The Casement Report 45

The Casement Report 45

Be this how it may, it is to be observed that nowhere in the territory

which is the scene of the operations of the A.B.I.R. Company did the

Consul discover any evidence of acts of cruelty for which the commercial

agents might have been considered responsible. The coincidence is

remarkable, since it so happens that the A.B.I.R. Company is a

concessionary Company, and that it is the system of concessions to which

are constantly attributed the most disastrous consequences for the

natives.

 

What it is important to discover from the immense number of questions

touched on by the Consul, and the multiplicity of minor facts which he

has collected, is whether the sort of picture he has drawn of the

wretched existence led by the natives corresponds to the actual state of

affairs. We will take, for instance, the district of the Lulanga and the

Lopori, as the head-stations of the missions of the “Congo Balolo

Mission” have been established there for years past. These missionaries

are established in the most distant places in the interior, at Lulonga,

Bonginda, Ikau, Bongandanga, and Baringa, all of which are situated in

the scene of operations of the La Lulonga and A.B.I.R. Companies. They

are in constant communication with the native populations, and a special

monthly review, called “Regions Beyond,” regularly publishes their

letters, notes, and reports. An examination of a set of these

publications reveals no trace, at any time previous to April 1903--by

that date, it is true, Mr. Herbert Samuel’s motion had been brought

before Parliament--of anything either to point out or to reveal that the

general situation of the native populations was such as ought to be

denounced to the civilized world. The missionaries congratulate

themselves on the active sympathy shown them by the various official and

commercial agents,[115] on the progress of their work of

evangelization,[116] on the facilities afforded them by the construction

of roads,[117] on the manner in which the natives are becoming

civilized, “owing to the mere presence of white men in their midst, both

missionaries and traders,”[118] on the disappearance of slavery,[119] on

the density of the population,[120] on the growing number of their

pupils, “especially since the State has issued orders for all children

within reach to attend the mission schools,”[121] on the gradual

disappearance of the primitive customs of the natives,[122] and lastly,

on the contrast between the present and the past.[123] Will it be

admitted that these Christian English missionaries, who, during their

journeys, visited the various factories, and witnessed markets of rubber

being held, would, by keeping silence, make themselves the accomplices

of an inhuman or wrongful system of government? Among the conclusions of

one of the Annual Reports of the Congo Balolo Mission is to be found the

following: “On the whole, the retrospect is encouraging. If there has

been no great advance, there has been no heavy falling off, and no

definite opposition to the work.... There has been much famine and

sickness among the natives, especially at Bonginda.... Apart from this,

there has been no serious hindrance to progress....”[124] And speaking

incidentally of the beneficial effect produced by work on the social

condition of the natives, a missionary writes: “The greatest obstacle to

conversion is polygamy. Many evils have been put down, _e.g._, idleness,

thanks to the State having compelled the men to work; and fighting,

through their not having time enough to fight.”[125] These opinions of

missionaries appear to us to be more precise than those expressed in a

Report on every page of which it may be said one finds such __EXPRESSION__s

as: “I was told,” “it was said,” “I was informed,” “I was assured,”

“they said,” “it was alleged,” “I had no means of verifying,” “it was

impossible for me to verify,” “I have no means of ascertaining,” &c.

Within a space of ten lines, indeed, occur four times the __EXPRESSION__s,

“appears,” “would seem,” “would seem,” “do not seem.”[126]

 

The Consul does not appear to have realized that native taxes in the

Congo are levied in the shape of labour, and that this form of tax is

justified as much by the moral effect which it produces, as by the

impossibility of taxing the native in any other way, seeing that, as the

Consul admits, the native has no money. It is to this consideration that

is due the fact, to give another example, that out of 56,700 huts which

are taxed in North-Eastern Rhodesia 19,653 pay that tax “in labour,”

