Part 22

Telles sont les premières remarques que suggère le Rapport de M. Casement, et nous nous réservons de le raconter plus en détail, lorsque seront en possession du Gouvernement les résultats de l’enquête à laquelle les autorités locales vont procéder. Il sera remarqué que le Gouvernement, ne voulant pas paraître faire dévier le débat, n’a pas soulevé la question préjudicielle au sujet des formes, à coup sûr insolites, en lesquelles le Consul de Sa Majesté Britannique a agi en territoire étranger. Il n’échappera pas combien le rôle que s’est attribué le Consul en instituant des sortes d’enquêtes, en faisant comparaître des indigènes, en les interrogeant comme par voie d’autorité, en émettant même des espèces de jugements sur la culpabilité d’accusés, est en dehors des limites des attributions d’un Consul. Les réserves qu’appelle ce mode de procéder doivent être d’autant plus formelles que le Consul intervenait de la sorte en des affaires où n’étaient intéressés que des ressortissants de l’État du Congo et relevant exclusivement de l’autorité territoriale. M. Casement s’est chargé de se désavouer lui-même lorsque, le 4 Septembre, 1903, il écrivait au Gouverneur-Général: “I have no right of representation to your Excellency save where the persons or interests of British subjects dwelling in this country are affected.” Il était donc conscient de ce qu’il outrepassait les devoirs de sa charge, lorsqu’il investiguait sur des faits d’administration purement intérieure et empiétait ainsi sur les attributions des autorités territoriales, à l’encontre des règles du droit Consulaire.

“The grievances of the natives have been made known in this country by ..., who brought over a Petition addressed to the King, praying for relief from the excessive taxation and oppressive legislation of which they complain.”

Ces lignes sont extraites du “Report for 1903 de la British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society,” et les natifs dont il est question sont les indigènes des Iles Fiji. Ce Rapport continue:--

“The case has been brought before the House of Commons. The grievances include forced labour on the roads, and restrictions which practically amount to slavery; natives have been flogged without trial by Magistrate’s orders and are constantly subject to imprisonment for frivolous causes. Petitions lodged with the local Colonial Secretary have been disregarded. Mr. Chamberlain, in reply to the questions asked in Parliament, threw doubt upon the information received, but stated that the recently appointed Governor is conducting an inquiry into the whole situation in the Fiji Islands, in the course of which the matter will be fully investigated.”

Ces conclusions sont les nôtres au sujet du Rapport de M. Casement.

_Bruxelles, le 12 Mars, 1904._

(Translation.)

During the sitting of the House of Commons of the 11th March, 1903, Lord Cranborne observed:--

“We have no reason to think that slavery is recognized by the authorities of the Congo Free State, but reports of acts of cruelty and oppression have reached us. Such reports have been received from our Consular Officers.”

The Government of the Congo State addressed a letter on the 14th March, 1903, to Sir C. Phipps, requesting him to be good enough to communicate the facts which had formed the subject of any reports from British Consuls.

No reply was received to this application.

Lord Lansdowne’s despatch of the 8th August, 1903, contained the following passage:--

“Representations to this effect (alleged cases of ill-treatment of natives and existence of trade monopolies) are to be found ... in despatches from His Majesty’s Consuls.”

The impression was thus created that at that date His Majesty’s Government were in possession of conclusive evidence furnished by their Consuls: but none the less it seemed clearly necessary that Consul Casement should undertake a journey in the Upper Congo. It would appear, therefore, as if the conclusions contained in the note of the 8th August were at least premature; it equally follows that, contrary to what was said in that note, the British Consul was at liberty to undertake any journey in the interior that he thought fit. In any case, it is to be observed that, in spite of the repeated applications of the Congo State, the White Paper (“Africa No. 1 (1904)”) recently presented to Parliament does not contain any of these former Consular Reports, which nevertheless would have been the more interesting as dating from a time when the present campaign had not yet been initiated.

