14 



ANTI-SLAVERY CONFERENCE. 



trade in the interior of Africa, the capture of 



Mined for sale, and their transport by 



sea," which can only be stopped by " the organ- 



i display of force greater than that at the 



...ul ->f those taking part in the traffic." 



:vpresented by plenipotentiaries or 

 delegates at the conference, which met on Nov. 

 Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Congo 

 State, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, 

 Italy, Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Russia, 

 S|.:iin. Sweden and Norway, Turkey, United 

 ni/.ihar. The Prince de Chimay re- 

 quested t hat Baron Lambermont, whose knowl- 

 edge and labors in connection with African mat- 

 ,:ly fitted him for the office, should be 

 n in his stead to preside over the meetings, 

 circular of invitation left it for the powers 

 on the programme of the conference 

 on the scope and nature of the measures to 

 be couriered, and the British plenipotentiaries, 

 as representing the Government that was jointly 

 responsible with the Belgian Government for 

 enlivening the conference, offered their views of 

 the subjects requiring consideration, placing 

 fir-t in order, as being the most susceptible of 

 effective treatment, the maritime slave trade, to 

 deal with which they proposed an international 

 understanding, not conflicting with the rights 

 of powers not bound by treaties, affecting only 

 tin- circumscribed zone within which the traffic 

 : itii ied, and especially the shores of the Red 

 next, joint action against slave raiders ; 

 then, the suppression of the markets of destina- 

 tion; and finally, restriction of the traffic in 

 liquor and in arms and ammunition, as affecting 

 the social and moral condition of the natives, 

 and thus indirectly the slave trade also. Com- 

 mittees were appointed to deal simultaneously 

 with the slave trade in its three manifestations 

 as defined in the scheme presented by Baron 

 Lambermont: (1) Its inception and the inland 

 traffic ; (2) the maritime traffic ; (3) the destina- 

 tion or ultimate market of the slave. 



The Knglish Government took the lead in pre- 

 senting propositions, and in bringing forward at 

 the outset the subject of the maritime traffic the 

 British plenipotentiaries designed to place Prance 

 in the position of obstructing the whole treaty 

 unle-s s|. conceded a limited right of search. 

 In ISM -he joined the United States in opposing 

 the proposed mutual right-of-search convention 

 for the suppression of the slave trade, and re- 

 fii--d to subscribe to the convention that was 

 contracted ln-t \veen Austria, Great Britain, Prus- 

 I Ku-ia. The United States in 1862 entered 

 into a riirht-of-scarch treaty with Great Britain; 

 uire has firmly adhered to the ground then 

 taken }iu'.iin>t. the searching of vessels bearing 

 ber Bag in time of peace by the men-of-war of 

 any other country. The British naval officers 

 who have been charged with the duty of patroll- 

 ing tne Zanzibar coast have sometimes accused 

 the French of protecting the slave trade by 

 tine registration to slave dhows, and the 

 I' rencli have complained of the violation of ves- 

 ' carrying their flag. The article proposed 

 ! consideration of the conference by the 

 Hah plenipotentiaries provided that within 

 u> /one infected with the slave trade the signa- 

 tory powers should jointly and severally have 

 the right of supervision over all sailing vessels 



under any flag, either on the high seas or in ter- 

 ritorial waters, and that they should have power 

 to detain vessels suspected, directly or indirectly, 

 of being engaged in the slave trade, and to bring 

 or send them to port for judgment before an in- 

 ternational tribunal. The phrase "visit and 

 search " of the old treaties was changed into the 

 words " supervision " and " detention," in order 

 to appease French public opinion as far as possi- 

 ble. The French Government took a month to 

 reflect on its course, and then gave notice of a 

 counter-project based in part on the British 

 proposition and in part on a confidential instruc- 

 tion drawn up by the British and French gov- 

 ernments in 1867. The French scheme accepted 

 the British limitation of the contaminated zone, 

 more precisely defined, and approved the creation 

 of an international tribunal. The crucial point 

 of detention and supervision was reduced to the 

 right of stopping sailing vessels and ascertaining 

 that their papers were in order. Stringent new 

 regulations were proposed for preventing im- 

 proper persons from obtaining leave to use the 

 flag of any of the signatory powers and for 

 officially inspecting the crew and passengers and 

 checking the lists at every port, which, in the 

 opinion of the French Government, would render 

 further supervision unnecessary. The British 

 Government, for the sake of promoting an agree- 

 ment, proposed to limit the class of vessels sub- 

 ject to supervision to craft not exceeding 500 

 tons, and to restrict the application of existing 

 right-of-search treaties to the infected zone. 

 The proposal for instituting an international 

 tribunal was dropped, and provision was made 

 for liberating slaves and dealing with slavers on 

 the spot, without conveying them to the country 

 whose flag the captured vessel displayed, as re- 

 quired in the old treaties. The propositions 

 from both sides were framed into a single project 

 by Prof. F. de Martens, one of the Russian 

 plenipotentiaries, which was made the basis of 

 the deliberations of the maritime committee. 



The premature disclosure of the proposed 

 prohibition of the traffic in firearms stirred up 

 the manufacturers of Birmingham and the spec- 

 ulators who supply African slave hunters with 

 discarded army rifles, who influenced the British 

 Government to recede from its first intention. 

 The Dutch, German, Italian, and Portuguese 

 plenipotentiaries, as well as the British, favored 

 the mere regulation of the traffic, though the 

 French contended strongly for its entire suppres- 

 sion. The English proposition in regard to the 

 liquor traffic was to impose the prohibitive duty 

 of 200 francs per hectolitre in the coast and Lower 

 Congo regions where the trade now exists, and 

 to forbid imports elsewhere. Though warmly 

 seconded by the French plenipotentiaries, this 

 and the subsequent proposal of a duty of 50 

 francs were rejected through the influence of the 

 German distillers and Dutch traders, who ob- 

 tained a tariff that they declared would not dis- 

 turb trade or reduce consumption, as it raises the 

 price of spirits in Africa, which was five cents a 

 quart, to eight cents only. The German Govern- 

 ment was non-committal ; but the representatives 

 of the Netherlands strenuously opposed any 

 duty on the ground that it violated the Congo 

 general act, which guaranteed freedom of trade 

 for twenty years. Mr. Sanford, one of the rep- 