while 4,938 pay it “in produce.”[127] Whether such labour is furnished

direct to the State or to some private undertaking, and whether it is

given in aid of this or that work as local necessities may dictate, one

ground of justification is always to be found in what the Memorandum of

the 11th February last recognizes is the “necessity of the natives being

induced to work.” The Consul shows much anxiety as to how this forced

labour should be described; he is surprised that if it be a tax it is

sometimes paid and recovered by commercial agents. Strictly speaking, of

course, it cannot be denied that the idea of remunerating a person for

paying his taxes is contrary to ordinary notions of finance; but the

difficulty disappears if it is considered that the object in view has

been to get the natives to acquire the habit of labour, from which they

have always shown a great aversion. And if this notion of work can more

easily be inculcated on the natives under the form of commercial

transactions between them and private persons, is it necessary to

condemn such a mode of procedure, especially in those parts where the

organization of the Administration is not yet complete? But it is

essential that in the relations of this nature which they have with the

natives, commercial agents, no less than those of the State, should be

kind and humane. In so far as it bears on this point the Consul’s Report

will receive the most careful consideration, and if the result of

investigation be to show that there are real abuses and that reforms are

called for, the heads of the Administration will act as the

circumstances may require.

 

But no one has ever imagined that the fiscal system in the Congo

attained perfection at once, especially in regard to such matters as the

assessment of taxes and the means for recovering them. The system of

“Chieftaincies,” which is recommended by the fact that it enables the

authorities and the native to communicate through the latter’s natural

Chief, was based on an idea carried into practice elsewhere:--

 

“The more important Chiefs who helped the Administration have been

paid a certain percentage of the taxes collected in their

districts, and I think that if this policy is adhered to each year,

the results will continue to be satisfactory and will encourage the

Chiefs to work in harmony with the Administration.”[128]

 

The Decree on the subject of these Chieftaincies[129] laid down the

principle of a tax, and its levy in accordance with “a table of

contributions to be made every year by each village in produce, forced

labour, labourers, or soldiers.” The application of this Decree has been

provided for by deeds of investiture, tables of statistics, and

particulars of contributions, forms of which will be found in Annex IV.

In spite of what is stated in the Report, this Decree has been carried

out so far as has been found compatible with the social condition of the

various tribes; numerous deeds of investiture have been drawn up, and

efforts have been made to draw up an equitable assessment of the

contributions. The Consul might have found this out at the

Commissioners’ offices, especially in the Stanley Pool and Equator

districts, which he passed through; but he neglected as a rule all

official sources of information. No doubt the application of the Decree

was at first necessarily limited, and it is possible that the result has

been that for a certain time only such villages as were within a short

distance from stations have been required to pay taxes; but this state

of things has little by little altered for the better in proportion as

the more distant regions have become included in the areas of influence

of the Government posts, the number of villages subject to taxation has

gradually increased, and it has been found possible to levy taxes on a

greater number of persons. The Government aim at making progress in this

direction continuous, that is to say, that taxation should be more

equitably distributed, and should as much as possible be personal; it

was with this object that the Decree of the 18th November, 1903,

provided for drawing up “lists of native contributions” in such a way

that the obligations of every native should be strictly defined.

 

“Article 28 of this Decree lays down that within the limits of

Article 2 of the present regulations (that is to say, within the

limit of forty hours’ work per month per native) the District

Commissioners shall draw up annual lists of the taxes to be paid,

in land or duration of labour, by each of the natives resident in

the territories of their respective districts. And Article 55

punishes ‘whoever, being charged with the levy of taxes, shall have

required of the natives, whether in kind or labour, contributions

which shall exceed in value those prescribed in the tables of

taxes.’”

 

It in matter of common notoriety that the collection of taxes is

occasionally met by opposition, and even refusal to pay. The proofs of

this, which are to be found in the Report of the Consul for the Congo,

are borne out by what has happened, for instance, in Rhodesia:--

 

“The Ba-Unga (Awemba district), inhabitants of the swamps in the

Zambezi delta, gave some trouble on being summoned to pay

taxes.”[130]

 

“Although in many cases whole villages retired into the swamps on

being called upon for the hut-tax, the general result was

satisfactory for the first year (Luapula district).”[131]

 

“Milala’s people have succeeded in evading taxes.”[132]

 

“A few natives bordering on the Portuguese territory, who, owing to

the great distance they reside from the Native Commissioners’

