New-York tribune., 1906-04-11
THE CONGO.

1t is difficult to avoid sympathiZing with the
movement for some investigation and reform
of the affairs of the Independent state of the
Congo. for it seems probable that serious abuses
prevail there, and it is certain that charges
against the administration of that state have
been made which are grave and which
put forward authortatively that they can
scarcely in decency be ignored Nevertheless, it
is at least equally difficult to hold the American
government in any respect accountable for these
things or to perceive adequate legal ground for
it's intervention There is no question that our
government is giving close and sympathetic at
tentiOn to the matter. and that it would gladly
DO anything that could properly be done for the
ameliOratiOn of the deplOrable conditions which
are said to exist But international transactions
require some other basis than a benevolent de
sire
American interest in the Congo had its origin
in the fact that an American citizen in the en-
ploy of foreign government was the first to
explore that region and 10 open it to trade
This country was III no way responsible for the
international Association of the Congo which
was formed in 1879 by private individuals of
various natiOnalitieS under the presidency of
the King Of the Belgians acting in his private
capacity and not as a sovereign When that
association, f'wever organized the Congo State
this country was the first of all nations, in April
1884. 10 recognize it's flag as that of an indie
pendent state end Of friendly government"
The next year, 1880, the Berlin Conference
adopted the sO-called General Act guaranteeing
the neutrality of the Congo State. Delegates
from the United States attended that confer
ence. but on the distinct understanding that
their participation was to be purely deberatiye
and in no way to bind the United States to the
results They signed the General Act Just as all
other delegates did; but President Cleveland
promptly made it clear that this government did
not regard their doing so as in the least i'm
pairing its reservation of liberty of action So
deeming ii undesirable for this government to
enter into such an ''entangiing alliance" the
obligations of the General Act would constitute
he abstained from asking the Senate's ratifica-
tion OF shat instrument. The United States did
not. therefore. become n party 10 the General
Act. though ii recognized the Congo State as an
independent sovereignty and in 1891 entered into
formal treaty relations with il, treating Il the
same as any other nation. The United States
participated in the Brussels Conference of 1890
and became n party to it's act for the supnres
sion Of the slave trade. but in ratifying that
act in 1892 the Senate explicitly declared that
the United States had no possessions or pro-
tectorates in Africa and had no intention Of
interesting itself in or meddling with the DOS
sessions or prOtectorates of other countries. or
even of Judging Of the wisdom or pxpedency of
their administrations.
Upon the face of this record then. the United
States seems not only 10 have no legal title to
intervene in the affairs of the Congo State but
also actually to he debarred ny its own declara-
uons from doing so. though il NAV be n couse
of regret to some persons that it did not assume
responsibility and power under the General Act
OF 1889 The question may also with propriety
and pertnence be raised whether If il is so
desirable for American influence TO be exerted
IN the Congo, where hnve no technical or
legal right TO exert it, ii is not still more desir
able for that influence 10 he exerted for the
abatement OF grave evils in some lands which
lie huch nearer to MS. with which our relations
are much more intimate for which we are NOR
ally responsible and in which we have the most
perfect legal right 10 perform such sar,,,co
= Upon what ground OF morals or law or reason