Part 32

Had the “retractation” of Epondo, first made at Mampoko, the head-quarters of the Lulanga Company, on the 8th October (see p. 31, “Notes”) (p. 35, _supra_) been sincere and quite uninfluenced by the environment to which he found himself removed at Bonginda, its sincerity would best have been demonstrated by its being repeated before Mr. Armstrong at Bonginda, whence the boy had just been removed.

Mr. Armstrong had cognizance of the case from the first. Bonginda lies only some 8 miles from Mampoko, and it would have been but just to Mr. Armstrong, as well as much more convincing, if, when the boy altered his statement, he had been taken back to where only the day before (see p. 29, “Notes”) (p. 33, _supra_) he had reiterated in the presence of Mr. Armstrong the original charge against Kelengo.

Instead of adopting this simple course, however, the boy, having been brought to “retract,” was carried off to Coquilhatville--fully 80 miles away--and a week later a declaration is required from Mr. Faris, a missionary, whose residence was situated far from the scene of the occurrences, who had no knowledge of the boy’s antecedents, or any means of testing his statement by cross-examination or otherwise.

A retractation by a lad of some 15 years of age brought about at Mampoko under influences not unfavourable to the accused sentry cannot be held as satisfactory. That the authorities at Coquilhatville did not themselves consider it convincing is clear from their action in calling upon Mr. Faris to furnish an extraneous support to the decision arrived at by their own magisterial inquiry at Mampoko.

Epondo’s “retractation” was made on the 8th October at Mampoko, and one statement in it, as given on p. 31 of the “Notes,” (p. 35, _supra_) throws doubt on much of the rest.

_Question_ (by the Substitut): “Depuis combien do temps cet accident vous est-il arrivé?”

_Answer_ (Epondo): “Je ne me rappelle pas: c’est depuis longtemps.”

When Mr. Casement visited Bosunguma on the 7th September the boy’s mutilated stump had evident signs of not being then completely healed: blood showed still in two places, over which the skin had not entirely formed, and it was wrapped up in a cloth.

“The “Notes” (p. 9) (p. 7, _supra_) allude to the attitude of the missionaries in the following words:--

“Et le fait n’est pas non plus sans importance, si l’on veut exactement se rendre compte de la valeur des témoignages, de la présence aux côtés de Mr. Casement, qui interrogeait les indigènes de deux missionnaires Protestants Anglais de la région, présence qui, à elle seule, a dû nécessairement orienter les dépositions.”

If it is permissible to cast this reflection upon the attitude towards the Government of the missionaries of the district, it is certainly relevant to point out that the presence beside Lieutenant Braeckman (who conducted the preliminary inquiry) and the Substitut du Procureur d’État of the agents of the Company having a deep interest in the charge against its employé, and the part those agents were permitted to take in the inquiry, must have vitally affected the testimony of the witnesses who deposed at Mampoko that the charge against the Lulanga sentry was inspired solely by a desire on the part of the natives to escape their rubber dealings with that firm.

It appears that there were two inquiries: the first conducted by Lieutenant Braeckman, at which the original witnesses against the sentry and others reaffirmed their accusation that it was he who had mutilated Epondo. At the second inquiry, conducted by the Substitut, which took place some fortnight later, none of the original witnesses against Kelengo appeared (see “Ordonnance de Non-Lieu,” p. 8, “Notes”) (p. 6, _supra_); but a number of persons--some of them servants of the Lulanga Company--made statements, contradictory in many respects, but agreeing with much unanimity that a wild boar, which no one of them had seen, at a date no one could assign, in an indeterminate locality, had eaten off the hand of this lad of 14 or 15 years of age, who, according to the first deposition cited (that of Efundu, on the 28th September, at Coquilhatville, p. 24, Annexe III) (p. 29, _supra_), had attempted to catch the wounded and infuriated creature by the ears!

It is obvious that the “conclusions posées” as the result of his inquiry by Lieutenant Braeckman (see “Ordonnance de Non-Lieu” of the 9th October, p. 8 of “Notes”) must, in part, have rested on evidence of natives he had interrogated at Bosunguma, in Mr. Armstrong’s presence, on the 14th September.

In this “Ordonnance” we find, however, that while the “conclusions” of Lieutenant Braeckman are accepted, the evidence on which those “conclusions,” in some part, must have rested is rejected on the ground that the witnesses took flight, and did not reappear at the second inquiry.

