L’Écho annamite
- The colonies will pay France’s debts
- A clarification
- Colonization and international peace
The page links French debt policy to colonial land: a proposed concession monopoly draws an argument about dispossession and excluded local voices. A Rachgia correspondent challenges a vast land application and alleges harm to cultivators, while marking rumors as uncertain. A conference report calls colonial rule temporary yet assigns the timing of emancipation to the League rather than the colonized people themselves.
Translation
The colonies will pay France’s debts
This bill would establish a monopoly over the concessions to be granted in the colonies.
Its essential provisions are as follows:
[…] a “National Company” […] with capital of 10 billion gold francs, which the state would receive in exchange for contributing the monopoly;
The state would retain half this capital in shares and offer the other half to the public;
Profits would, naturally, be divided equally between the state and the shareholders;
An amortization scheme would leave the state the sole shareholder after 99 years.
Mr Boyer maintains that, without alienating the smallest part of the colonial domain, such a proposal would quickly provide the state with enough foreign currency to restore the franc’s value.
Thus, the proceeds from selling state lands would no longer benefit the colony concerned, but would go, at least for the most part, to the metropolitan budget.
Now there is a splendid discovery!
It remains to be seen whether the indigenous populations will see it that way.
As tradition dictates, their views will probably be dispensed with, although they are the people most directly concerned: the bill is being submitted directly to the Chamber, without passing through the colonies’ elected bodies.
Judging by past experience, the Annamites certainly will not accept it without protest where their own interests are concerned.
We remember the vehement protests against the Candelier mission, which sought to hand the port of Saigon–Cholon over to a firm for twenty-five years.
Yet that attempt to corner resources is nothing beside Mr Boyer’s, which would reserve all available colonial lands for the exclusive exploitation of a single group, for 99 years, at the end of which the French state would become the sole owner.
In other words, from the moment the monopoly was established, the colonies would be irretrievably and permanently dispossessed of all their unassigned lands.
A clarification
Indeed, since August 14, 1926, a SICAF application—the Homberg group—for the “transfer of state lands for payment” has been posted at the Rachgia inspectorate and in the communal houses of the villages concerned. It covers 30,000 hectares—I do mean thirty thousand hectares, no less—in six villages of Thanh bien canton (Dông-Yên, TàyYn, Dông-Thai, Dông-hoà, Dông-Thanh and Dông-hung), occupying 39 kilometres of the recently dug, unfinished Sông Cai-lon, Rach Can-gao canal (Rachgia–Gamau), whose total length is 40 kilometres.
This is neither an auction nor a negotiated sale, but a long lease of 99 years, whose price and terms are unknown even to the best-informed people.
Looking at the plan attached to the notices, one might think that the canal had been dug solely to serve this powerful company. Behind it, malicious tongues—or well-informed ones—say there may be Fontaine, […] and Cognacq.
An application for so large an area cannot cover only virgin forests and uncultivated land; it inevitably takes in cultivated and cleared plots. Acquired rights and the rights of the first occupants are thus infringed, and protests are pouring into the inspectorate and the villages concerned.
Colonization and international peace
We must prepare for future emancipation
Unfortunately, many cruel examples have dishonoured colonial history under the hypocritical pretext that protected peoples are, and will remain for ever, our inferiors. We forget too readily that, like the education of individuals, the education of peoples can only be temporary, and that every administrator has a duty to anticipate, and even hasten, the hour when peoples treated as minors will come of age.
We Young Republicans, who do not believe in the dogma of the inherent inferiority of the so-called coloured races, can therefore only welcome the words Mr Varenne spoke in Saigon, which provoked such vehement protests in the nationalist press.
The role of the League of Nations
But who will decide the hour of emancipation? It cannot be the people treated as minors. Will it be their guardian, then? No, for the guardian will always be tempted to delay that hour, especially if the administration brings commercial and military advantages.
It can only be an authority above the nations themselves: in this case, the League of Nations. That is, indeed, the theory behind the mandated colonies assigned by the Treaty of Versailles to Allied nations and placed under League supervision.
