PROBLEMS (continued 3)

The moment was one of political disturbance. In 1869 there had been an effort to amend the constitution so as to extend the office of President from a term of two years to one of four; the effort failed. In May, 1871, when his two years had elapsed, Roye attempted to continue himself in power for two years longer; a shadow of an excuse for this usurpation was found in this attempted passing of an amendment. This bold coup, together with the dissatisfaction regarding the loan, led to his being hurled from power. Notice of the disturbed condition of the Republic was at once sent to the representative of Liberia in London, and to the bondholders; the newly established government ordered all drafts, etc., for money received on account of the loan to be stopped, countermanded the orders for goods, and demanded a statu quo until the Legislature should have a chance to act; legal proceedings were taken against Commissioners Johnson and Anderson; Chinery was discharged from his office as Liberian Consul in London; Mr. John Jackson was appointed Consul-General in his place and took charge of matters. So palpable was the mismanagement of this whole transaction in London, and so extravagant had been the charges and other outlays connected with it, that Consul Jackson took legal proceedings to protect the interests of the Republic.

Through a period of almost thirty years, the matter of this loan was constantly agitated, and it was only in 1898 that the Liberian Consul, Henry Hayman, was able to bring about a final arrangement of the unhappy affair. At that time the Liberian Government recognized its responsibility to the amount of £80,000; it agreed to begin payment at once upon the bonds—paying interest at the rate of 3 per cent the first three years, 4 per cent for the following three years, and 5 per cent thereafter until both the principal and interest be fully paid; after that, the back interests would be assumed at 5 per cent. Since this adjustment, the Liberian Government has regularly and honorably met its interest payments. Sir Harry Johnston, in his great work on Liberia, speaks vigorously and frankly regarding this loan of 1870, which was a disgraceful operation for British financiers.

THE LOAN OF 1906.

It is curious that, in connection with the next financial undertaking of the Republic, which was little, if any, more satisfactory than the loan of 1870, Sir Harry himself should have played a significant part. When President Barclay and his companions were in London in 1906, they made arrangements for a new loan, also of £100,000. An interview was held at the office of Consul-General Hayman, at which were present Sir Harry H. Johnston, chairman of the Liberian Development Co., Limited, together with some of this company’s officers, Mr. Clark of the Foreign Office, Emil Erlanger, and Consul Hayman. Mr. Erlanger represented the brokers through whom the Liberian Development Co. were to secure a loan of £100,000 for the benefit of Liberia. Excellent discussions of this loan by Mr. Ellis, who was so long connected with our Legation at Monrovia, and Mr. Scott, who was a member of the United States Commission in 1909, have been printed. It is from these articles that we draw our details.

The proceeds of the loan of 1906 were to be applied in the following manner: (a) $25,000 was to be used for pressing Liberian obligations; (b) $125,000 was to be employed in the payment of domestic debts; (c) $35,000 was to be loaned to the Liberian Development Co.; (d) the balance was to be devoted to the development of banking, and for road schemes by the Liberian Development Co. in Liberia. As security for this loan, two British officials, as chief and assistant inspectors of customs, were to have charge of the Liberian customs revenue; the chief inspector was to act also as financial adviser to the Republic; $30,000 annually (in semi-annual payments) was to be turned in as interest until the whole loan was repaid; 10 per cent of any excess over $250,000 in customs revenue per year was to be received by the Liberian Development Co. The “company was charged with the responsibility of returning the loan to Erlanger and Co. by the payment of 50 per cent of the net profits derived from the exercise of the powers and privileges of the charter of the former company, together with profits from the banking and road schemes to be undertaken in Liberia.”

The loan was actually applied as follows: (a) to the extinguishment of domestic debts, £30,000; (b) loaned to the Liberian Development Co., £7000; (c) in carrying out road schemes, £32,776.11.3; (d) obtained by Liberia on ratification of tripartite agreement of 1908, £30,223.8.9; total, £100,000.

Friction soon arose in the administration of the customs. The Liberian Development Co. constructed fifteen miles of automobile road in the Careysberg District, bought a small steam launch for the St. Paul’s River, and purchased two automobiles; it then announced that its road fund was completely exhausted, after having spent, on an ordinary dirt road, about $163,882. Liberian dissatisfaction was great, and question was raised regarding the “balance of the £70,000 which had been entrusted without security to the management of the company.” In the investigation which followed in an attempt to rearrange affairs, considerable feeling appears to have been shown. Sir Harry Johnston had repeatedly ignored the requests of President Barclay for an accounting by his company; in the interview in which efforts at adjustment were made, he is said to have conducted himself in a supercilious manner and to have expressed his surprise “that the President should have required the company to furnish him with a statement of accounts, and disclaimed any responsibility for the manner in which the money had been expended”. Under the tripartite arrangement which was entered into between the Government of Liberia, Erlanger and Co., and the Liberian Development Co., Chartered and Limited, it was finally arranged that “Liberia assume direct responsibility to Messrs. Erlanger and Co. for the loan of 1906, and, aside from obtaining some advantages in the new Agreement, secured from the Liberian Development Co. the residue of the loan, amounting to £30,223.8.9, and practically dispensed with the future services of this company in the solution of the new Liberian problems.”