Stations, are not under the direct supervision of the Native

Commissioners, have so far evaded paying hut tax, and refused to

submit themselves to the authority of the Government. The rebel

Chief, Mapondera, has upon three occasions successfully eluded

punitive expeditions sent against him. Captain Gilson, of the

British South Africa Police, was successful in coming upon him and

a large following of natives, and inflicting heavy losses upon

them. His kraal and all his crops were destroyed. He is now

reported to be in Portuguese territory. Siji M’Kota, another

powerful Chief, living in the northern parts of the M’toko

district, bordering on Portuguese territory, has also been

successful in evading the payment of hut tax, and generally

pursuing the adoption of an attitude which is not acceptable to the

Government. I am pleased to report that a patrol is at present on

its way to these parts to deal with this Chief, and to endeavour to

obtain his submission. It will be noted that the above remarks

relate solely to those natives who reside along the borders of our

territories, and whose defiant attitude is materially assisted by

reason of this proximity to the Portuguese border, across which

they are well able to proceed whenever they consider that any

meeting or contact with the Native Commissioner will interfere in

any way with their indolent and lazy life. They possess no movable

property which might be attached with a view of the recovery of hut

tax unpaid for many years, and travel backwards and forwards with

considerable freedom, always placing themselves totally beyond the

reach of the Native Commissioner.”[133]

 

The above is an instance of those “punitive expeditions” to which the

authorities are occasionally obliged to resort, as also of the native

custom, which is not peculiar to the natives of the Congo, of moving

into a neighbouring territory when they are seeking to evade the

operation of the law. Whether in the process of collecting native taxes

there have been cases in the Congo, amongst those mentioned by the

Consul, in which the limits of a just and reasonable severity have been

overstepped is a question of fact which investigation on the spot can

alone ascertain, and instructions to this effect will be given to the

authorities at Boma.

 

We are also unable to accept, on the information at present before us,

the conclusions of the Report in regard to the conduct of the forest

guards in the employ of the A.B.I.R. and La Lulonga Companies. These

subordinate officers are represented by the Consul as being exclusively

employed in “compelling by force the collection of india-rubber or the

supplies which each factory needed.”[134] It is true that another

explanation has been given--though not, indeed, by a native--according

to which the business of these same forest guards is to see that the

india-rubber is harvested after a reasonable fashion, and especially to

prevent the natives from cutting the plants.[135] It is, indeed, well

known that the law has made rigorous provision for preserving the rubber

zones, has regulated the manner in which they are to be worked, and has

made planting and replanting obligatory, with a view to avoiding the

complete exhaustion of the rubber plant which has occurred, for

instance, in North-eastern and Western Rhodesia.[136] A heavy

responsibility in this direction lies on the Companies and private

persons engaged in developing the country, and it is obvious that they

are bound to exercise the most careful superintendence over the way in

which the harvest is collected. The object for which these forest guards

are employed, therefore, may well be quite different from that alleged by the Consul;

The Casement Report 44

The Casement Report 44

That it is confirmed by the clearly stated opinion of the English

missionary Armstrong, who considers the natives to be “capable of

any plot to escape work and especially the labour of collecting

rubber”;

 

That the innocence of Kelengo having been thoroughly established,

there is no reason for proceeding against him;

 

On the above-mentioned grounds, we, the Acting Public Prosecutor,

declare that there are no grounds for proceeding against Kelengo, a

forest guard in the service of the La Lulonga Company, for the

offences mentioned in Articles 2, 5, 11, and 19 of the Penal Code.

 

(Signed) BOSCO,

_Acting Public Prosecutor_.

 

_Mampoko, October 9, 1903._

 

We have dealt at length with the above case because it is considered by

the Consul himself as being one of the utmost importance, and because he

relies upon this single case for accepting as accurate all the other

declarations made to him by natives.

 

“In the one case I could alone personally investigate,” he

says,[92] “that of the boy I I, I found this accusation proved on

the spot without seemingly a shadow of doubt existing as to the

guilt of the accused sentry.”

 

And further on:--

 

“I had not time to do more than visit the one village of R**, and

in that village I had only time to investigate the charge brought

by I I.”[93]

 

And elsewhere:--

 

“It was obviously impossible that I should ... verify on the spot,

as in the case of the boy, the statements they made. In that one

case the truth of the charges preferred was amply

demonstrated.”[94]

 

It is also to this case that he alludes in his letter of the 12th

September, 1903, to the Governor-General, where he says:--

 

“When speaking to M. le Commandant Stevens at Colquilhatville on

the 10th instant, when the _mutilated boy Epondo stood before us as

evidence of the deplorable state of affairs_ I reprobated, I said,

‘I do not accuse an individual, I accuse a system.’”