If the “conclusions” are accepted, the evidence on which they are founded should be also admissible.

There is, moreover, open contradiction if one turns to the evidence of the “Chief Bofoko, of Ikundja,” cited on p. 30 of Annexe III in the “Notes” (p. 34, _supra_).

This deponent appeared before the Substitut at Mampoko on the 8th October, and in the course of his interrogatory it is asserted that he was one of those who had originally testified against Kelengo before the British Consul.

_Question_ (by Substitut): “Pourquoi vous-même avez-vous déclaré au Consul Anglais avoir vu la main coupée par terre, le sang coulait, et les habitants du village qui couraient dans toutes les directions?”

_Answer_ (Bofoko): “Je n’ai pas parlé avec les Anglais. Je ne les ai pas même vus. Quand ils sont arrivés à Bosunguma, je n’étais pas là.”

_Substitut_: “Vous mentez, parce que le Consul Anglais déclare avoir parlé avec vous.”

_Answer_ (Bofoko): “Oui, c’est vrai. J’y étais. J’ai dit comme les autres,” &c.

Despite this record by himself on the 8th October of the _procès-verbal_ of the evidence of Bofoko, the Substitut, on the following day, draws up his “Ordonnance de Non-Lieu,” wherein, in the third paragraph, he states that--

“Attendu que tous les indigènes qui ont accusé Kelengo, soit au Consul de Sa Majesté Britannique, soit au Lieutenant Braeckman, convoqués par nous, Substitut, ont pris la fuite, et tous les efforts faits pour les retrouver n’ont abouti à aucun résultat: que cette fuite discrédite évidemment leurs affirmations”--(p. 8 of “Notes”).

In view of a discrepancy of this kind, it is, perhaps, needless further to investigate the character of the evidence upon which a sustained effort is made to discredit Mr. Casement’s testimony.

It may be observed that the natives cited by the Congo Government concurred in describing the accusation against the Lulanga Company’s sentry as prompted by the wish of the natives to escape from their rubber dealings with that Company.

If these dealings are but those of commerce, as has been repeatedly asserted (_e.g._, “Bulletin Officiel,” June 1903), there would not appear to be any sufficient pretext for the accusation these natives are said to have brought against that Company’s sentry.

We find it stated that the “liberté du commerce” the men of Bosunguma enjoyed presented itself to them in the following guise:--

“Pour ne pas faire de caoutchouc: Kelengo est sentinelle du caoutchouc.” (Efundu, the 28th September, 1903, p. 24.)

“Oui; j’ai entendu les indigènes se plaindre qu’ils travaillent beaucoup pour rien; que les Chefs s’emparaient des mitakos que les blancs payaient pour la récolte du caoutchouc; enfin, qu’ils mouraient de faim. Ils ajoutaient qu’ils avaient réclamé plusieurs fois inutilement,” &c. (Mongombe, the 28th September, 1903, p. 25.)

“Parce qu’ils étaient fatigués de faire du caoutchouc, qui n’était plus dans leur forêt. Ils ont cru qu’avec l’intervention des Anglais ils pourraient se soustraire à un travail très dur, &c..... Ils ont parlé avec les habitants, qui se plaignaient de ce qu’ils devaient travailler beaucoup. Ils disaient que le caoutchouc n’était plus dans leur forêt, qu’ils voulaient faire un travail moins dur,” &c. (Libuso, the 6th October, 1903, p. 27, “Notes.”)

“Parce qu’ils trouvent que le travail du caoutchouc est trop dur, et ont cru de pouvoir s’en libérer, et pour les induire à s’en occuper ils sont allés leur conter des mensonges.” (Bofoko, the 8th October, 1903, p. 30, “Notes.”)

If, as the Congo “Notes” assert on p. 6 (p. 5, _supra_), these “dépositions sont typiques, uniformes, et concordantes, elles ne laissent aucun doute sur la cause de l’accident, attestent que les indigènes ont menti au Consul, et révèlent le mobile auquel ils ont obéi”--they unquestionably leave no doubt that the relations of the Lulanga Company to the natives of the surrounding country were not those of a trading Company engaged in exclusively commercial dealings, but of an organization compelling, with the approval and support of the Executive, a widespread system for which no legal authority exists.