For the older colonies, which the Treaty of Versailles does not cover, there is plainly a gap. And it is to be feared that, unless the metropolitan powers act before events overtake them, the colonies themselves will sound the alarm of their liberation.
Context
How colonial land became an answer to French debt
The proposed company turns a long stream of colonial concession income into capital that could be raised immediately. Selling half its shares would bring private money into a scheme controlled jointly with the state, while Boyer links the resulting foreign exchange to restoring the franc. That explains why a metropolitan financial proposal occupies this colonial newspaper’s front page: land and future income overseas were being offered as a remedy for a problem in France.
Why retaining French ownership did not answer the objection
Boyer’s defence rests on the state not surrendering colonial territory. The editorial asks who would control its use and receive its income. A 99-year exclusive concession could deprive the colony of those benefits even if ultimate ownership remained French. Its comparison with the proposed 25-year Saigon–Cholon port transfer makes the scale tangible: the contested resource is no longer one port but all available colonial lands.
Why consultation mattered to the land proposal
The bill’s route straight to the Chamber bypassed elected colonial bodies, according to the editorial. The people living with the consequences would therefore have no such opportunity to contest it before metropolitan consideration. The argument joins two kinds of control: control of the revenue and participation in the decision. This is why the article’s financial criticism leads directly to its prediction of Vietnamese resistance.
How a canal could turn development into a land dispute
The Rachgia letter places almost the whole length of a new canal inside one company’s proposed concession. Access to that public work would make the surrounding land more useful, but concentrating access in a vast lease could also threaten existing cultivation. The letter’s appeal to the rights of first occupants challenges the administrative category “state land”: land offered by the authorities need not be empty of people who already work it.
Why the speaker gives the League a role in emancipation
The speaker distrusts a colonial ruler’s willingness to give up profitable authority and therefore seeks an outside supervisor. The League’s mandate system offered an existing example: Article 22 required administering powers to report annually, with a permanent commission examining their reports. The proposed solution shifts the decision beyond the ruler, yet keeps the language of guardians and minors. Rejecting permanent racial inferiority here does not amount to accepting immediate self-determination.
Why existing colonies fell outside that solution
Article 22 applied to territories that had left their former rulers as a consequence of the war. It did not put every existing colony under the mandate system. The speaker therefore faces an institutional obstacle: an international model for supervision exists, but the older colonial possessions do not automatically come within it. The closing warning about liberation follows from that gap between a promised future emancipation and the absence of a mechanism to bring it about.
Original
Les colonies paieront les dettes de la France
Ce projet de loi tend à instituer le
monopole des concessions à accorder
dans les colonies.
En voici les dispositions essentiel-
les:
Or^alÙM» J'ntic « Bocidt^ NtrtfUS'âlC W"
au capital de 10 milliards de francs-or
que l'Etat recevrait en échange de
l'apport du monopole ;
L'Etat conserverait, sous forme
d'actions, la moitié de ce capital et
placerait l'antre moitié dans le public ;
Les bénéfices seraient répartis, com-
me de juste, par moitié entre l'Etat
et les actionnaires ;
Un amortissement est prévu de sor-
te que l'Etat demeure seul actionnaire
au bout de 99 ans. 1
M. Boyer soutient que, sans aliéner
la moindre parcelle du domaine co-
lonial, une telle proposition procure-
rait à l'Etat, dans un court laps de
temps, des devises en quantité suffi-
sante pour assurer la ré valorisation
du franc,
Ainsi, le produit de la vente des ter-I
rains domaniaux profiterait, non plus
à la colonie intéressée, mais, du moins
en majeure partie, au budget métro-
politain.
Pour une trouvaille, c'en est une
belle !
Reste à savoir si les populations
indigènes l'entendront de cette oreille.
On se passera probablement de
leur avis, selon la tradition, bien
qu'elles soient les premières intéres-
sées, puisque le projet est soumis
directement à l'examen de la Cham-
bre, sanb passer par les corps élus des
colonies.
A en juger par des précédents, il
est certain que les Annamites ne l'ac-
cepteront pas sans broncher, en ce
qui les concerne.
