the Liberian colony has demonstrated the usefulness of that system of dealing with a social question which is, to the people of the United States, of the highest importance. It has also established a recognised precedent in favour of the right of untitled individuals to found states in the interests of civilisation in barbarous countries, through the consent of the local authorities, and it has given confidence to those who look to the justice of the nations for a restoration of the emancipated Africans to their own country, if they choose to return to it.

This great duty has, so far, been left entirely to the efforts of citizens of the United States, and it has been supported almost exclusively by their personal contributions. The governments of the world have been slow even to recognise the state thus founded by the courage and means of private citizens, but it is now firmly established in the family of nations and is everywhere recognised as a free and independent nation.

This pleasing history of progress, attended with peace and prosperity in Liberia, has given rise to a feeling of earnest interest amongst the people of the United States in the questions which arise from the recent discovery by their countryman, H. M. Stanley, of the great river which drains equatorial Africa. They rejoice in the revelation that this natural highway affords navigation for steamers extending more than half the distance across the continent, and opens to civilisation the valley of the Congo, with its 900,000 square miles of fertile territory and its 50,000,000 of people, who are soon to become most useful factors in the increase of the productions of the earth and in swelling the volume of commerce.

The movements of the International African Association which, with a statement of its purposes, are referred to in the letter of the Secretary of State, appended to this report, are in the direction of the civilisation of the negro population of Africa, by opening up their country to free commercial relations with foreign countries.

As a necessary incident of this praiseworthy work, which is intended, in the broadest sense, for the equal advantage of all foreign nations seeking trade and commerce in the Congo country, the African International Association has acquired, by purchase from the native chiefs, the right of occupancy of several places for their stations and depots. The property so acquired is claimed only for the association, which is composed of persons from various countries, and it could not, therefore, be placed under the shelter of any single foreign flag.

From the time when the people of Christian countries began to export slaves from Africa, the custom grew up of locating “barracoons” or slave depots along the African coasts and rivers, and they were each placed under the shelter of the flag of the country to which the slave merchants belonged. In this way certain settlements were made along the shores of the Congo River as far inland as Yellalla Falls, and were claimed and held under the protection of the respective flags of the countries from which these traders came.

This was, generally, a mere personal adventure, and had no relation to any governmental authority of those countries over the barracoons. When this traffic took the shape of legitimate commerce with the natives, these places were called factories, and they gradually assumed certain powers of self-government as their necessities required. Each factory was independent of the control of all others, and established for itself such regulations, having really the effect of laws, as were necessary to protect life and property. To this day those settlements are held in the same way, and while the governments, whose flags are thus displayed over them, claim no sovereignty there, they do not recognise the rights of their people at such places as entitling them to protection, and they require their flags to be respected.

In some instances the native chiefs sold the lands on which the factories were situated, with the privileges of trade to foreign companies, and these in turn sold them to persons of still other nationalities.

The African International Association established its stations, and opened roads leading from one to another around the falls of the Congo in the same way that the older factories had been established, with the additional fact in their favour that their settlements were always preceded by an open agreement with the local government in the form of a treaty. A flag was as necessary for the purposes of their settlement and as an indication of their right and to designate the places under their control, as it was to the slave-traders, whose only advantage is that they have been in possession a long time for the purposes of nefarious traffic in slaves, while the Association has been in possession only a short time for the benign purposes of introducing civilisation into that country.

Having no foreign flag that they could justly claim, they adopted a flag and displayed it, a golden star in a field of blue, the symbol of hope to a strong but ignorant people, and of prosperity through peace. The native people instinctively regarded that as the first banner they had seen that promised them goodwill and security, and they readily yielded to it their confidence.

There is no historical record to be found of such a rapid and general assembling of separate and independent rulers under a banner that was raised by the hands of strangers, as that which took place amongst the chiefs and people of the Free States of the Congo. Within five years from the time the banner of this Association was first displayed on the Congo, its agents have made nearly one hundred treaties with the chiefs of the different tribes in the Congo country. In each of these treaties there are valuable commercial agreements and regulations touching law and order and certain delegations of limited powers, all of which are intended for the better government of the country.