Mr. Emmett Scott makes some pertinent observations in connection with this affair. He says: “Sir Harry Johnston, in his book, quite spiritedly criticizes the agreements under the loan of 1871. It is hard to determine, however, how less one-sided they were than those of his own benevolent corporation, even if his company had in perfect good faith carried out their part of the bargain. The suggestion that the customs should be collected by European experts, Englishmen being understood, introduced, of course, the feature of external control into the customs service . . . of the so-called experts sent to Liberia under the agreement, the first one’s selection was, to say the least, unfortunate. He all but confessed his utter failure after two or three months to understand what he was about, although he had been granted a salary of about $3500 a year, much more than he had received in the British service in Sierra Leone. The second one appointed has developed into a somewhat capable official, although his chief claim to being called an expert was, it is said, that he had successfully raised oranges in California. He was certainly no customs expert, and, I learn, had probably never been inside of a customs house. He received £500 a year. The present chief inspector of customs is a wholly efficient man, but while doing similar service at Freetown, Sierra Leone, the neighboring country, he received a salary of £300 or $1500 a year, while the Liberians are called upon to pay him a salary of £1000, or $5000 a year. This salary, perhaps I should state, is twice that received by the President of the Republic. Efforts to reduce this salary to £700 or $3500 have recently been made, but with what success I cannot chronicle.”

Again: “The company’s high-handed manner of expending the money on hand, however, engendered so much bad blood, that at last President Barclay applied to Sir Harry Johnston, managing director of the Liberian Development Co., for an accounting. The latter, it is said, expressed the greatest surprise that such a demand should be made upon him, and disclaimed any and all responsibility to the Liberian Government for the way in which the money had been or was to be expended. He persistently refused to render any accounts until he found the position he maintained was so untenable that he could not depend upon his government for support; he also found that President Barclay was about to sever all relations with his company, maintaining, in the absence of any accounting, that the Government of Liberia would hold itself responsible only for the cash actually received. About $200,000 of the amount raised on the credit of the government, it is said, had been frittered away on badly managed schemes.”

And finally: “In dismissing this loan of 1906, may I say that no one now contends that the Liberian Development Co. has, or has had, any money aside from that raised on the Government’s credit; to-day it is practically bankrupt. The relations between the Government and the Company have been severed, and under the agreement of 1908 with Messrs. Erlanger, London, the Liberian Government is responsible for the whole loan.”

THE AMERICAN LOAN.