On se rappelle les protestations vé-
hémentes soulevées par la mission
Candelier qui visait à l'aliénation, au
bénéfice d'une firme, du port de Sai-
gon-Cholon, pour vingt-cinq ans.
Or, cette manœuvre d'accapare-
ment n'est rien comparée à celle de
M. Boyer, qui consiste à réserver tou-
tes les terres disponibles des colonies
à l'exploitation exclusive par un grou-
pement, et cela pour une durée de 99
années, au bout desquelles l'Etat
Français en deviendra l'unique pro-
priétaire.
Autrement dit, les colonies seront
dépossédées, irrémédiablement, dé-
finitivement, de la totalité de leurs
terrains sans titulaire, dès l'institution
du monopole.
Vpe mise au poipt
En effet, il est affiché depuis le 14
Août 1926, aux bureaux de l'Inspec-
tion de Rachgia et dans les maisons
communes des villages intéressés,
une demande « d'aliénation à titre
onéreux de terrains domaniaux »
présentée par la S. I. C. A. F. (groupe
Homberg) d'une superficie de 30.000
hectares — je dis bien trente mille
hectares, pas moinss, - situés dans
six villages du canton de Thanh bien
(Dông-Yên. TàyYn. Dông-Thai, Dông
hoà,Dông-Thanh, Dông hung) et occu-
pant 39 kilomètres sur une longueur
totale de 40 kilomètres du canal Sông
Cai-lon, Rach Can-gao (Rachgia-Ga-
mau) récemment creusé et inachevé.
Il ne s'agit ni d'une vente aux en-
chères ni d'une vente de gré à gré,
mais d'un bail à long terme (de 99 ans)
dont les plus informés ignorent et les
prix et les modalités.
En regardant le plan joint aux affi-
ches, on dirait que le canal a été creu-
sé pour servir exclusivement la puis-
sante société, derrière laquelle des
langues méchantes ou bien rensei-
gnées disent qu'il y aurait Fontaine,
DaFles et Cognacq.
La demande d'une aussi grande su-
perficie ne peut comprendre pas rien
que des forêts vierges et des terrains
incultes, elle englobe fatalement des
terres cultivées et défrichées. Des
droits acquis et des droits des
premiers occupants sont ainsi lé-
sés, d'où des protestations affluent en
masse aux bureaux de l'inspection et
aux villages intéressés.
La Colonisation et la Paix internationale
Il faut préparer
les émancipations futures
Malheureusement, de cruels et
nombreux exemples, sous l'hypocrite
prétexte que les peuples protégés sont
et resteront éternellement nos infé-
rieurs, ont déshonoré Phistoire colo-
niale. On oublie trop facilement que,
comme toute œuvre d'éducation des
jndiyidus, J'ceuvie d'éducation des
peuples ne peut être que temporaire,
et que le devoir de tout administra-
teur est de prévoir, et même de hâter
l'heure à laquelle les peuples mineurs
atteindront leur majorité.
Aussi, nous, Jeunes Républicains,
qui ne croyons pas au dogme de l'in-
fériorité spécifique des races dites de
couleur, ne pouvons-nous que nous
réjouir des paroles prononcées par M.
Varcnne, à Saigon, et qui ont provo-
qué, dans la presse nationaliste, tant
de véhémentes protestations.
Le rôle de la Société des Nations
Mais qui fixera l'heure de cette
émancipation ? Ce ne peut être le
peuple mineur-Sera-ce donc le tuteur?
Non, car celui-ci sera toujours tenté
de retarder cette heure, surtout si son
administration lui procure des avan- ,
tages commerciaux et militaires.
Ce ne peut être qu'une autorité su-
perposée aux nations elles-mêmes, en
l'espèce la Société des Nations. C'est
d ailleurs là la théorie des colonies à
mandat, attribuées par le traité de
Versailles à des nations alliées et pla-
cées sous le contrôle de la Société des
Nations.
En ce qui concerne les anciennes
colonies, non visées par le traité de
Versailles, il y a évidemment une la-
cune, et il est à craindre que, si les
métropoles ne préviennent pas l'évé-
nement, ce sont les colonies elles-
mêmes, qui sonneront le tocsin de
leur libération.