The powers are not ceded to a new and usurping sovereignty seeking to destroy existing governments, but are delegated to a common agent for the common welfare. In the language of the first treaty, concluded at Vivi June 13, 1880, and which is the plan after which nearly one hundred subsequent treaties have been modelled:

“The aforesaid chiefs of the district of Vivi recognise that it is highly desirable that the _Comité d’Études_ of the Congo should create and develop in their states establishments calculated to foster commerce and trade, and to assure to the country and its inhabitants the advantages which are the consequence thereof.

“With this object in view they cede and abandon, in full property (fee-simple) to the _Comité d’Études_, the territory comprised within the following limits,” etc.

A copy of this treaty is appended to the report of the committee.

If these local governments had the right to make these concessions, so much sovereign power as they confer upon the African International Association is entitled to recognition by other nations as justifying its claim to existence as a government _de jure_. Or, if there is still a question as to its sovereignty, affecting either its territorial extent or the subjects as to which it may legislate, there is still enough of concert amongst the native tribes, in placing themselves in treaty relations with this Association, to warrant other nations in recognising its existence as a government _de facto_. In either case, it is our duty so to recognise it, because its purposes, as avowed in those treaties, are peaceful, and commend themselves strongly to the sympathies of our people.

The golden star of the banner of the International Association represents hospitality to the people and commerce of all nations in the Free States of the Congo; civilisation, order, peace, and security to the persons and property of those who visit the Congo country, as well as to its inhabitants; and if, in the promotion of these good purposes, it lawfully represents powers ceded or delegated to the Association by the local governments necessary to make them effectual, it does not thereby offend against humanity nor unlawfully usurp authority in derogation of the rights of any nation upon the earth.

Powers asserted in good faith, and with a reasonable show of ability to maintain them, even by rebels, within a state that denounces their assertion as treasonable, are often recognised as being lawful, as well in the interests of humanity, as to give to the alleged rebels an opportunity to make good their pretensions by arms.

The history of our recent civil war discloses the recognition of the belligerent rights of the Confederate States by all nations, including the United States, which wholly denied the lawfulness of the acts of secession which led to hostilities and denounced them as treasonable.

If the flag of the Confederate States could protect its armed citizens against the penalties of piracy while destroying the ships and commerce of the United States, it would be difficult to state a reason why the flag of the International African Association should not protect its ships from capture and condemnation while carrying on peaceful commerce on the Congo. It would be still more difficult for any Christian nation to assign a reason founded in the principles of international law why it should refuse to recognise this flag. The Congo River has been for centuries, and is now, the common resort of the ships and flags of all countries, and it requires a total change of the political conditions in that country to destroy this right, and either to declare the waters and shores of the Congo as being neutral territory or as being under the sovereignty of any one or more of the foreign nations.

These reasons, and others which appear in the papers appended to this report, are a just and sufficient foundation for the declaration by the United States which individualises the flag of the African International Association as a national flag, entitled to our recognition and respect.

The precedents in our own history to justify our recognition of states while in the process of early development are numerous and conclusive. They are cited in the papers appended to this report, and are sustained by many other references which show that in Europe, Asia, and Africa civil power, exerted by commercial associations, and by religious orders, and by propagandas of civilisation, and by groups of Hospitallers, has owned large war fleets and raised armies, fought great battles, levied taxes, and performed every function of government. They did all this without claiming to possess sovereign power as organised nations; and they submitted themselves to the authority of the state after they had prepared the country where they ruled for that final act of establishment of sovereign power, and then they ceased to exist.

It is not necessary to go further in order to find a justification of the action suggested in the message of the President, and of the resolution which the Committee on Foreign Relations recommend as a proper means of carrying into effect this policy concerning the Free States of the Congo.

It is, however, proper to make some examination of the alleged claim of Portugal to the sovereignty of the mouth of the Congo, and of the riparian country as far into the interior as the first falls of Yellalla.

Portugal’s pretensions to this sovereignty are completely refuted by the fact that it has not been heretofore acknowledged by the five great powers whose flags have been flying for more than a century in the country now claimed by that Government. On the contrary, these powers have constantly refused to make any such concession on all occasions since 1786, and some of them previous to that time.

The claim of Portugal, based on discovery of the mouth of the Congo by Diego Cam in 1485, and by his having erected a monument on the shore to testify to his landing there, only establishes its antiquity and not its rightfulness under modern interpretations of the laws of nations.