The present Report draws attention to the fact that in certain places visited by the Consul the population is decreasing. Mr. Casement does not give the facts on which he bases his comparative figures for 1887 and 1903. The question arises how, during the course of his rapid and hasty visits, he was able to get his figures for this latter year. On what facts, for instance, does he found his assertion that the riverain population of Lake Mantumba _seems_ to have diminished from 60 to 70 per cent. in the course of the last ten years. He states that at a certain place designated as F* the population of all the villages together does not at present amount to more than 500 souls; a few lines further on these same villages are spoken of as only containing 240 inhabitants altogether. These are only details, but they show at once what a lack of precision there is in certain of the deductions made by the Consul. It is, no doubt, unfortunately only too true that the population has diminished; but the diminution is due to other causes than to the exercise on the native population of a too exacting or oppressive Administration. It is owing chiefly to the sleeping-sickness, which is decimating the population throughout Equatorial Africa. The Report itself observes that “a prominent place must be assigned to this malady,”[83] and that this malady is “probably one of the principal factors” in the diminution of the population.[84] It is only necessary to read the Rev. John Whitehead’s letter, quoted by the Consul (Annex II to the Report) to obtain an idea of the ravages of the malady, to which this missionary attributes half of the deaths which take place in the riverain parts of the district. In a recent interview Mgr. Van Ronslé, Vicar Apostolic of the Belgian Congo, who speaks with the authority of one who has had a large experience of African matters, and has resided for long periods in many different localities in the Congo, explained the development of this scourge and the inevitable decay of the populations it attacks, whatever the conditions of their social existence; mentioning among other cases the terrible loss of life caused by this disease in Uganda. If to this principal cause of the depopulation of the Congo are added small-pox epidemics, the inability of the tribes at the present moment to keep up their numbers by the purchase of slaves, and the ease with which the natives can migrate, it can be explained how the Consul and the missionaries may have been struck with the diminution of the number of inhabitants in certain centres without that diminution necessarily being the result of a system of oppression. Annex I contains the declarations on the subject made by Mgr. Van Ronslé. His remarks as to the effect of the suppression of slavery on the numbers of the population are printed elsewhere:--

“The people (slave) are for the most part originally prisoners of war. Since the Decree of emancipation they have simply returned to their own distant homes, knowing their owners have no power to recapture them. This is one reason why some think the population is decreasing, and another reason is the vast exodus up and down river.”[85]

“So long as the Slave Trade flourished the Bobangi flourished, but with its abolition they are tending to disappear, for their towns were replenished by slaves.”[86]

The Consul mentions cases, the causes of which, however, are unknown to him, of an exodus of natives of the Congo to the French bank. It is not quite clear on what grounds he attaches blame to the State on their account, to judge at least from the motives by which some of them have been determined--for instance, the examples of such emigration which are given and explained by the Rev. W. H. Bentley, an English missionary. One relates to the station at Lukolela:--

“The main difficulty has been the shifting of the population. It appears that the population, when the station was founded in 1886, was between 5,000 and 6,000 in the riverain Colonies. About two years later the Chief Mpuki did not agree with his neighbours or they with him. When the tension became acute, Mpuki crossed over with his people to the opposite (French) side of the river. This exodus took away a large number of people. In 1890 or 1891 a Chief from one of the lower towns was compelled by the majority of his people to leave the State side, and several went with him. About 1893 the rest of the people at the lower towns either went across to the same place as the deposed Chief or took up their residence inland. Towards the end of 1894 a soldier, who had been sent to cut firewood for the State steamers on an island off the towns, left his work to make an evil request in one of the towns. He shot the man who refused him. The rascal of a soldier was properly dealt with by the State officer in charge; but this outrage combined with other smaller difficulties to produce a panic, and nearly all the people left for the French side, or hid away inland. So the fine township has broken up.”[87]

The other refers to the station at Bolobo:--

“It is rare indeed for Bolobo, with its 30,000 or 40,000 people, divided into some dozen clans, to be at peace for any length of time together. The loss of life from these petty wars, the number of those killed for witchcraft, and of those who are buried alive with the dead, involve, even within our narrow limits here at Bolobo, an almost daily drain upon the vitality of the country, and an incalculable amount of sorrow and suffering.... The Government was not indifferent to these murderous ways.... In 1890, the District Commissioner called the people together, and warned them against the burying of slaves alive in the graves of free people, and the reckless killing of slaves which then obtained. The natives did not like the rising power of the State.... Our own settlement among them was not unattended with difficulty.... There was a feeling against white men generally, and especially so against the State. The people became insolent and haughty.... Just at this time ... as a force of soldiers steamed past the Moye towns, the steamers were fired upon. The soldiers landed and burnt and looted the towns. The natives ran away into the grass, and great numbers crossed to the French side of the river. They awoke to the fact that Bula Matadi, the State, was not the helpless thing they had so long thought. This happened early in 1891.”[88]

It will be seen that these examples do not attribute the emigration of the natives to any such causes as:--

“The methods employed to obtain labour from them by local officials and the exactions levied on them.”[89]

The Report dwells at length on the existence of native taxes. It shows how the natives are subject to forced labour of various kinds, in one district having to furnish the Government posts with “chikwangues,” or fresh provisions, in another being obliged to assist in works of public utility, such as the construction of a jetty at Bololo, or the up-keep of the telegraph line at F*; elsewhere being obliged to collect the produce of the domain lands. We maintain that such imposts on the natives are legitimate, in agreement on this point with His Majesty’s Government, who, in the Memorandum of the 11th February last, declare that the industry and development of the British Colonies and Protectorates in Africa show that His Majesty’s Government have always admitted the necessity of making the natives contribute to the public charges and of inducing them to work. We also agree with His Majesty’s Government that, if abuses occur in this connection--and undoubtedly some have occurred in all Colonies--such abuses call for reform, and that it is the duty of the authorities to put an end to them, and to reconcile as far as may be the requirements of the Government with the real interests of the natives.