Whatever may have been the truth of the charge against the sentry, the very evidence cited to disprove it attests that the natives spoke truly as to their abject condition, and shows that in a region repeatedly visited by Government officials, traversed weekly by Government steamers, lying close to the head-quarters of the Executive of the district, the trading operations of a private Company depended for their profits upon the “obligation de l’impôt.”

The appended Table of exports and imports of the Congo State, taken from the “Bulletin Officiel” for April 1903 (No. 4), will suffice to indicate the larger aspect of the situation of the native producer:--

----------+---------------+------------------ | Exports from | Imports to | Congo State. | Congo State. +---------------+-------------- | Fr. | Fr. 1895 | 10,943,019 | 10,685,847 1896 | 12,389,599 | 15,227,776 1897 | 15,146,976 | 21,181,462 1898 | 22,163,481 | 23,084,446 1899 | 36,067,959 | 22,325,846 1900 | 47,377,401 | 24,724,108 1901 | 50,488,894 | 23,102,064 1902 | 50,069,514 | 18,080,909 ----------+---------------+--------------

The exports of native produce (“le négoce des autres produits indigènes”--“Bulletin Officiel,” April 1903, p. 65), it is seen, have enormously increased. They have considerably more than trebled in the six years from 1897 to 1902.

During the same period the imports into the Congo State--a small portion of which are trade goods for the purchase of produce or the remuneration of the producers--remained not merely stationary, but even decreased by 4,000,000 fr. during the last year.

These figures, as they stand, are remarkable. Their significance is increased when it is borne in mind that the population of the regions exporting this great increase of native produce has enormously decreased during the same period. That decrease is admitted by the authorities. (“Du reste, il n’est malheureusement que trop exact que la diminution de la population a été constatée”--“Notes,” p. 2) (p. 2, _supra_). We thus find that a diminishing population,[150] a diminishing market-value of the article produced and a diminishing means of purchase have been accompanied during a period of only six years by a more than trebled production.

It may be permitted to doubt whether this state of affairs is adequately explained anywhere in the Congo Government “Notes.”

It is not met by the statement on p. 14 (p. 9, _supra_) of this document:--

“Qu’il s’est agi de faire contracter l’habitude de travail à des indigènes qui y ont été réfractaires de tout temps.

“Et si cette idée du travail peut être plus aisément inculquée aux natifs sous la forme de transactions commerciales entre eux et des

## particuliers, faut-il nécessairement condamner ce mode d’action?”

&c.

On the same page of the “Notes” (14) it is sought to institute a comparison between the system of taxation in force on the Congo and that in operation in North and Eastern Rhodesia, and the conclusion is drawn that, since the latter is justified in a British Colonial administration, no exception can be taken to the former.

It is only necessary to point out that in North and Eastern Rhodesia, or in any other British Colony where direct taxation of the natives exists by law, the tax collector is a Government officer responsible for the sums levied to a central authority, not a trading agent having a direct personal interest in the amount of the “obligation de l’impôt.”

The native under the British system knows the fixed amount of his obligation, and, once discharged from it, he is free to seek, where he will, labour or leisure. The Congo taxpayer with an ever-present, perpetually-recurring, weekly or fortnightly imposition to make good, may not even leave his village, save as a fugitive, and is a close bondsman to these endless tasks.

With regard to the arming of the sentries or “forest guards” in the employ of the trading Companies on the Upper Congo, the “Notes” throw doubt on the estimate Mr. Casement formed of the number of these guns, and the use to which they are put, and it cites Circulars of the Governor-General of the Congo State, dating from the 12th March, 1897, to the 30th April, 1901, as evidence that the Executive authority had been careful to guard against a possible misuse of the arms.

But the issue of successive Circulars, which, by their own terms, show clearly that the law had been ignored or evaded, cannot be claimed as an effective fulfilment of a weighty obligation of the Executive.

It must further be borne in mind that the Congo Executive were themselves the direct agency for placing all the arms these Circulars refer to in the hands of those who are there shown to have ignored the law.

Every gun misused on the Upper Congo, with its accompanying ammunition, was carried to its destination by the vessels of the Government flotilla, which charged a considerable sum for their transport. They were housed in Government stores _en route_, for which a charge of “magasinage” is levied, and were distributed to the “factories” from Government steamers by Government Agents, who, having made a profit from their agency in the matter, subsequently issued circular instructions to those into whose hands they knowingly gave the weapons.