If the laws of Christian nations give any effect to the discovery by the subjects of a Christian power, of a country inhabited even by savages, they also require that discovery shall be followed by continuous subsequent occupation. If such occupation ceases, it is justly considered as being abandoned, since the only foundation of reason or of justice that can support the occupation of an inhabited country by a foreign power is, that it is better that the savages should have the advantages of Christian instruction and laws, than that they should continue in darkness to rule the country in their own way. If, therefore, the Christian ruler should cease to occupy the country, it must be considered that he abandons his duty, and, with it, the sovereignty of the country.

Portugal did not exert continuous or exclusive authority on the Congo for any great while; her possessions there, as well as those of the other Christian powers, fluctuated with the supply of slaves, the capture or purchase of which was the chief inducement to these settlements. They all followed up the supply of slaves from the interior of Africa, along the coast, according to its abundance, as the fishermen visit different localities in search of better fishing grounds.

In 1786, disputes having arisen between France and Portugal, as to the sovereignty of the latter over the mouth of the Congo, under the mediation of the King of Spain, Portugal conceded the point that her rights in that country were not exclusive. Since that time England has repeatedly denied, in the most formal and solemn manner, that Portugal had any sovereignty or suzerainty over the Congo country. None of the great powers claimed such sovereignty for themselves, nor have they conceded it to Portugal; their occupancy has not been such as implied any right to rule the country, but only such as was necessary to carry on trade. That is equally free to all nations. In the papers appended to this report, and especially in the valuable testimony of Earl Mayo, based upon his personal observations in the Congo country in 1882, we find the most conclusive proof upon all the points above stated, and unquestionable evidence that Portugal’s northernmost boundary on the West Coast of Africa, south of the Equator, for many years past, has been the river Loge.

The attitude of Great Britain towards the pretensions of Portugal to the sovereignty of the Lower Congo has been that of decided, frequent, and stern denial, accompanied with distinct orders to her fleets to repel any advance of Portugal to assert her authority north of Ambriz. This record, so repeatedly reaffirmed, is by no means changed by the fact that Great Britain may now be ready to admit Portugal, in alliance with her, to sovereign rights in the Lower Congo. Her change of policy cannot change the facts, especially when Great Britain obtains from Portugal the cession of Wydha in consideration that she will acknowledge the rights of Portugal to the sovereignty of the Lower Congo. Great Britain has also made treaties with fifteen tribes in the Lower Congo country, paying no attention to Portugal’s claims of sovereignty there.

In like manner France has disregarded these pretensions, and has made treaties with tribes north of the Congo. De Brazza, an enterprising explorer, went into that region of Africa as an agent of the African International Association, and also as an agent of the French Government, and was supported with money from the French treasury. He made these treaties in the name of France, and the Chamber of Deputies has ratified them. In view of these facts it can scarcely be denied that the native chiefs have the right to make treaties. The able and exhaustive statements and arguments of Sir Travers Twiss, the eminent English jurist, and of Professor Arntz, the no less distinguished Belgian publicist, which are appended to this report, leave no doubt upon the question of the legal capacity of the African International Association, in view of the laws of nations, to accept any powers belonging to these native chiefs and governments which they may choose to delegate or cede to them.

The practical question to which they give an affirmative answer, for reasons which appear to be indisputable, is this: Can independent chiefs of savage tribes cede to private citizens (persons) the whole or part of their states, with the sovereign rights which pertain to them, conformably to the traditional customs of the country?

The doctrine advanced in this proposition, and so well sustained by these writers, accords with that held by the Government of the United States, that the occupants of a country at the time of its discovery by other and more powerful nations have the right to make the treaties for its disposal, and that private persons, when associated in such country, for self-protection or self-government, may treat with the inhabitants for any purpose that does not violate the laws of nations.

The following incidents, mentioned in Bancroft’s _History of the United States_, show how much we owe, as a people, to the early recognition of these doctrines:

“MASSACHUSETTS

“One day in March, 1621, Samoset, an Indian, who had learned a little English of the fishermen at Penobscot, entered the town, and, passing to the rendezvous, exclaimed in English, ‘Welcome, Englishmen!’ He was the envoy of Massasoit himself, the greatest commander of the country, sachem of the tribe possessing the land north of Narragansett Bay, and between the rivers of Providence and Taunton. After some little negotiation, in which an Indian who had been carried to England acted as interpreter, the chieftain came in person to visit the Pilgrims. With their wives and children they amounted to no more than fifty. He was received with due ceremonies, and a treaty of friendship was completed in few and unequivocal terms. Both parties promised to abstain from mutual injuries, and to deliver up offenders; the colonists were to receive assistance, if attacked; to render it, if Massasoit should be attacked unjustly. The treaty included the confederates of the sachem; it is the oldest act of diplomacy recorded in New England; it was concluded in a day, and was sacredly kept for more than half a century.”—(Bancroft’s _History of the United States_, p. 210.)