Conditions became desperate; there were now two obligations to British creditors, each for a handsome sum, and both drawing interest; more than that, there had grown up a considerable domestic debt; real bankruptcy seemed to threaten the nation. As a result of the visit of the American Commission to Liberia in 1909, the United States used its good offices in favor of the Republic, and arrangements were perfected whereby certain banking institutions of the United States, Germany, France, and Great Britain furnished the Republic of Liberia with a loan of $1,700,000; this loan was to be used in the payment of its domestic and foreign debts. According to the official report of the Commission, the public debt of Liberia in 1909 amounted to the sum of $1,289,570.60. Mr. George W. Ellis has prepared an excellent paper regarding this loan, and from it we abbreviate our own statement. In order to secure the loan, the Liberian customs revenues are temporarily to be placed in charge of a customs receivership, with a general receiver appointed from the United States by the President, and holding office during his pleasure, and three receivers, one each from Great Britain, Germany, and France, appointed by, and holding office during the pleasure of, their respective governments. As further security for the loan, the revenues from exports and imports, duties on rubber, and all head moneys are pledged. Five per cent gold bonds in denominations of $1000, $500, and $100, for a period of forty years, interest and principal payable in New York, are to be issued by the Liberian Government. The Liberian revenues subject to the loan are transferred for its service and are termed “assigned revenues”; these assigned revenues are in charge of the receivership. The majority of the receivers have the power to suspend customs officials, make temporary appointments, make rules and regulations relative to the assigned revenues; they have a right to adequate patrol for land and sea, and in case such is not furnished, to supply it themselves. The general receiver has a salary of $5000, the others, $2500. A monthly report of accounts is to be rendered to the government. As a condition of the loan, the frontier police force is to be maintained; the President of the United States is to assign training officers, to be paid from the assigned revenues. The General Receiver is also the Financial Adviser of the Liberian Government; he is to systematize the finances of Liberia; and to approve statements before submission to the legislature. Appropriations must not overrun the revenues; after the legislature adjourns, the President, Secretary of the Treasury, and the Financial Adviser must revise the appropriations if they have overrun; their act is binding to the Secretary of the Treasury. The Financial Adviser co-operates with the government in establishing economical and efficient administration and expenditure. The debts of the Republic are to be at once paid—by bonds where the creditors chose to receive them. The bankers are to receive for their services their out-of-pocket expenses, legal charges, commission on the face value of the 5 per cent bonds, and 5 per cent on the bonds purchased by themselves. Residue bonds are to be held by the fiscal agents to meet approved, unadjusted indebtedness: final residue bonds will be sold and the money paid to Liberia for public improvements approved by the General Receiver. In order that this agreement should go into effect, it was necessary that the Liberian Legislature should pass all necessary measures of approval before January 1, 1912. This was done. There was some delay in finally placing the funds at the disposition of the Liberian Government, but at present everything has been arranged and the new loan is in effect. This arrangement caused general joy throughout the Republic; it was felt not only that it released the people from a heavy and dangerous obligation to unfriendly creditors, but that it probably began a period of closer relationship between the United States and Liberia. It is possible that too much of a feeling of security existed. It is likely that more joy was felt over the receipt of $1,700,000 than of responsibility for its ultimate repayment. On the whole, it must be admitted that the loan is favorable to the Republic. The government has realized a much larger percentage of actual funds than in any of its preceding financial undertakings. There are, however, some weak points in the plan. It is unfortunate that the loan was theoretically made through banks of different nations; as a matter of fact, it was an American enterprise, and should have been so in word as well. There is no reason why foreign nations should be interested—except indeed that Great Britain should experience a sentiment of joy in having the interests of her citizens secured. The sum of $1,700,000 is so small that it could have been easily supplied by American houses and considered a little matter with no actual political relations. That the loan should have been secured by a receivership is just, but it would have been much better to have appointed a single American receiver instead of four men of different nations. In this international receivership there lies considerable danger. Friction is likely. France, England, Germany are suspicious of each other. The simplest act is liable to misconstruction, and one or another of the three sub-receivers is likely to feel his dignity and that of his nation affected, and squabbles are certain to arise. The American receiver, as is proper, is given the position of leadership. Suppose he were to die or be unfit for service; which of the other three receivers will take his place? There appears to be no arrangement made for such a contingency, yet it is quite certain to arise, and if it should, the man who temporarily assumes the duties, will be particularly likely to find himself in trouble. The question as to location of the four receivers may some time or other raise difficulties. Suppose, for example, the British receiver were placed at Cape Mount, adjacent to British territory, and the French receiver were to be located at Cape Palmas, close to French authority; opportunity for unfaithfulness to the Republic would be very great. There is nothing in the history of the past to warrant us in assuming that these officials would be men of such high spirit and principle as to resist temptation. The possibility of difficulties between the General Receiver and the Liberian Government is also very great. He is given large powers; unless he is a man of extraordinary ability and well-balanced character, it is certain that complications will arise; there will be constant risk of his inter-meddling in every field of governmental affairs. Some of these difficulties of course are inherent in a receivership, and as a receivership is absolutely necessary, their risk must be accepted.

On the whole, the American loan should be a great help to Liberia. Friends of the Republic hope for the best results. The government is given a breathing spell, and time and opportunity for the re-adjustment of its economic interests. There is no danger, if the receivership is competent, but that the income of the nation will easily carry the loan with all its obligations, and leave ample funds in balance for the legitimate enterprises of the government. It is reasonable to hope that Liberia has entered upon a period of prosperity.

Yes, I say these were but slaves who gave us the Declaration of Independence. They were but slaves who framed our Constitution, they were but slaves who combatted with the odds of life, amidst wars, devastation, and foreign aggressions to hold intact for us and for our children this home of ours.—S. D. Ferguson, Jr.

POLITICS.

