Another blot on the record of the Congo Free State is the exclusive character of the trading corporation to which it has granted concessions.  Despite the promises made to private firms that early sought to open up business in its land, the Government itself has become a great trading corporation, with monopolist rights which close great regions to private traders and subject the natives to vexatious burdens.  This system took definite form in September 1891, when the Government claimed exclusive rights in trade in the extreme north and north-east.  At the close of that year Captain Baert, the administrator of these districts, also enjoined the collection of rubber and other products by the natives for the benefit of the State.

The next step was to forbid to private traders in that quarter the right of buying these products from natives.  In May 1892 the State monopoly in rubber, etc., was extended to the “Equator” district, natives not being allowed to sell them to any one but a State official.  Many of the merchants protested, but in vain.  The chief result of their protest was the establishment of privileged companies, the “Societe Anversoise” and the “Anglo-Belgian,” and the reservation to the State of large areas under the title of Domaines prives (Oct. 1892)[477].  The apologetic skill of the partisans of the Congo State is very great; but it will hardly be equal to the task of proving that this new departure is not a direct violation of Article V. of the General Act of the Berlin Conference of 1885, quoted above.

[Footnote 477:  For a map of the domains now appropriated by these and other privileged “Trusts,” see Morel, op. cit. p. 466.]

A strange commentary on the latter part of that article, according full protection to all foreigners, was furnished by the execution of the ex-missionary, Stokes, at the hands of Belgian officials in 1895—­a matter for which the Congo Government finally made grudging and incomplete reparation[478].  Another case was as bad.  In 1901 an Austrian trader, Rabinek, was arrested and imprisoned for “illegal” trading in rubber in the “Katanga Trust” country.  Treated unfeelingly during his removal down the country, he succumbed to fever.  His effects were seized and have not been restored to his heirs[479].

[Footnote 478:  See the evidence in Parl.  Papers, Africa.  No. 8 (1896).]

[Footnote 479:  Morel, op. cit. chaps. xxiii.-xxv.]

When such treatment is meted out to white men who pursued their trade in reliance on the original constitution of the State, the natives may be expected to fare badly.  Their misfortunes thickened when the Government, on the plea that natives must contribute towards the expenses of the State, began to require them to collect and hand in a certain amount of rubber.  The evidence of Mr. Casement clearly shows that the natives could not understand why this should suddenly be imposed on them; that the amount claimed was often excessive;