“The men of Plymouth exercised self-government without the sanction of a royal charter, which it was ever impossible for them to obtain.”—(_Ibid._, p. 213.)

“The attempt to acquire the land on Narragansett Bay was less deserving of success.... In 1641 a minority of the inhabitants, wearied with harassing disputes, requested the interference of the magistrates of Massachusetts, and two sachems near Providence surrendered the soil to the jurisdiction of that State.”—(_Ibid._, p. 287.)

“PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS AND RHODE ISLAND

“In June (1636) the law-giver of Rhode Island (Roger Williams), with five companies, embarked on the stream; a frail Indian canoe contained the founder of an independent State and its earliest citizens. Tradition has marked the spring of water near which they landed. To express unbroken confidence in the mercies of God, he called the place Providence.... The land which he occupied was within the territory of the Narragansetts. In March, 1636, an Indian deed from Canonicus and Miantonomoh made him the undisputed possessor of an extensive domain; but he ‘always stood for liberty and equality both in land and government.’ The soil became his ‘own as truly as any man’s coat upon his back’; and he ‘reserved to himself not one foot of land, not one tittle of political power, more than he granted to servants and strangers.’ He gave away his lands and other estates to them that he thought most in want until he gave away all.”—(_Ibid._, p. 254.)

“Before the month (March, 1638) was at an end, the influence of Roger Williams and the name of Henry Vane prevailed with Miantonomoh, the chief of the Narragansetts, to make them a gift of the beautiful island of Rhode Island.... A patent from England was necessary for their security; and in September they obtained it through the now powerful Henry Vane.”—(_Ibid._, p. 263.)

“CONNECTICUT

“In equal independence a Puritan colony sprang up at New Haven, under the guidance of John Davenport as its pastor, and of his friend the excellent Theophilus Eaton.... In April, 1638, the colonists held their first gathering under a branching oak.... A title to lands was obtained by a treaty with the natives whom they protected against the Mohawks.”—(_Ibid._, p. 271.)

“NEW HAMPSHIRE

“At the fall of the leaf in 1635, a band of twelve families, toiling through thickets of ragged bushes and clambering over crossed trees, made their way along Indian paths to the green meadows of Concord. A tract of land six miles square was purchased for the planters of the squaw sachem and a chief, to whom, according to Indian laws of property, it belonged.”—(_Ibid._, p. 271.)

“NORTH CAROLINA

“In 1660 or 1661 New England men had found their way into the Cape Fear River, had purchased of the Indian chief a title to the soil, and had planted a little colony of herdsmen far to the south of any English settlement on the continent.”—(_Ibid._, p. 409.)

“It is known that in 1662 the chief of a tribe of Indians granted to George Durant the neck of land which still bears his name.”—(_Ibid._, p. 410.)

* * * * *

We owe it as a duty to our African population that we should endeavour to secure to them the right to freely return to their fatherland, and as freely to agree with their kindred people upon any concessions they may choose to make to them as individuals or as associated colonists, looking to their re-establishment in their own country. The deportation of their ancestors from Africa in slavery was contrary to the now accepted canons of the laws of nations, and now they may return under those laws to their natural inheritance. In exercising this right they should not be obstructed by a power that had more to do with their enslavement and expulsion, in bondage, from their own country than any other, and that never held a claim upon that country for any purpose of advantage to the people there, but held it chiefly, if not entirely, for the mere purpose of enslaving them.

It is stated, with the support of strong testimony, that Portugal is still protecting the slave trade on the West Coast of Africa under a thin guise of the voluntary emigration of the negroes to other countries.

Extracts appended to this report, from Earl Mayo’s _De Rebus Africanus_, in which he gives an account of his personal examination, in 1882, of the Portuguese trading posts, supported by the report of M. du Verge, our United States consul at St. Paul de Loando, show that slavery still exists in the country claimed by Portugal on the Congo, and is fostered there and at St. Paul de Loando by the Portuguese residents.