We have hesitated long about undertaking this discussion of Liberian politics. We are almost certain to be misunderstood, no matter what we say or how we say it. In Liberia they will feel that we lack sympathy, that we drag forth their weaknesses and expose them to public scorn; in this country they will fail to see that the weak points of Liberian politics are common to all republics, that they are as flagrant among ourselves as in Liberia; in foreign lands—should our book be read in such—what we say will be taken as justification for continued aggression and interference. We wish that Liberia were a land of general education; that the whole population had a clear understanding of the duties of citizenship; that knowledge of public questions were general. Such conditions are ideal in a republic. We do not find them in Liberia; we do not find them here. Liberian politics is patterned on our own; its weaknesses are our weaknesses. It is easy for us to see its faults because we are an outside party; because we are rich and they are poor; because we are white and they are black. In Liberia there is a general desire to feed at the public trough; it makes no difference what a man is or what he has accomplished, every one is ready to go into politics; neither trade, agriculture, nor professional life restrains a man who has political opportunities presented to him; everybody of ability wants office. This is unfortunate; it is neither strange, unique, nor blameworthy. Every official, however, has a list of dependents; once in office, he must provide for others; the number of brothers, sons, nephews, and cousins of officials who find some clerkship or small appointment is relatively large. As almost every office in the Republic, save that of representatives and senators, is appointed by the President, it is very easy for one who holds office to practice nepotism. It is and will be a long time before anything like actual civil service can find a place in Liberia. Such a condition of course leads to little activity in the doing of work for the Government; the less a man can do to earn his salary, the better, so long as he is certain of his job. We have already called attention to the fact, quoting from Ellis, that there is relatively little of what we know as party politics in Liberia. Practically there are no well marked political platforms based on principles. If, perchance, hostility to the powers that be threatens to become dangerous, it may be checked by skilful appointment from the opposition to office. Thus, at the last election, which was the most bitterly fought for many years, it was claimed that the defeated candidate, J. J. Dossen, would never be heard of in politics again; such, however, was not the case; he must be provided for, in order that his later course might not threaten the existing status; being without a job, he received appointment to the presidency of Liberia College—a mere temporary arrangement of course; he is now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

There are, however, personal likes and dislikes which will vent themselves in outbursts of party spirit. The last election was really furious. It voiced the local jealousies of the whole Republic. Just as in the state of Illinois it is Chicago against the counties, and as in New York State it is the City of New York against the upstate districts: so, in Liberia, it is Monrovia against the counties. The election was really close after an exciting campaign. Charges of fraud were bitterly advanced. According to the African League, there were wild doings in Bassa County where it is printed. We refrain from really quoting the interesting and exciting passages from its article, but venture to give here its opening paragraphs:

“As the day of election approached, great preparations were made by the Government and the Government officials to defeat the National True Whig Party at any cost, and in any manner. They sent money in every direction to call unqualified nameless bushmen to come, and put into the hands of the Sheriff a paper which is worth only so much gin and rum to the bushmen. These bush people had never seen, nor heard of, the registrar’s office. Neither do they own any land in contemplation of law, but Howard people, simply because they have had the Government’s approval in this corruption, had planned to force the corruption into the polls.

The people who stand for law and order sent white plates to all the native chiefs, after the customs of the heathen, telling them to have nothing to do with the matter in which they are not concerned and know nothing about.

The Government people threatened that they would vote these bush people or die. The people knew what that meant, and they began to prepare for the worst, for they were determined that the law should not be trampled under foot in that way to their prejudice, and that, too, by those who are the administrators of the law. On Monday, the first of May, a host of these uncivilized bush people, headed by Major Horace, flocked into the upper ward of Buchanan, well armed with the best guns of the Government, and that night shooting in the streets was a common thing. Near Lower Buchanan, there were different bands of these wild, bush people in camp carrying on their savage plays. In Lower Buchanan at the Vai town, the hideous noise was kept up all night, apparently as a menace to the citizens for the next day.” On the following day the election took place throughout the Republic, resulting in the continuance in power of the interests which for so long had controlled the destinies of the nation; nine contested cases were lodged against the House of Representatives and one against the Senate; threats ran high, feeling was intense. It is certainly an interesting moment when more than half the membership of a house of Congress is in dispute. Yet this excitement was allayed, and the contests were all withdrawn; it was realized that Congress had important business before it in connection with the American Loan, and that the future of the Republic would be seriously jeopardized if the time of Congress were taken up with hearing contest cases instead of dealing with these outside matters.

There is no question that in Liberia illegal voting is common. The election to which we have referred above was that of 1911; in 1901 Bishop Ferguson issued a charge to his clergy and lay members upon the subject of election evils in which the following words occur: “The corruptions and wickedness that have attended the last three or four campaigns are startling to all right-minded people, and, if continued, no prophet is needed to foretell the disastrous consequences that will inevitably follow. Election frauds, open-handed bribery, and the utter disregard of all moral restraints seem to be the order of the day. Those who at other times are recognized as Christian gentlemen, do not scruple on these occasions to perpetrate offenses that are condemned both by God’s law and that of the state. To procure the election of a party man, they lose sight of, or completely disregard, their standing in the Church, in society, or the social circle; and will stoop to do the meanest act. What is worse than all, is the fact that the evils have become so rife that it appears there are not to be found innocent citizens enough to punish the guilty under the laws of the land. And now, to my mind, the worst feature of the thing is the fact that the aborigines—our brothers just emerging from the darkness of heathenism—are either coming voluntarily, sought out and persuaded, or actually forced into this whirl-pool of corruption and wickedness. It is enough to chill one’s blood to think of the impression made on their minds, on their induction into civilized usages at such time:—jostled through a crowd of men,—ruffians now, though at other times Christian gentlemen—armed with deadly weapons of every description, they are made to swear that they are constitutionally qualified for the highest privilege of citizenship under a republican form of government.”

