Handed to the Acting Secretary of State by the Belgian Minister, July 24, 1908.
On April 162 last the King’s Government received, through the United States minister at Brussels, the second memorandum addressed [Page 575] to it by the American Government regarding the forthcoming annexation of the Independent State of the Kongo by Belgium. The document had been drawn up by the Cabinet of Washington after an exchange of views with the Government of His Britannic Majesty, which had asked it to support near the Belgian Government two propositions it intended to submit to the last-named Government—the first concerning the abolition of forced labor within the territories of the Kongo after they became Belgian; the second relative to recourse to arbitration for the settlement of the disputes arising from purely commercial questions.
These propositions were to be brought before the Government of the King simultaneously by the two Governments; so the Cabinet of Brussels deemed it preferable to defer its answer until it should have received from the British Government a request similar to that contained in the second American memorandum. This view was made known to Mr. H. Lane Wilson by the minister for foreign affairs as early as the 16th of April, and it was agreed that the second American memorandum would not be made public until after the English memorandum setting forth the same propositions had been received at Brussels. The memorandum was handed to the minister for foreign affairs on June 25.
The Belgian Government now answers the two Governments of the United States and of Great Britain.
In its answer, dated April 24, to the first American memorandum, the King’s Government gave very clear explanations touching the question of forced labor, otherwise known as the labor tax. It declared that native labor was to be free and voluntary in the Kongo, and that the principal of personal freedom, laid down in the colonial law, would suffer but one exception, that of the labor tax to be collected from people who were unable to pay it in currency. This mode of taxation is legitimate; no government ever hesitated to demand it in its colonies, but it constitutes a merely temporary and provisional measure, which shall be entirely removed as the natives grow more familiar with the use of currency, which is beginning to spread in certain districts of the Kongo.
It is unfortunately impossible to fix at this time a date for the entire and final suppression of the labor tax in the future colonies. The Government of His Britannic Majesty itself realizes this impossibility, as it intimates in its second memorandum. The civilization which Belgium will unceasingly endeavor to propagate in the regions of Central Africa which are to form its colonial domains will gradually substitute the currency tax for the labor tax, but in the meantime the latter tax shall be collected in a humane and moderate manner.
As regards the general application to the native races of the provisions of articles 2 and 5 of the Brussels act in which the American Government is concerned, the cabinet of Brussels can but repeat as strongly its former declarations. The improvement of physical and moral conditions of the natives engrosses its best attention. It will, as soon as the chambers shall have voted the annexation treaty and the colonial law, take shape in the swifter progress made in the inquiry prescribed by the decree of June 3, 1906, in all villages, with a view to determining the area of land required by the needs of the inhabitants. As a result of this inquiry much more land will be [Page 576] allotted to the natives for their farming and commerce. The Government will see that the concessionary companies do not transgress the engagements taken by it and respect the freedom of labor as well as the right of the natives freely to dispose of the products of the soil on the land allotted to them.
The second proposition formulated by the Government of the United States relates to the reference to compulsory arbitration of all commercial and economic questions that would occasion a dispute, the settlement of which could not be reached through the ordinary diplomatic channels. The Cabinet at Washington urges the Belgian Government to accept a proposition so entirely in accordance with the rapidly growing practice of civilized nations. This would prove a sufficient reason for the Belgian Government to examine this proposition with the most earnest attention, if it were not equally impelled thereto by its desire to leave no apprehension in regard to the observation of the act of Berlin in its future colony.
The strong inclination of the Government of the King toward recourse to arbitration for the settlement of international disputes is well known; it was notably affirmed through the conclusion with several States of arbitration treaties, which public sentiment in Belgium viewed no less favorably than the Parliament. Yet in spite of its pronounced predilection for this procedure destined to force itself upon peaceful nations as a happy means of bringing their controversies to an end, the cabinet of Brussels finds it very difficult to admit that Belgium alone among the powers holding possessions in the conventional basin of the Kongo should enter upon an engagement as general in its character as that of compulsory recourse to arbitration, while under article 12 of the act of Berlin arbitration remains optional for the other powers signatory to the act.
But the Belgium Government finds no difficulty in declaring that if, after annexation, it were invited to refer to the tribunal of The Hague, as a last resort, a difference arising from a divergence of appreciation in the interpretion of the treaties which bind the States of the Kongo, it would examine the proposition with special benevolence and be inspired by the broad views which guided it in the drafting of the arbitration conventions concluded by Belgium.