This violation of the slave-trade treaties renders the occupancy by Portugal of any African territory at the mouth of the Congo dangerous to all the tribes of the interior, and cannot be sanctioned by the treaty powers while it is attended with such incidents without an abandonment of all treaty obligations and duties relating to the slave trade.

The importance of the Congo River to the continent of Africa as a channel through which civilisation and all its attendant advantages will be introduced into a region inhabited by 50,000,000 of people cannot be too highly estimated.

After Stanley had made his journey of exploration of nearly 7000 miles across the continent of Africa, and had revealed to the world the extent and importance of this great river Congo, all the great commercial nations at once began to look earnestly in that direction for a new and most inviting field of commerce, and with the high and noble purpose of opening it freely to the equal enjoyment of all nations alike.

The merchants of Europe and America insist upon this equal and universal right of free trade with that country, and their Chambers of Commerce have earnestly pressed upon their respective Governments the duty and necessity of such international agreements as would secure these blessings to the people of Africa and of the entire commercial world.

The enlightened King of the Belgians has supplied the means from his private purse to inaugurate civilisation in the Congo country under the authority of its native rulers. He has no thought of extending the power of his realm over that country, but has engaged in this movement only as any citizen might.

Its progress is thus further described by an agent of the African International Association in a letter within the past month:

“BRUSSELS, February 25.

* * * * *

“Our territories are extending now on a very rich coast south and north of the mouths of the Quillou, a distance of more than 350 kilometres (about 300 miles).

“That coast has given itself to us by unanimous acclamation of the natives, who hoisted our flag and refused our presents.

“Our territories are going to be divided into three provinces: (1) Coast and Quillou Madi; (2) Lower Congo, Vivi, Stanley Pool; (3) Upper Congo.

“Our governmental organisations will then be complete: in Africa, a head chief and governors administering the country and justice: in Europe, the association providing for the financial wants of the new State, and representing the new state and many native sovereigns who have confederated with us and hoisted our flag.

“This is the present situation and prospects of the enterprise.”

* * * * *

It may be safely asserted that no barbarous people have ever so readily adopted the fostering care of benevolent enterprise as have the tribes of the Congo, and never was there a more honest and practical effort made to increase their knowledge and secure their welfare.

The people of the Congo country and their benefactors alike deserve the friendly recognition of the United States in their new national character.

Your committee, therefore, report a substitute for the resolutions referred to them by the Senate, and recommend its passage.

(From the _Revue de Droit International_)

THE FREE NAVIGATION OF THE CONGO

BY SIR TRAVERS TWISS

The Congress of Vienna inaugurated a new era in the reciprocal relations of European states, by laying down the principle that these relations should be subordinated to the interests of the European community in case of conflict between the individual interests of the states and that which is just in an international point of view. It is a fact, which is apparent to every attentive observer of the great political evolutions of our century, that it is more and more perceived that the community of nations create obligations towards it, and that the empire of this community over the states which form part of it has several times obtained formal sanction by means of conferences whose protocols point out to us the considerations which dominated their counsels. These protocols form declarations of which all the participants are the sureties. We are proud of modern civilisation. We congratulate ourselves upon the progress of international law among civilised nations. We are therefore justified, it seems to me, in asking of the states which participate in the European concert of public law, whether it would not be possible to assert this principle of duty towards the community of states as a means of solving the question of the Congo, without awaiting the stern necessity of intervening to put an end to war, or, at the least, the occasion of offering mediation to avert a recourse to the sad arbitrament of the sword. The Congo question is in the condition of a young tropical plant, whose germ has not yet commenced to develop, but which will perhaps assume suddenly unexpected proportions.