Again in an Independence Day address given by Dr. Dingwall at Buchanan in 1910 were these words: “Ignorant and purchasable voters are ruinous to all other republics. Why not to ours likewise? At the polls the vote of a fool is counted one, and that one takes the whole of a philosopher’s to cancel it. Now in Liberia these are chiefly manufactured from the wild heathen, more than ninety-nine in a night. The privilege to take a few acres of land and register hundreds of nameless natives, or on election day to vote each hour the identical bushman, by simply christening him afresh for each occasion, is a dangerous weapon in the hands of politicians. This practice would have destroyed democracy, were these leaders even honest in purpose and patriotic in spirit.”

The seriousness of the situation is that any effort to keep the native vote from being fraudulently cast, is likely to interfere with the legitimate voting of qualified chiefs; the desirability of having those natives who are really entitled to the vote exercise their right of franchise is most important; but to give unqualified native voters the chance to cast fraudulent ballots is bad indeed. Of course this whole question of illegal voting should hardly shock us; in my own morning paper, the very day when I am writing this, these words appear in prominent head-lines: “Fraud in ballots a Chicago habit Butts Board told.” It is impossible for the pot to call the kettle black. The outside world, however, unaccustomed to the little peculiarities of “manhood suffrage,” will no doubt claim to be sadly shocked; it might even be that some clean-skirted nation like France or England might hysterically demand reform.

We have elsewhere claimed that the Liberians, too, know graft. Official salaries are very small; why then does political office possess such great attraction? Of course position and power count for something; but there are other solid advantages connected with office in Liberia as well as in other lands. When graft exists in France, Germany, even in respectable and pious England, it is not strange that it exists in the African Republic. More than that, graft is by no means confined to civilization; the native in the bush understands it both in theory and practice. It would be strange indeed if the descendants of barbaric grafters, who had been trained in civilized graft through a long American experience, should be free from graft when conducting their own affairs in a new land as rich by nature as is Liberia. The number of schemes which are proposed to the Liberian Legislature is very large; many of them are magnificent in their proportions, enterprises, and prospects; what could be more dazzling than the project submitted a few years ago by the Ellsworth Company of New York? I do not mean to say that that individual company used improper means to influence legislative action; but a company with as ambitious plans as they offered, if adequately capitalized, could easily have made the whole Legislature rich rather than lose their opportunity. In the same way Sir William Lever, in his effort to secure monopoly or large advantage in the palm-oil product of the Republic would, from a business point of view, be amply justified in making it well worth while for the patriots to encourage his enterprise. Of course, many of these schemes fail totally; many of them never get beyond a paper proposition; in the past, however, the Liberian Legislature has been much too free in giving concessions with monopolies. While the terms given to the English Rubber Company seemed to leave opportunity for competitive development of the trade by others, it practically put all competitors in the power of the company. Liberia is beginning to realize that in careless granting of monopolies and special privileges she has hampered her own freedom and interfered with legitimate development; not long ago the Government granted a concession to Edgar Allen Forbes and others; it seems to have been a legitimate and carefully-thought-out enterprise which he submitted; its development would no doubt be advantageous to the public; but it is found that previous concessions were infringed by some of its terms, and difficulties have arisen. On the whole, it would be much better for Liberia if the propositions submitted to it were less pretentious and far-reaching; it is better that she should have fifty different companies operating within her borders, each within a definite field and succeeding within modest limits, than that everything should be held in the hands of one or two great corporations which, when a moment of difficulty comes, may be able to bring influences to bear which will threaten or even destroy the existence of the nation.

Liberian officials quite well know the thing which we call junkets. One might almost think himself at home at times. When some crisis arises, and the “Lark” must be sent to a seat of danger, high officials, whose relations to the Government are not such that their presence is necessary at the seat of disturbance, take advantage of the opportunity for a fine outing. The nation may be in financial difficulty, but good food, good smoking, and good drinks seem easily provided; such an outing not infrequently gives the official opportunity to transact private business, for he may have interests near the seat of the disturbance. Junkets are presumably inherent in governmental activities of every kind; they are not confined to democracies, though they are common in them. Anywhere of course they are undesirable and should be curbed; nations, especially republics, should not be called upon to supply free outings, free business opportunities, free luxuries to individuals at public cost.