But in this matter the Congo State intends to exercise freely its rights of sovereignty--as, for instance, His Majesty’s Government explain in their last Memorandum that they themselves did at Sierra Leone--without regard to external pressure or foreign interference, which would be an encroachment upon its essential rights.

The Consul, in his Report, obviously endeavours to create the impression that taxes in the Congo are collected in a violent, inhuman, and cruel manner, and we are anxious before all to rebut the accusation which has so often been brought against the State that such collection gives rise to odious acts of mutilation. On this point a superficial perusal of the Report is calculated to impress by its easy accumulation not of facts, simple, precise, and verified, but of the declarations and affirmations of natives.

There is a preliminary remark to be made in regard to the conditions in which the Consul made his journey.

Whether such was his intention or not, the British Consul appeared to the inhabitants as the redresser of the wrongs, real or imaginary, of the natives, and his presence at La Lulonga, coinciding with the campaign which was being directed against the Congo State, in a region where the influence of the Protestant missionaries has long been exercised, necessarily had for the natives a significance which did not escape them. The Consul made his investigations quite independently of the Government officials, quite independently of any action and of any co-operation on the part of the regular authorities; he was assisted in his proceedings by English Protestant missionaries; he made his inspection on a steamer belonging to a Protestant Mission; he was entertained for the most part in the Protestant Missions; and, in these circumstances, it was inevitable that he should be considered by the native as the antagonist of the established authorities.

Other proof is not required than the characteristic fact that while the Consul was at Bonginda, the natives crowded down to the bank, as some agents of the La Lulonga Company were going by in a canoe, and cried out: “Your violence is over, it is passing away; only the English remain; may you others die!” There is also this significant admission on the part of a Protestant missionary, who, in alluding to this incident, remarked:--

“The Consul was here at the time, and the people were much excited and evidently thought themselves on top.... The people have got this idea (that the rubber work was finished) into their heads of themselves, consequent, I suppose, upon the Consul’s visit.”

In these circumstances, in view of the state of mind which they show to exist among the natives, in view of their impressionable character and of their natural desire to escape taxation, it could not be doubted but that the conclusions at which the Consul would arrive would not be other than those set forth in his Report.

To bring out this point, and to show how little value is to be attached to his investigations, it will be sufficient to examine one case, that on which Mr. Casement principally relies; we allude to the Epondo case. It is that of the child I I, mentioned on pp. 56, 58, and 78 of the Report.

It is indispensable to enter somewhat at length into the details of this case, which are significant.

On the 4th September, 1903, the Consul was at the Bonginda station of the Congo Bololo Mission, having returned from a journey on the Lopori, during the course of which he had not come across any of those acts of mutilation which it is the custom to attribute to officials in the Congo.

At Bonginda, the natives of a neighbouring village (Bossunguma) came to him and informed him, amongst other things, that a “sentry” of the La Lulonga Company, named Kelengo,[90] had, at Bossunguma, cut off the hand of a native called Epondo, whose wounds were still scarcely healed. The Consul proceeded to Bossunguma, accompanied by the Rev. W. D. Armstrong and the Rev. D. J. Danielson, and had the mutilated native brought before him, who, “in answer to Consul’s question, charges a sentry named ‘Kelengo’ (placed in the town by the local agent of the La Lulonga Society to see that the people work rubber)” with having done it. Such are the Consul’s own words: it was necessary to establish a relation of cause and effect between the collection of india-rubber and this alleged case of cruelty.

The Consul proceeded to question the Chief and some of the natives of the village. They replied by accusing Kelengo; most of them asserted that they were _eye-witnesses_ of the deed. The Consul inquired through his interpreters if there were other witnesses who saw the crime committed, and accused Kelengo of it. “Nearly all those present, about forty persons, shouted out with one voice that it was ‘Kelengo’ who did it.”