It should, however, in such a case give attention to harmonizing the resort to arbitral procedure with the enforcement of article 84 of the act of The Hague conference to which it is a signatory. That article requires the contesting parties, when the question affects the interpretation of a treaty to which other powers are parties, to give timely notice to all the powers that have signed it. Every one of them has the right to become a party to the litigation; if that right be availed of by one or more, the interpretation contained in the sentence is equally obligatory upon them. Now, the Berlin act is such a treaty—a collective treaty. How many objections, how many difficulties, may arise from a different application of the clauses of that treaty in the various territories comprised in the conventional basin of the Kongo? Therefore, in order to avoid any difficulty, it should be understood that recourse to arbitration should be had only when the other powers holding possessions in said basin have agreed to become parties to the litigation or to accept the interpretation given by the arbitral award.
[Page 577]The Government would further be bound to conform to the rules laid down in article 68 of the constitution before it can make use of the arbitration procedure. “Treaties of commerce,” reads that article, “and those that may lay a burden upon the State or bind Belgians individually only go into effect after receiving the assent of the chambers.” So that the adoption of a compromis referring to arbitration a question of a commercial character or whose settlement should involve the State treasury or the personal interests of Belgian subjects would remain subject to parliametary approval. To the mind of the King’s Government there is a better means than recourse to arbitration as advocated by the United States to bring about the settlement of disputes in the conventional basin of the Kongo; it would be a direct understanding after annexation among all the powers holding territories in that region. It does not conceal its preference for resorting to this method, which would offer the immense advantage of insuring a general observation of the clauses of the Berlin act.
In the closing part of its memorandum the American Government says that, relying upon the rights secured to it by existing treaties, it expects to obtain all the privileges, commercial and otherwise, accorded in the Kongo to other nations. When it annexes the possessions of the Independent State, Belgium will inherit its obligations as well as its rights; it will be able to fulfill all the engagements made with the United States by the declarations of April 22, 1884.1
Declarations exchanged between the United States of America and the International Association of the Congo.
The International Association of the Congo hereby declares that by Treaties with the legitimate Sovereigns in the basin of the Congo and that of the NiadiKialun and in adjacent territories upon the Atlantic there has been ceded to it territory for the use and benefit of Free States established and being established under the care and supervision of the said Association in the said basins and adjacent territories, to which cession the said Free States of right succeed.
That the said International Association has adopted for itself and for the said Free States, as their standard, the flag of the International African Association, being a blue flag with a golden star in the center.
That the said Association and the said States have resolved to levy no customhouse duties upon goods or articles of merchandise imported into their territories or brought by the route which has been constructed around the Congo cataracts; this they have done with a view to enabling commerce to penetrate into Equatorial Africa.
That they guarantee to foreigners settling in their territories the right to purchase, sell, or lease lands and buildings situated therein; to establish commercial houses, and to carry on trade upon the sole condition that they shall obey the laws. They pledge themselves, moreover, never to grant to the citizens of one nation any advantages without immediately extending the same to the citizens of all other nations, and to do all in their power to prevent the Slave Trade.
In testimony whereof, Henry S. Sanford, duly empowered therefor by the said Association, acting for itself and for the said Free States, has hereunto set his hand and affixed his seal this 22d day of April, 1884, in the city of Washington.
[l. s.]
(Signed) H. S. Sanford.
Frederick T. Frelinghuysen, Secretary of State, duly empowered therefor by the President of the United States of America and pursuant to the advice and consent of the Senate, heretofore given, acknowledges the receipt of the foregoing notification from the International Association of the Congo, and declares [Page 578] that, in harmony with the traditional policy of the United States, which enjoins a proper regard for the commercial interests of their citizens, while at the same time avoiding interference with controversies between other Powers as well as alliances with foreign nations, the Government of the United States announces its sympathy with, and approval of, the humane and benevolent purposes of the International Association of the Congo, administering, as it does, the interests of the Free States there established, and will order the officers of the United States, both on land and sea, to recognize the flag of the International African Association as the flag of a friendly Government.
In testimony whereof he has hereunto set his hand and affixed his seal this 22d day of April, A. D. 1884, in the city Of Washington.
| [l. s.] | (Signed) Frederick T. Frelinghuysen. |
The foregoing explanation will prove to the American Government that the expression of its views was received by the cabinet of Brussels with an attention that was as benevolent as it was merited.