One of the reforms demanded by the British memorandum was the improvement of the judiciary. Here there was indeed real reason for complaint. Liberia has few well trained lawyers; it was not uncommon for a man to be appointed judge who had no legal training; there were not infrequent cases of personal and professional misconduct on the part of judges. President Barclay, in his message of 1908, a notable document be it said in passing, says the following: “International attacks upon this (our judicial system) commenced some years ago, and the movement was initiated by citizens of the German Empire living in Liberia. But the crisis has been precipitated by our people. When the editor of the African League, himself an ex-judge, an attorney at law, a citizen, publishes a special edition of his paper, headed “Startling Revelations,” in which the judicial system of the country is attacked both in its personnel as well as on its administrative side, when he describes himself as a scapegoat and martyr, and when months pass and no reply to his attack is made by the persons affected, what conclusion, do you think, can other communities of the world, having business interests in Liberia, draw?” In his address, The Impartial Administration of Justice, the Corner-Stone of a Nation, Justice T. McCants Stewart says: “It can not be denied, however, that our judiciary to-day is the object of serious charges both by foreigners and our own citizens, and they are charges which demand serious consideration. They can not be brushed aside. The British Government is not alone in making these charges. Our own people have made them, and our Chief Executive has declared to the Legislature that evils exist in our judicial system which must be speedily remedied if we desire to strengthen ourselves as a nation. Gentlemen of the Bar: Can we be quiet while our judges are charged both at home and abroad with: (1) ignorance; (2) excessive use of intoxicants; (3) the exhibition of prejudice or passion in the trial of cases; (4) shocking immorality; (5) accepting retainers from private parties; (6) sharing moneys as a reward for the arrest of criminals; (7) accepting bribes?” This is specific enough and bad enough. To the credit of the nation be it said that reforms have seriously been undertaken, and the present condition of the judiciary is greatly improved. It is rather interesting that we ourselves at this moment are agitating against a corrupt judiciary; it is scarcely likely that we are in a condition for stone-throwing.

Of course where there is corruption in the judiciary there is almost certain to be miscarriage of justice. During the time we were in Monrovia, there was great excitement over the case of Col. Lomax and Commissioner Cooper. We have already mentioned Col. Lomax. He figured conspicuously in the Kanre-Lahun matter, when he gained the undying hostility of the British; when Major Mackay Cadell was removed from his position as the head of the Frontier Force, Lomax took charge; he has recently been in the district of the newly acquired Behlu Territory. This is the tract of forest land, of little value, which Great Britain traded to the Liberian Government in exchange for the rich and desirable Kanre-Lahun district. Poor as that area is, Britain will never be content to leave it in Liberian possession. In taking over the area, Col. Lomax was sent to the new boundary with soldiers, and Commissioner Cooper was sent to aid in delimiting the boundary. Of course there was trouble; there would have been trouble had Lomax and Cooper been angels. At the town of Behlu itself, certainly within the new Liberian territory, there was difficulty, and several Liberian soldiers were killed. All sorts of complaints were hurried to Monrovia by the Sierra Leone authorities:—Lomax was causing difficulties; he and Cooper were interfering with the delimitation of the boundary; Liberian soldiers, instigated no doubt by Lomax, were tearing down the cairns which marked the boundary line; the British commissioners refused to do anything unless both men were summoned from the border, and meantime would charge up the expenses of the commission for the period of their idleness; Col. Lomax was accused of murder—it was stated that he had killed eight native chiefs. These complaints were so urgent and serious that the President of the Republic sent orders to Lomax and Cooper to return at once to Monrovia; to these orders no attention was given. The Secretary of State was sent to fetch them, but is said to have stayed in the district, apparently sympathizing in their attitude; it is asserted that the deeds of violence, destruction of cairns, and insulting of British commissioners continued after he was on the ground. The Postmaster-General was hurried to the boundary to bring back the Secretary of State, the Colonel, the Commissioner, and their henchman, Lieutenant Morris,—who, it seems, had been the active agent in the cairn destruction. Some days of inexplicable delay seem to have passed, when the Secretary of the Treasury, the Assistant Secretary of State, and Capt. Brown (one of the American officers) were hastened to the scene of difficulty to get the recalcitrants home. The Secretary of State, Postmaster-General, Secretary of the Treasury, and Capt. Brown started together for Monrovia; Lomax, Cooper, and Morris were reported to be already upon their way through the interior to the capital. Arrived there, Lomax and Cooper were promptly jailed; less promptly they were brought to trial. The Attorney-General presented the case against them. Lomax was tried for the murder of two native chiefs; Cooper for the murder of a third. The Lomax trial lasted two days; it was before the jury for but ten minutes. He was found not guilty, and was carried in triumph on the shoulders of friends, amidst a great outburst of feeling, from the court-house. The Cooper trial came the next day; it was promptly decided in his favor. There is no question that the Behlu difficulty is on; Great Britain will in some way get back the territory which she so generously traded to Liberia; undoubtedly in the diplomatic dealings regarding it much will be made of this Lomax case; there is not the least doubt that the native chiefs were killed; there is no denial that Lomax and Cooper were responsible for the killing; but the trial and its results are good psychology; they were as inevitable as anything could be. There was in this case no actual miscarriage of justice; Col. Lomax is a national hero; he embodied the national aspirations; he represented the nation as a victim of the injustice and greed of Britain through the years; his ovation was the result of natural sentiments. It may not be diplomacy; it may not be good politics; but it is in the very nature of humanity.