In order to understand the violence with which the natives accused Kelengo, and the unanimous manner in which the denials of the accused were rejected by his accusers, it is necessary to read the whole of the report of this inquiry, as drawn up by the Consul himself in a kind of _procès-verbaux_, dated the 7th, 8th, and 9th September (Annex II). From all quarters accusers appeared, and the excited crowd gave vent to all sorts of accusations: he had cut off Epondo’s hand, chained up women, stolen ducks and a dog! The Consul did not allow his suspicions to be aroused by the passionate character of these accusations; without any further guarantee of their sincerity or further examination into their truth, he looked upon his inquiry as conclusive, and as he had taken upon himself the duties of the Public Prosecutor in making preliminary inquiries into the matter, so he anticipated the decision of the responsible authorities by declaring to the assembled people that “Kelengo deserved severe punishment for his illegal and cruel acts.” He proceeded to dramatize the incident by carrying off the pretended victim, and exhibiting him on the 10th September to the official in command of the station at Coquilhatville, to whom he handed a copy of the record of his inquiry, and on the 12th September he addressed a letter to the Governor-General which he marked as “personal and private,” and in which he makes the incident in question among others a text for an attack on “the system of general exploitation of an entire population which can only be rendered successful by the employment of arbitrary and illegal force.” His inquiry terminated, he immediately started on his return journey to the Lower Congo.

Even if the circumstances had been correctly reported, the disproportion would still have been striking between them and the conclusions which the Consul draws when emphasizing his general criticisms of the Congo State. But the facts themselves are incorrectly represented.

As a matter of fact, no sooner did the Consul’s denunciation reach the Public Prosecutor’s Department than M. Gennaro Bosco, Acting Public Prosecutor, proceeded to the spot and held a judicial inquiry under the usual conditions free from all outside influences. This inquiry showed that His Britannic Majesty’s Consul had been the object of a plot contrived by the natives, who, in the hope of no longer being obliged to work, had agreed among themselves to represent Epondo as the victim of the inhuman conduct of one of the capitas of a commercial Company. In reality, Epondo had been the victim of an accident while out hunting, and had been bitten in the hand by a wild boar; gangrene had set in and caused the loss of the member, and this fact had been cleverly turned to account by the natives when before the Consul. We annex (Annex No. 3) extracts from the inquiry conducted by the Acting Public Prosecutor into the Epondo case. The evidence is typical, uniform, and without discrepancies. It leaves no doubt as to the cause of the accident, makes it clear that the natives lied to the Consul, and reveals the object which actuated them, namely, the hope that the Consul’s intervention would relieve them from the necessity of paying taxes. The inquiry shows how Epondo, at last brought to account, retracted what he had in the first instance said to the Consul, and confessed that he had been influenced by the people of his village. He was questioned as follows:--

_Q._ Do you persist in accusing Kelengo of having cut off your left hand?

_A._ No. I told a lie.

_Q._ State, then, how and when you lost your hand.

_A._ I was a slave of Monkekola’s at Malele, in the Bangala district. One day I went out boar-hunting with him. He wounded one with a spear, and thereupon the animal, enraged, turned on me. I tried to run off with the others, but falling down, the boar was on me in a moment and tore off my left hand and (wounded me) in the stomach and left thigh.

The witness exhibits the scars he carries at the places mentioned, and lying down of his own accord shows the position he was in when the boar attacked and wounded him.

_Q._ How long ago did this accident happen?

_A._ I don’t remember. It was a long time ago.

_Q._ Why did you accuse Kelengo?

_A._ Because Momaketa, one of the Bossunguma Chiefs, told me to, and afterwards all the inhabitants of my village did so too.

* * * * *

_Q._ Did the English photograph you?

_A._ Yes, at Bonginda and Lulanga. They told me to put the stump well forward. There were Nenele, Mongongolo, Torongo, and other whites whose names I don’t know. They were whites from Lulanga. Mongongolo took away six photographs.[91]

Epondo of his own accord repeated his declarations and retractations to a Protestant missionary, Mr. Faris, who lives at Bolengi. This gentleman has sent the Commissary-General at Coquilhatville the following written declaration:--

“I, E. E. Faris, missionary, residing at Bolengi, Upper Congo, declare that I questioned the boy Epondo, of the village of Bosongoma, who was at my house on the 10th September, 1903, with Mr. Casement, the British Consul, and whom, in accordance with the request made to me by Commandant Stevens, of Coquilhatville, I took to the mission station at Bolengi on the 16th October, 1903; and that the said boy has this day, the 17th October, 1903, told me that he lost his hand through the bite of a wild boar.

“He told me at the same time that he informed Mr. Casement that his hand was cut off either by a soldier or, perhaps, by one of those working for the white men (“travailleurs de blanc”), who have been making war in his village with a view to the collection of rubber, but he asserts that the account which he has given me to-day is the truth.”

(Signed) “E. E. FARIS.”

“_Bolengi, October 17, 1903._”

The inquiry resulted in the discharge of the prisoner, which, so far as it concerned the Epondo question, was in the following terms:--

We, Acting Public Prosecutor of the Court of Coquilhatville:

Having regard to the notes made by His Britannic Majesty’s Consul, on the occasion of his visit to the villages of Ikandja and Bossunguma in the territory of the Ngombe, from which it would appear that a certain Kelengo, a forest guard in the service of the La Lulonga Company--