I have already treated of the free navigation of the Lower Congo, but I have omitted, or at least only glanced at the idea of an international protectorate, under the _ægis_ of which a _modus vivendi_ could be established upon a solid basis of stipulated right, among the diverse nationalities whose flags float over the factories of Banana Creek, at the entrance of the Congo, and thus proclaim the cosmopolitan character of the settlement. Ascending the channel of the river, Punto da Lenha is reached, where a _pentarchy_, so to say, of European flags equally affirms the cosmopolitan character of the port, and gives notification that the individual interests which prevail there rest under the protection of five states. Formerly, a common end, the slave trade, was the only bond which united those diverse nationalities in a kind of commercial fraternity. To-day there exists between them a law of usage, intended to regulate their common interests; but this usage leaves much to be desired, and it does not control the private life of the residents of each factory, who are free to regulate, according to their own pleasure, their relations with the natives. In fact, there does not exist social order, properly so called, among the factories; there is no collective will among their members, no authority which they are bound to obey, and one may say, “_Ubi nulla societas, ibi nullum jus._” The sad truth of this axiom is confirmed by the stories of frightful cruelties committed upon the natives in the year 1877, an account of which can be found in the dispatches of the English consuls to their Government. (_Parliamentary Papers_, Africa, No. 2, 1883.)

M. Moynier, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, at Geneva, called the attention of the Institute of International Law, during its last session at Munich, to the question of the Congo, and the readers of the _Review_ will remember the proposition which M. Emile de Laveleye developed thereupon (pp. 254-262), asking, in the interests of humanity, that the waters of the Congo should be neutralised by European action. M. Moynier had already treated of this subject at the Institute in Paris, in September, 1878; but it was not expected at that time that the majestic course of waters explored by Stanley in 1877 would soon become the object of dangerous rivalries. The result has proved that the whites, who have formed many stations upon the Upper Congo and its affluents, have already run the risk of being engaged in competitions which may disturb the good feeling between the newcomers and the natives, to whom European civilisation should bring only benefits. The arrival at Stanley Pool of a French expedition which ascended the channel of the river Ogouve, from the affluents of the Congo, has introduced upon the banks of the Upper Congo the representative of a European Government, who has taken possession, in the name of France, of a territory ceded by the native chiefs of the country.

It is evident from the very nature of things that the question of the Congo may properly be divided into two parts, for the Lower Congo is already subjected to an order of things entirely exceptional, in which five European nations participate. This condition of affairs was based originally upon a common traffic in slaves, to which has succeeded a legitimate trade with the natives—a commerce in which the European nations take part in a perfectly independent manner, each for itself. In spite of that, there is on the Lower Congo, because of these nationalities, a certain solidarity of interest which counsels a common accord upon the subject of the navigation and the police of the river. But, as I have before said, as far as regards criminal jurisdiction, the whites of each factory regard themselves as independent, and not as responsible to any Government whatsoever.

The Upper Congo, on the contrary, bathes the territories of many native tribes. Their chiefs have granted stations to the agents of the International Association, which depend upon no European sovereign, but which are modelled upon certain institutions of the Middle Ages, to enable the population of barbarous Africa to participate in the advantages of European civilisation. All the stations which this Association possesses have been acquired peaceably by treaties with sovereign chiefs of the country. It governs them by intelligent men, belonging to all European nationalities. And, moreover, it has hoisted over these stations a flag which signifies that they belong to no especial nation, but that they form part of an International Association founded in the interests of the natives, and which represents all countries interested in the progress of humanity. A single European nation has entered this humanitarian arena, and that is the French Republic, which, in accepting, as a European State, the cession of territory made to M. Savorgnan de Brazza, has notified the civilised world that France has not sought to put private interests in opposition to the general interests of civilisation, represented in Africa by a flag, the principal merit of which is precisely that of not being the flag of any one power. (See Report presented by the Government of the Republic to the Chamber of Deputies, 20th November, 1882.)

“Neither in the spirit of your Commission [it is there said] nor in the views of the Government, is there any purpose at this moment to go upon the banks of the Congo, or upon the neighbouring shores with military array, but simply to found scientific, hospitable, and commercial stations, without other military force than may be strictly necessary for the protection of the establishments successively created.”

Unfortunately, the appearance of a European national flag upon the banks of Stanley Pool raised the question whether the agent of an association which had not the political character of a State, could, by a cession of the actual Sovereign of the country, acquire and exercise the sovereignty of a territory situated outside of Europe. I say _outside of Europe_, because we do not seek to find the solution of such a problem, as affecting Africa or Asia, in the existing political condition of affairs in Europe, nor in the fixed regulations of European society, upon which that condition of things rests, but in the unwritten law of nations, which should regulate the relations between free peoples, no matter to what family they belong, nor what religion they profess. Yet the practice of Europe, while Christianity was seeking to accomplish the high mission of civilising the barbarous races on the northern and eastern frontiers, merits our attention, because of a certain analogy between the condition of those frontiers in the eleventh century, and the present condition of Equatorial Africa.