The great American government, after a silence, far from forgetting and abandoning the tender infant cast upon the shores of Africa, has come in our hour of danger to assist us on her strong pinions to a nest of safety. If we but follow her example and heed her teachings of economy, thrift and industry, and if we are just in our dealings with men and nations we shall never escape her vigilant eye, nor cease to be the object of marked manifestation of interest on her part.—Daniel E. Howard.

THE APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES.

In 1908 Liberian conditions were desperate. England and France had been alternately slicing off territory; debts were weighing the nation down, and creditors were pressing; reforms were insolently demanded under threats. The future indeed was dark. In her hour of desperation, Liberia turned to the United States. The idea of seeking aid from us seems to have been first voiced by T. McCants Stewart in January, 1908. A Commission was appointed by the Legislature—consisting of Garretson W. Gibson, J. J. Dossen, and Charles B. Dunbar, with Charles R. Branch and T. J. R. Faulkner as secretaries. Garretson W. Gibson had been President of the Republic and was a man well on in years and generally respected; J. J. Dossen was at the time Vice-President; Charles B. Dunbar is a successful and well trained lawyer. On its way to the United States the Commission visited Germany, where it was well received and officially entertained in the capital city, Berlin. On its arrival in New York in May, Charles Hall Adams, of Boston, Consul-General for Liberia in this country, and Booker T. Washington received them and attended to the details of their visit. They spent several days in New York and visited Tuskegee, but, of course, spent most of their time in the city of Washington. They were received by President Roosevelt on the 10th of June, had several important interviews with Secretary Root, and were introduced to Secretary Taft—just before the Republican Convention was held which nominated him for the presidency of the United States. They were everywhere treated with distinguished courtesy and everywhere made a remarkably favorable impression; the newspapers gave considerable space to their visit and quite a general interest was aroused in their errand. A notable reception was given in their honor in Washington by the Negro Business League. Before they left New York, Secretary Taft had received his nomination, and one of their last official acts was the sending of a letter of congratulation to him.

The Commission arrived at home in August, 1909. An official reception was given them on the 18th by President Barclay. The address of welcome was given by the Secretary of State, F. E. R. Johnson, and other addresses by Acting Mayor Roberts and Postmaster-General Prout. Replies were made by Gibson, Dossen, Dunbar, and Faulkner. It is significant that in these addresses more emphasis was laid upon the subject of negro education in the United States than upon other matters. Both then and while in this country, Vice-President Dossen especially emphasized the importance of immigration; he wants 600,000 negroes from America to settle in Liberia, and claims that the people of Liberia feel that they are holding their territory in trust for this mass of immigrants. Music and refreshments were supplied and a speech of congratulation given by President Barclay. Of course nothing definite at this time could be said in regard to the actual results of the Commission’s visit; no one knew just what impression had been made upon our Government; no one knew just what to expect in the way of action.

Our Government, however, had seriously taken Liberian matters under advisement, and on the 4th of March, 1909, an American Commission was appointed to visit Liberia and to investigate Liberian conditions. The Commissioners were Roland P. Falkner, George Sale, and Emmett J. Scott, with George A. Finch as secretary. The Commission sailed on April 24th, 1909, and arrived in Monrovia on the 8th of May. They spent thirty days in Liberia and Sierra Leone. The work they had to do was wisely divided up among the members of the Commission, in order to permit their accomplishing the utmost in the short time at their disposition.