“Les capitas qui, dans le Haut-Congo, parcourent le pays pour compte de commerçants, et qui sont pourvus d’un fusil, doivent également être munis d’un permis de port d’armes.” (Circular of the 12th March, 1897. Annexe V. “Notes,” p. 34.)

* * * * *

“On a voulu y voir l’attribution aux Directeurs de ces Sociétés, et même à des agents subalternes, du droit de diriger des opérations militaires offensives, ‘de faire la guerre’ aux populations indigènes; d’autres, sans même s’inquiéter d’examiner quelles pourraient être les limites de ce droit de police, se sont servis de moyens que cette délégation avait mis entre leurs mains, pour commettre les abus les plus graves.

“Les armes perfectionnées que les Sociétés posséderaient dans leurs diverses factoreries ou établissements, et qui doivent faire l’objet comme les armes d’autres Sociétés n’ayant pas le droit de police, d’un permis Modèle B, ne peuvent en aucun cas sortir des établissements pour lesquels elles ont été délivrées. Quant aux fusils à piston, ils ne peuvent être mis en dehors des factoreries qu’entre les mains des capitas et à condition que ceux-ci aient un permis suivant Modèle C.”

(Circular of the 20th October, 1900; see p. 78, Mr. Casement’s Report.)

If the native sentries or capitas of these factories ranged the country with unlicensed arms, if these “Commercial” Companies made war on the natives, it was the Congo Government which carried those arms to their destinations and placed them in the hands of those who used them illegally.

“Nonobstant les précautions incessantes, le Consul a constaté que plusieurs capitas n’étaient pas porteurs de permis.”

(“Notes” of the Congo Government, the 12th March, 1904.)

The law prescribes clearly that no weapon can be issued for individual use save on the authority and personal licence of the Government.

That this law can be effectively observed was evidenced in Mr. Casement’s own case. A Winchester rifle for his use arrived on the Congo while he was in the interior. It could not be dispatched to him from Boma to Stanley Pool (where he found it on coming down river) until a licence had been granted. This rifle was branded and numbered according to law and the tax of 20 fr. levied.

A law thus rightly obligatory in the case of a foreign official, who could not be suspected of misuse of the weapon he had imported, should have had at least as stringent application to the capitas, and forest guards and sentries of the numerous Companies, which are shown by the Government Circulars quoted to have been recognized for years as seeking to evade the law.

That the Congo Government have intimate cognizance of the exact number of guns in use by the commercial Companies on the Upper Congo is evident, since every case of rifles and “ballot de fusils” imported into the Congo State has to enter the custom-house of Boma or Matadi, where it can only be withdrawn by authority.

Its subsequent transport to the interior is effected often by direct Government carriage, and always under Government control and supervision.

The Government of the Congo State, in concluding these preliminary “Notes” on Mr. Casement’s Report, formulate a complaint as to the manner in which he proceeded in investigating native statements brought to his notice.

This complaint has application to the one case of the boy Epondo, and to that case alone.

In no other instance did he attempt to interrogate, “comme par voie d’autorité,” any of the many natives whose homes he visited during his journey. In that one case it may be urged that, however unusual were the proceedings, it was clearly his duty not to turn a deaf ear to the appeal the people of Bosunguma addressed to him.

Whether they spoke truly or falsely in accusing the sentry of the act of mutilation, he had no option but to seek to arrive at the truth if he wished his intervention with the local authorities to have any effect.

Had he contented himself with merely listening to and reporting the accusation the natives of Bosunguma brought to him at Bonginda, the officials at Coquilhatville would have said he had formulated a grave charge against an individual on mere native report, without having taken the trouble to satisfy himself of its truth.

He could not, clearly, leave the mutilated boy in the town, where his assailant was represented as terrorizing the inhabitants.

It was his obvious duty to go to the spot, to see with his own eyes what truth lay in the report brought to him at Bonginda.

Once in Bosunguma, the only way to arrive at anything like the truth was to see the accusers and the accused face to face and to hear what each said.

He distinctly disclaimed any right of intervention or power to help; but if he was going to report the charge made against the sentry, and to ask for investigation, it was clearly necessary that he should first find out whether there was good ground for addressing the local authorities.

With regard to the question of mutilation, His Majesty’s Government note with interest that the Congo Government are aware that Mr. Casement is not alone in his opinion that such atrocities occur (§ 5, p. 5, of “Notes”) (§ 5, p. 4, _supra_).

