istoric interest and
association. The great name inseparably and immortally linked with it is
that of Stanley. Although he found Livingstone, relieved Emin Pasha,
first traversed the Congo River, and sowed the seeds of civilization
throughout the heart of the continent, his greatest single achievement,
perhaps, was the founding of the Congo Free State. No other enterprise
took such toll of his essential qualities and especially his genius for
organization.

Stanley is most widely known as an explorer, yet he was, at the same
time, one of the master civilizers. He felt that his Congo adventure
would be incomplete if he did not make the State a vast productive
region and the home of the white man. He longed to see it a British
possession and it was only after he offered it twice to England and was
twice rebuffed, that he accepted the invitation of King Leopold II to
organize the stations under the auspices of the International African
Association, which was the first step toward Belgian sovereignty.

I have talked with many British and Belgian associates of Stanley.
Without exception they all acclaim his sterling virtues both in the
physical and spiritual sense. All agree that he was a hard man. The best
explanation of this so-called hardness is given by Herbert Ward, who
once spoke to him about it. Stanley's reply was, "You've got to be hard.
If you're not hard you're weak. There are only two sides to it."

Stanley always declared that his whole idea of life and work were
embodied in the following maxim: "The three M's are all we need. They
are Morals, Mind and Muscles. These must be cultivated if we wish to be
immortal." To an astonishing degree he worked and lived up to these
principles.

No explorer, not even Peary in the Arctic wilds, was ever prey to a
larger isolation than this man. In the midst of the multitude he was
alone. He shunned intimacy and one of his mournful reflections was, "I
have had no friend on any expedition, no one who could possibly be my
companion on an equal footing, except while with Livingstone."

I cannot resist the impulse to make comparison between those two
outstanding Englishmen, Rhodes and Stanley, whose lives are intimately
woven into the fabric of African romance. They had much in common and
yet they were widely different in purpose and temperament. Each was an
autocrat and brooked no interference. Each had the same kindling ideal
of British imperialism. Each suffered abuse at th