The foregoing exposition of internal policy may be regarded as a brief statement of the principles which underlie the system of government in the Congo Free State. [Sidenote: Treaty between Congo State and United States.] That the United States did not construe an illogical meaning into the phrase “freedom of commerce,” and warp it out of all semblance to its natural character, is evidenced by the terms of its treaty with the Free State made seven years after the promulgation of the General Act of the Berlin Conference, during all of which time the Congo State authorities had acted upon the interpretation of the phrase indicated in Baron Lambermont’s definition, and in the learned opinions of Maîtres Barboux, Nys, Van Berchem, and Picard. Article I. of the treaty of April 2, 1892, between the United States and the Independent State of the Congo reads: The citizens and inhabitants of the Independent State of the Congo in the United States of America and those of the United States of America in the Independent State of the Congo shall have reciprocally the right, _on conforming to the laws of the country_, to enter, travel, and reside in all parts of their respective territory; to carry on business there; and they shall enjoy in this respect for the protection of their persons and their property the same treatment and the same rights as the natives, or the citizens and inhabitants of the most favoured nation. [Illustration: Students of the State Technical School, New Antwerp (Bangala).] [Illustration: Hospital, Boma.] In this connection Sir Edward Malet, the British Plenipotentiary at the Conference, clearly pointed out that “freedom of commerce unchecked by reasonable control would degenerate into licence.” Reasonable control is only another name for State law and police regulation. The Congo Government maintains that, subject to its internal laws and regulations which affect its own and foreign subjects alike, the subjects of every nation are free to enter its territory in pursuit of legitimate trade. _Apropos_ of this phase of the subject Baron Descamps says: The power of the State in this connection is incontestable. That power is derived directly from the primary right and duty to maintain public order everywhere and under all circumstances. Nobody can deny the State the right of taking steps, for example, for the preservation of public safety. Government cannot be carried on without a judicial and administrative police system, and a State could not renounce that prerogative without laying itself open to a charge of incapacity in its primary and essential functions. Hence, such a renunciation could not be argued from mere presumptions or inductions.[9] [Sidenote: The Free-Trade Policy.]