The accusation as to “forced labour on the roads and restrictions which practically amount to slavery in Fiji” are due to an imperfect understanding of the communal system under which land is held there.

Individual land ownership does not exist, and the members of each commune have to perform their share of the necessary work, whatever it may be.

There is also the custom of “lala,” under which the local Chiefs are entitled to extract a certain number of days’ work from their commoners for the purpose of planting their gardens, building their houses, &c.

The Chiefs are bound to feed the workers so employed, and it is nothing more than a contribution towards their maintenance, paid by the commoners in work instead of taxes.

Instances have, no doubt, occurred in which these rights have been abused, but every effort is made to prevent them.

The whole system has been in force for centuries, and when His Majesty’s Government took over the islands it was thought expedient to continue it. It is understood by the natives, and is eminently suited to the needs of a primitive and half savage race.

The allegation as to the flogging of natives is, doubtless, an allusion to a case which occurred in 1902, of which the facts are briefly as follows:--

A native was arrested for two cases of indecent assault upon European women. He was tried according to native custom by the Commissioner and Chiefs of the island to which he belonged, having first been given his choice of being tried in this way or being referred to the Supreme Court. He pleaded guilty to one assault, and there was strong evidence against him in the other case. He was, accordingly, sentenced to be flogged.

Although for various reasons this summary procedure was advantageous, the case should properly have been referred to the Supreme Court. The Commissioner was, therefore, severely censured for his action.

The statement that the natives are constantly subject to imprisonment for frivolous causes is not borne out by any evidence in the possession of His Majesty’s Government.

AFRICA. No. 7 (1904).

FURTHER Correspondence respecting the Administration of the Independent State of the Congo.

[In continuation of “Africa No. 1 (1904).”]

_Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of His Majesty. June 1904._

LONDON PRINTED BY HARRISON AND SONS.

AFRICA. No. 14 (1903).

DESPATCH

TO CERTAIN OF

HIS MAJESTY’S REPRESENTATIVES ABROAD

IN REGARD TO

ALLEGED CASES OF ILL-TREATMENT OF NATIVES

AND TO THE EXISTENCE OF

TRADE MONOPOLIES IN THE INDEPENDENT

STATE OF THE CONGO.

_Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of His Majesty. October 1903._

LONDON: PRINTED FOR HIS MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE, BY HARRISON AND SONS, ST. MARTIN’S LANE, PRINTERS IN ORDINARY TO HIS MAJESTY.

And to be purchased, either directly or through any Bookseller, from

EYRE AND SPOTTISWOODE, EAST HARDING STREET, FLEET STREET, E.C., AND 32, ABINGDON STREET, WESTMINSTER, S.W.; OR OLIVER AND BOYD, EDINBURGH; OR E. PONSONBY, 116, GRAFTON STREET, DUBLIN.

[Cd. 1809.] _Price_ 1_d._

Despatch to certain of His Majesty’s Representatives abroad in regard to alleged Cases of Ill-treatment of Natives and to the Existence of Trade Monopolies in the Independent State of the Congo.

_The Marquess of Lansdowne to His Majesty’s Representatives at Paris, Berlin, Rome, St. Petersburgh, Vienna, Madrid, Constantinople, Brussels, Lisbon, the Hague, Copenhagen, and Stockholm._

Sir,

_Foreign Office, August 8, 1903._

The attention of His Majesty’s Government has during recent years been repeatedly called to alleged cases of ill-treatment of natives and to the existence of trade monopolies in the Independent State of the Congo. Representations to this effect are to be found in Memorials from philanthropic Societies, in communications from commercial bodies, in the public press, and in despatches from His Majesty’s Consuls.

The same matters formed the subject of a debate in the House of Commons on the 20th ultimo, when the House passed the Resolution, a copy of which is inclosed.

In the course of the debate, the official record of which is also inclosed, it was alleged that the object of the Administration was not so much the care and government of the natives as the collection of revenue; that this object was pursued by means of a system of forced labour, differing only in name from slavery; that the demands upon each village were exacted with a strictness which constantly degenerated into great cruelty, and that the men composing the armed force of the State were in many cases recruited from the most warlike and savage tribes, who not infrequently terrorized over their own officers and maltreated the natives without regard to discipline or fear of punishment.