Their arrival at Liberia was hailed with joy. In anticipation of their coming the legislators had come from all the counties to Monrovia and were in the capital before the arrival of the Commission. The cruiser Chester arrived in front of Monrovia on the morning of May 8th, and at once saluted with twenty-one guns; the salute was returned by the Liberians from the shore. Ernest Lyon, the American Minister, at once boarded the vessel. When he returned, the Attorney-General with a party of citizens went on board to escort the Commissioners to the shore. The city was gaily decorated. The Mayor, Common Council, and a crowd of citizens met the Commissioners at the landing where, under the first arch of welcome, the acting Mayor made an address. Mr. Falkner replied on behalf of the Commission. Two companies of the militia escorted the Commission up the hill to the second arch, where Mrs. Parker addressed them on behalf of the Liberian ladies. Sale responded, after which Mrs. McGill spoke on behalf of the county of Grand Bassa. At the third arch Miss Irene A. Gant received them on behalf of Sinoe County, and Miss Matilda Roberts on behalf of Maryland County. Passing now to the American legation, they were officially received by the American Minister. Few public occasions in the history of Monrovia equal this reception, which fairly deserves to be called a popular ovation. On the 13th, President Barclay offered the Commission an official reception at which the President and the Cabinet, the Commission and attachés, and the United States Minister with his Secretary were present. In the afternoon of the 12th, a general reception was given at the Executive Mansion. During their stay in Africa, the Commission visited Grand Bassa and Maryland, and in both regions they were treated with distinguished courtesy. The report of the Commission sent to the Senate and House of Representatives by President Taft on March 25th, 1910, was an exceptionally good public document. The Commission recognized the importance of the work entrusted to it and did its work with thoroughness. They made six recommendations to our government. They were as follows: (1) That the United States extend its aid to Liberia in the prompt settlement of pending boundary disputes. (2) That the United States enable Liberia to refund its debt by assuming as guarantee for the payment of obligations under such arrangement the control and collection of the Liberian customs. (3) That the United States lend its assistance to the Liberian Government in the reform of its internal finances. (4) That the United States lend its aid to Liberia in organizing and drilling an adequate constabulary or frontier police force. (5) That the United States should establish and maintain a research station in Liberia. (6) That the United States re-open the question of a naval coaling station in Liberia. Some of these recommendations the United States has carried through. She has made the loan necessary for the refunding of the public debt; she is lending assistance to the Liberian Government in the reform of internal finances; she is aiding Liberia in the organization and drilling of her frontier force. These are good things, and it is to be hoped that they will prove as helpful as has been anticipated. We should help Liberia, and help her handsomely; she deserves all that we can do for her. We must be careful, of course, in our assistance, not to accustom her to the notion of dependency. Muscle can only be developed in a body by the exercise of that body itself. No being can develop muscle for another. Liberia, if she is to prosper, must develop energy, force, independence; she needs help but must work out her own salvation. Exercise to be valuable must not be a death struggle; we must protect her from her foes, but we must insist upon her self-development. There are, however, still many things that we can do for the Republic without reducing her to a condition of dependency and pauperization.

We should energize every already existing bond between us. There are already missions established in the Republic; these should be handsomely maintained, without forgetting that the ultimate end is the production of self-supporting churches; the needs of missions and mission-schools should be carefully examined by the different Boards and liberal appropriations made to meet them; it is desirable that the Presbyterian denomination—so rich, respectable, and self-satisfied—should really look after its “little flock of humble black folk” with their splendid opportunity before them. The Boards which hold funds for the benefit of Liberia College should seriously recognize the importance of their responsibility; they should investigate with care, and act promptly and liberally; they must devise some method of more effective co-operation with the local management for gaining the great ends possible by combined action. There are funds in the United States intended to aid Liberia, which are tied up and have been tied up for many years through some unfortunate condition in the terms of the bequest; such funds, if possible, should be put to work; if they are actually unavailable, it is best that a final decision be reached, and public announcement be made of the unfortunate fact; it is better that Liberia should not be kept waiting in hope of aid that never comes. A considerable interest was aroused in the United States by the visit of the Commission in 1908; this interest was shown in the newspapers of the day; it is greatly to be desired that the American people should be kept constantly informed as to Liberia; information should not be spasmodically given out, but there should be a definite, constant spreading of facts regarding the Republic, whose heroic struggle deserves our firm and steady sympathy. The need was never greater for a regular line of shipping between the two Republics than now; this has been already sufficiently considered. It would be a fine philanthropy to establish and conduct such a line of communication for a period of time, even at a loss; in the long run, the line would lose its philanthropic feature and become a fairly paying business proposition. It is most important that the contact between the two nations be increased; Liberians have occasionally come to us under various circumstances; more Americans in course of time visit Liberia than the public generally knows; every opportunity of inviting Liberians to this country as students, delegates, visitors, business representatives, should be encouraged; and it should become a simple, natural, and frequent thing for Americans to visit the black Republic. Lastly, our government should adopt a clear and definite policy of sympathy; if we make it well understood that we look upon Liberia as related to us, and that we will permit no further injustice, we need have no fears of being involved in international difficulties on her account; the cry “hands off” will be sufficient. Let us quit internationalizing her problems. They are justly questions between us and her; they concern no other nation. But do not let us ever think of absorbing the Republic; let us guarantee her independence; we do not wish a protectorate; we have too many different kinds of national relations now; Alaska, Hawaii, Porto Rico, Cuba, Santo Domingo, Nicaragua, and the Philippines make our governmental policy to-day sufficiently complex. We want no more new and strange relations. Liberia is our sister nation—daughter, if you please—and very definitely such. She is brunette, but her virtues are our virtues, her vices are our vices. Let us admit and emphasize the kinship.