 

It is only natural to conclude that if the rest of the evidence in the

Consul’s Report is of the same value as that furnished to him in this

particular case, it cannot possibly be regarded as conclusive. And it is

obvious that in those cases in which the Consul, as he himself admits,

did not attempt to verify the assertions of the natives, these

assertions are worth, if possible, still less.

 

It is doubtless true that the Consul deliberately incurred the certain

risk of being misled owing to the manner in which he interrogated the

natives, which he did, as a matter of fact, through two

interpreters--“through Vinda, speaking in Bobangi, and Bateko,

repeating his utterances ... in the local dialect;[95] so that the

Consul was at the mercy not only of the truthfulness of the native who

was being questioned, but depended also on the correctness of the

translations of two other natives, one of whom was a servant of his own,

and the other apparently the missionaries’ interpreter.[96] But any one

who has ever been in contact with the native knows how much he is given

to lying; the Rev. C. H. Harvey[97] states that--

 

“The natives of the Congo who surrounded us were contemptible,

perfidious and cruel, impudent liars, dishonest, and vile.”

 

It is also important, if one wishes to get a correct idea of the value

of this evidence, to note that while Mr. Casement was questioning the

natives, he was accompanied by two local Protestant English

missionaries, whose presence must alone have necessarily affected the

evidence.[98]

 

We should ourselves be going too far if from all this we were to

conclude that the whole of the native statements reported by the Consul

ought to be rejected. But it is clearly shown that his proofs are

insufficient as a basis for a deliberate judgment, and that the

particulars in question require to be carefully and impartially tested.

 

On examining the Consul’s voluminous Report for other cases which he

_has seen_, and which he sets down as cases of mutilation, it will be

observed that he mentions two as having occurred on Lake Mantumba[99]

“some years ago.”[100] He mentions several others, in regard to the

number of which the particulars given in the Report do not seem to

agree,[101] as having taken place in the neighbourhood of Bonginda,[102]

precisely in the country of the Epondo inquiry, where, as has been seen,

the general feeling was excited and prejudiced. It is these cases which,

he says, he had not time to inquire into fully,[103] and which,

according to the natives, were due to agents of the La Lulanga Company.

Were these instances of victims of the practice of native customs which

the natives would have been careful not to admit? Were the injuries

which the Consul saw due to some conflict between neighbouring villages

or tribes? Or were they really due to the black subordinates of the

Company? This cannot be determined by a perusal of the Report, as the

natives in this instance, as in every other, were the sole source of the

Consul’s information, and he, for his part, confined himself to taking

rapid notes of their numerous statements for a few hours in the morning

of the 5th September, being pressed for time, in order to reach K*

(Bossunguma) at a reasonable hour.[104]

 

Notwithstanding the weight which he attaches to the “air of frankness”

and the “air of conviction and sincerity”[105] on the part of the

natives, his own experience shows clearly the necessity for caution, and

renders rash his assertion “that it was clear that these men were

stating either what they had actually seen with their eyes or firmly

believed in their hearts.”[106]

 

Now, however, that the Consul has drawn attention to these few

cases--whether cases of cruelty or not, and they are all that, as a

matter of fact, he has inquired into personally, and even so without

being able to prove sufficiently their real cause--the authorities will

of course look into the matter and cause inquiries to be made. It is to

be regretted that, this being so, all mention of date, place, and name

has been systematically omitted in the copy of the Report communicated

to the Government of the Independent State of the Congo. It is

impossible not to see that these suppressions will place great

difficulties in the way of the Magistrates who will have to inquire into

the facts, and the Government of the Congo trust that, in the interests

of truth, they may be placed in possession of the complete text of the

Consul’s Report.

 

It is not to be wondered at if the Government of the Congo State take

this opportunity of protesting against the proceedings of their

detractors, who have thought fit to submit to the public reproductions

of photographs of mutilated natives, and have started the odious story

of hands being cut off with the knowledge and even at the instigation of

Belgians in Africa. The photograph of Epondo, for instance, mutilated

in the manner known, and who has “twice been photographed,” is probably

one of those which the English pamphlets are circulating as proof of the

execrable administration of the Belgians in Africa. One English review

reproduced the photograph of a “cannibal surrounded with the skulls of

his victims,” and underneath was written: “In the original photograph

the cannibal was naked. The artist has made him decent by ... covering

his breast with the star of the Congo State. It is now a suggestive

emblem of the Christian-veneered cannibalism on the Congo.”[107] At this

rate it would suffice to throw discredit on the Uganda Administration if

the plates were published illustrating the mutilations which, in a

letter dated Uganda, 16th December, 1902, Dr. Castellani says he saw in

the neighbourhood of Entebbe itself: “It is not difficult to find there

natives without noses or ears, &c.”[108]