In order, therefore, to appreciate the action of the International African Association, and to fathom the question whether this action is without precedent in the action of European peoples, it will be profitable, in the first place, to study the archives of a period when Europe was not entirely Christian, and when Christianity made a propaganda among the native pagan tribes who at that time inhabited a part of the country which we now call Prussia. This study will bring to our knowledge the action of an international association which accomplished the civilisation of a country inhabited by people who might be called savages, and, at the same time, will furnish a refutation of the assertion put forth by certain publicists that States alone can exercise the rights of sovereignty.

M. de Laveleye, before cited, has made allusion to the Teutonic Order as an institution for the propagation of civilisation, which, in the Middle Ages, carried civilisation to the populations on the borders of the Baltic and cemented them to the rest of Europe. The action of this famous order in regard to the acquisition of the sovereignty of a barbarous country has an important analogy to the action of the International African Association.

Thus this order was originally a charitable association of Germans which the citizens of the free cities of Bremen and Lubeck instituted at the siege of St. Jean d’Acre, during the Fourth Crusade. Afterwards, this association constituted itself into an order of chivalry towards the end of the twelfth century, and, after the religious enthusiasm to which the Crusades had given birth had ceased to inflame the nations of Southern Europe, the order established itself at Culm, in the country which is now called Western Prussia, where Conrad, Duke of Massovie, of the Polish Dynasty of the Piasts, ceded to it a territory and assured to it the conquests it might make over the idolatrous Prussians. The order by gradual steps established its dominion with Christianity over the whole of Prussia. The city of Konigsberg, upon the Pregel, was built by it in 1255, and the city of Marienbourg, upon the Nougat, which became afterwards the capital of the order, dates its foundation back to the year 1276.[57]

Another order, that of the Chevalier’s Sword-Bearers (_Ensiferri_), was established in Livonia, where, finding itself too weak to sustain the attacks of the pagans, it ended by uniting itself to the Teutonic Order. This union rendered the Teutonic Order so powerful it was able to establish its authority over the whole of Prussia, Courland, and Senegal, and from the annalists of that time we learn that in converting the people to Christianity the Teutonic Order subjected them to an exceedingly hard yoke. The Teutonic Order maintained itself in the sovereignty of this country until the middle of the fifteenth century, when it was subjected to great territorial losses in a war against Poland, and was compelled to become the vassal of the King of Poland for East Prussia. It is upon the embers of this order that the Prussian monarchy was established by the courage of the descendants of Duke Albert of Brandenbourg, grand master of the order, the first Duke of Prussia.

It is to be observed that, during all this time that this order was sovereign, it was not recognised as a State, and that the master of Livonia was not admitted to a sitting and vote among the States of the German Empire until after this order had ceased to be sovereign.

The City of Dantzic was, for two centuries, up to 1454, the maritime capital of the order, and it may be said that the Teutonic Order was the supreme power during two centuries on the shores of the Eastern Baltic, without being organised as a State.[58]

On the other hand, in the south of Europe, there was an order of chivalry whose services to civilisation in defending Christian countries against the invasions of the Arabs and the Turks are more famous even than those of the Teutonic Order. I refer to the sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem. This order, originally founded for the service of the hospital of St. John at Jerusalem, quitted the holy city at the commencement of the fourteenth century and established itself in the island of Rhodes to defend the frontiers of Christianity against the attacks of the Saracens. Then it had to give up the island of Rhodes to the Turks, and it established itself in the island of Malta, of which it obtained the territorial sovereignty as a gift from the Emperor, Charles V., in 1530. Even this order adopted a territorial title, that of the Order of Chevaliers of Malta, and maintained its sovereignty over this island until the year 1798. The English having soon after become masters of the island by conquest from the French, it was proposed by the Congress of Amiens, the 27th March, 1802, to restore the fortress of Malta to the Order of St. John, and to put the independence of the island under the guarantee of the powers uniting in that congress. This project failed. At the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, the Order of Malta demanded to be provided with another sovereign establishment in the Mediterranean suitable for the institution of the order, and that its independence and neutrality should be guaranteed by all the powers. The congress would not listen to this demand.