payers may possibly derive some satisfaction from the knowledge that on the whole the British administration has been remarkably successful, under difficult circumstances, in establishing a friendly and apparently stable native government, in extending the railway system, in encouraging agriculture, in iaying foundations for a modern educational system, in providing hospital facilities and combatting epidemics, despite the fact that such humane reforms and economic enterprises have been sadly handicapped by the paucity of the funds left after defraying the heavy military expenses.1

"B" MANDATES IN CENTRAL AFRICA

Six "B" mandates were carved out of three former German colonies, as follows:

*Not including 107,000 sq. mi. which had been ceded from French Equatorial Africa to German Kamerun in 1911 and were simply reincorporated into French Equatorial Africa.

It will be noticed that France secured most of Togoland and Kamerun, the western colonies, whereas Great Britain took German East Africa. Belgium, indignant at being ignored in the first distribution of mandates, persuaded the British to relinquish the northwestern corner of East Africa, which Belgian Congolese troops had occupied; this district, by the way, is much more important in population and productivity than its small area would indicate, for it includes some of the finest African highlands, where cattle are plentiful.

Between the Arab "A" mandates and these "B" mandates there is a world of difference. The latter are without exception

'Details in Review of the Civil Administration of Mesopotamia, 1920 (Cmd. 1061); Report on 'Iraq Administration, Oct., 1920-March, 1922; Report on 'Iraq Administration (annual since 1922); Report of the British Financial Mission, 1925.

tropical lands, much of their surface is covered by the dense equatorial jungle and drenched by tropical rains. Their inhabitants are uncivilized negroes, ranging in culture, or lack of it, from cattle-growing tribesmen to forest savages. Obviously there can be no national self-determination here, as in the case of the Arabs. Mandates, in this case, must not mean transitional tutelage over adolescent nations, but must give the mandatory power "full powers of administration and legislation," to govern the country "as an integral part" of the mandatory's territory. As a matter of fact, the policy has been generally pursued of governing through the native tribal chieftains, wherever possible. As the British report on Togoland for 1923 declares, "The general policy adopted since the British occupation has been to support native rule and rulers.' The Belgian report for 1924 contains the interesting statement: "The chiefs are the pivot of native policy. . . . The importance of their rôle is of the first order, and a wise organization of chieftainships is the most potent means of action one can have. Where the chief is won over to European influence, just and respected, progress is rapid, order assured; where the chief is hostile, tyrannical or without authority, our influence on the population is, on the contrary, very ineffective." In some cases the chiefs are allowed to collect the taxes, turning over a certain percentage to the central administration, or are used as agents to recruit native labor, and quite generally they are entrusted with the local administration, subject of course to the laws of the colony and the advice or orders of the white officials. So strongly do the British prefer this method, that where no prominent native chiefs exist, they "discover" them, and deliberately build up their authority. This, indeed, is done in other British West African colonies, as well as in the mandates; but it is fairly characteristic of the problem of government in the mandates. Otherwise one must install white officials-and it is not easy to provide a sufficient number in torrid colonies. In regions where the native villages have no tribal organization, direct administration is necessary, but even so, the lower administrative ranks are filled by natives.

The prime difference between a "B" mandate and an ordinary colony is that in the former the administration is more definitely responsible before the world for a just and beneficent policy

toward the natives.1 The very terms of the mandates prescribe explicitly that the mandatory must abolish slavery as soon as possible, suppress the slave trade, exercise a strict control over the arms and liquor traffic, prohibit compulsory labor except for essential public works, supervise labor contracts so as to protect the natives from exploitation. Accordingly, the mandatories have prohibited the slave traffic and abolished slavery in law, although in some cases the institution of domestic slavery among the natives is too firmly rooted to be at once eradicated. Fairly elaborate laws regulating the terms of native labor contracts have been promulgated. The importation of arms and distilled liquor is usually restricted rigorously. It is interesting-for Americans-to note that the French policy is to promote the consumption of "hygienic beverages" such as wines and beer, instead of the deadly whiskey, gin and rum.2 The mandates also forbid the raising of native troops except for "local police purposes and for the defence of the territory." On this point, however, the French were so insistently dissatisfied that in the French mandates a clause is added allowing these native troops to be used elsewhere (in Europe, for example) in the event of a general war, to repel an attack or for defense of territory. Despite the importance which France attached to this permission, the reports show only 1017 native soldiers in French Cameroun and 455 in French Togo for 1923-1924.