 

The truth is, that in Uganda, as in the Congo, the natives still give

way to their savage instincts. This objection has been anticipated by

Mr. Casement, who remarks:--

 

“It was not a native custom prior to the coming of the white man;

it was not the outcome of the primitive instincts of savages in

their fights between village and village; it was the deliberate act

of the soldiers of a European Administration, and these men

themselves never made any concealment that in committing these acts

they were but obeying the positive orders of their superiors.”[109]

 

That Mr. Casement should formulate so serious a charge without at the

same time supporting it by absolute proof would seem to justify those

who consider that his previous employment has not altogether been such

as to qualify him for the duties of a Consul. Mr. Casement remained

seventeen days on Lake Mantumba, a lake said to be 25 to 30 miles long

and 12 to 15 broad, surrounded by dense forest.[110] He scarcely left

its shores at all. In these circumstances it is difficult to see how he

could have made any useful researches into the former habits and customs

of the inhabitants. On the contrary, from the fact that the tribes in

question are still very savage, and addicted to cannibalism,[111] it

would seem that they have not abandoned the practice of those cruelties

which throughout Africa were the usual accompaniments of barbarous

habits and anthropophagy. In one portion of the districts which the

Consul visited, the evidence of the English missionaries on this point

is most instructive. The Rev. McKittrick, in describing the sanguinary

contests between the natives, mentions the efforts to pacify the country

which he formerly made through the Chiefs:--“.... We told them that for

the future we should not let any man carrying spears or knives pass

through our station. Our God was a God of peace, and we, His children,

could not bear to see our black brothers cutting and stabbing each

other.”[112] “While I was going up and down the river,” says another

missionary, “they pointed out to me the King’s beaches, whence they used

to dispatch their fighting men to capture canoes and men. It was

heartrending to hear them describe the awful massacres that used to take

place at a great Chief’s death. A deep hole was dug in the ground, into

which scores of slaves were thrown after having their heads cut off; and

upon that horrible pile they laid the Chief’s dead body to crown the

indescribable human carnage.”[113] And the missionaries speak of the

facility with which even nowadays the natives return to their old

customs. It would seem, too, that the statement made in the Report,[114]

that the natives now fly on the approach of a steamer as they never used

to do, is hardly in accordance with the reports of travellers and explorers.

The Casement Report 43

The Casement Report 43

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--

 

(_a._) Cut off the left hand of a certain Epondo;

 

(_b._) ...;

 

(_c._) ...;

 

Having regard to the inquiry instituted by Lieutenant Braeckman,

which partly confirms the result of the inquiry instituted by His

Britannic Majesty’s Consul, but also partly contradicts it, and to

the charges already brought against Kelengo adds that of having

killed a native of the name of Baluwa;

 

Having regard to the conclusions arrived at by the police employé

in question, which tend to raise grave doubts as to the truth of

all these charges;

 

In view of the fact that all the natives who brought these charges

against Kelengo, whether before His Britannic Majesty’s Consul or

Lieutenant Braeckman, on being summoned by us, the Acting Public

Prosecutor, took to flight, and all efforts to find them have been

fruitless; that this flight obviously throws doubt on the truth of

their allegations;

 

That all the witnesses whom we have questioned during the course of

our inquiry declare ... that Epondo lost his left hand from the

bite of a wild boar;

 

That Epondo confirms these statements, and admits that he told a

lie at the instigation of the natives of Bossunguma and Ikondja,

who hoped to escape collecting rubber through the intervention of

His Britannic Majesty’s Consul, whom they considered to be very

powerful;

 

That the witnesses, almost all inhabitants of the accusing

villages, admit that such was the object of their lie;

 

That this version, apart from the unanimous declarations of the

witnesses and the injured parties, is also the most plausible,

seeing that every one knows that the natives dislike work in

general and having to collect rubber, and are, moreover, ready to lie and accuse people falsely;

The Casement Report 42

The Casement Report 42

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.”