The most important issues affecting the welfare of the natives are hygiene, education and missionary work, land and labor. In the first of these the mandatories seem eager to make as good a showing as the expense of sending doctors to Africa will allow. For instance, the French in 1922 boasted of having administered 200,000 vaccinations in Cameroun. Missions enjoy a guaranteed religious freedom, and are conducting most of what educational work there is-and it is little enough. In French Cameroun, for example, there were in 1924 some 4700 natives attending mission schools and 3300 attending government schools, or less than three students per thousand of population-about the same ratio that prevails in the neighboring French colony of Equatorial Africa. It is a difficult problem, made more difficult by the imEven before the adoption of the mandate system, Central Africa was subject to various international economic and humane restrictions-see Beer. African Questions, part iii.

Rapport annuel . . . du Cameroun, 1924, p. 11.

possibility of securing or paying adequate numbers of teachers, native or white. As for the land problem, to guard against the expropriation of the natives that has been so grave an evil in colonies like Kenya and Congo, the mandates bind the mandatories to "respect the rights and safeguard the interests of the native population." Since the natives have no conception of individual real property, it is not a simple matter. In the French mandates an attempt seems to have been made to establish European ideas of land-ownership immediately by the drastic measures of declaring the private domain of the state to include all vacant lands and even the lands around native villages utilized but not owned by the villagers (and, by the way, all lands formerly owned by Germany). These lands the government could sell or lease to individuals or companies. Obviously much will depend upon the spirit in which the administration deals with the question, whether too large a portion of these lands are assigned to concessionaires. On the other hand, to protect individual native properties, the French are endeavoring to have the natives register or "matriculate" their lands. In Tanganyika, the British have declared all lands to be public lands, which may be granted to planters for ninety-nine years' use, but not sold outright. How such measures will work out in practice is not yet clear, except in so far as the desire of the mandatories to make unimpeachable reports may afford a reason for predicting a policy of safeguarding native interests.

The mandate provision against compulsory labor is most significant, as in many African colonies the natives have been forced to work for government or private interests, sometimes in lieu of other taxation, sometimes for wages that scarcely concealed the resemblance of forced labor to slavery. The mandatories may employ forced labor only on essential public works and with "adequate remuneration." In some cases a labor on public words (e.g. railways and roads) is required as a form of taxation or corvée-in French Togo, four days a year; in French Cameroun, ten days; in Tanganyika, long enough to earn the amount of the hut tax in money.1 Forced labor for private plantations or other private enterprises, however, is not allowed according to the letter of the law. Yet in some regions where native chiefs

The British Report on Labour in the Tanganyika Territory (1926) is particularly detailed and illuminating.

or village headmen "recruit" young negroes to become contract laborers-that is, to work under contract for a certain number of weeks or months-it is practically inevitable that an element of compulsion will enter into the process. The aim is that labor should be free. But it is not always easy to "inspire the native with a taste for work," in the words of a French report on Cameroun.

Any description of the "B" mandates would be incomplete without mention of one more typical feature, the detailed guarantee of the open door. For all Members of the League there must be "complete economic, commercial and industrial equality"; concessions for the exploitation of natural resources must be granted without distinction of nationality; and monopolistic concessions are prohibited. For commerce, the open door is so genuine that until 1924 England had a larger share than France of the market in French Cameroun. Concessions, on the other hand, quite naturally tend to be sought by and granted to subjects of the mandatory power, more than by foreigners. Nevertheless, it may be fairly said that the open door is a reality. The fact is the more interesting in view of the cost of the mandates to the mandatories. In Tanganyika and British Cameroons there have been regular deficits, to be defrayed by the British taxpayer; Belgium has granted a subsidy of 1,200,000 francs a year to balance the budget of her mandate; only France has been able to make the taxes collected in the mandates provide a surplus over expenditures, in order to accumulate funds for ambitious programs of railway construction and other public works.1

"C" MANDATES IN THE SOUTH SEAS AND SOUTH AFRICA

There remain a few other ex-German colonies to be considered, namely, South West Africa and the Pacific Islands. These were put into a separate class of mandates, as we have seen, for quite specific reasons-because the Australasians wished to exclude the Japanese from the islands in the South Pacific, and because

For further details on the "B" mandates see the annual reports published for each mandate and submitted to the League of Nations. For comparison between German and mandate administration see statistical tables in Foreign Policy Association, Information Service, II, no. 2, and read German Colonization Past and Future (1926) by Dr. Heinrich Schnee, a former German colonial governor.