The Casement Report 33

The Casement Report 33

Afterwards some boys--one of whom was a relation--came to L L*, and they

found him without his hands.”

 

There was some doubt in the translation of V V’s statement whether his

hands had been cut with a knife; but later inquiry established that

they fell off through the tightness of the native rope and the beating

of them by the soldiers with their rifle-butts.

 

On the 14th August, I again visited the State camp at Irebu, where, in

the course of conversation with the officer in command, I made passing

but intentional reference to the fact that I had seen V V, and had heard

his story from himself. I added that from the boy’s statement it would

seem that the loss of his hands was directly attributable to an officer

who was apparently close at hand and in command of the soldiers at the

time. I added that I had heard of other cases in the neighbourhood. The

Commandant at once informed me that such things were impossible, but

that in this specific case of V V he should cause inquiry to be

instantly made.

 

On my return from the Lulongo River I found that this remark in passing

conversation had borne instant fruit, although previous appeals on

behalf of the boy had proved unsuccessful. The Commissaire-Général of

the Equator District had, learning of it, at once proceeded to Lake

Mantumba, and a judicial investigation as to how V V lost his hands had

been immediately instituted. The boy was taken to Bikoro, and I have

since been informed that provision has been made for him and a weekly

allowance.

 

When at the village of B C*, I had found there a boy of not more than 12

years of age with the right hand gone. This child, in answer to my

inquiries, said that the hand had been cut off by the Government

soldiers some years before. He could not say how long before, but

judging from the height he indicated he could not then have been more

than 7 years of age if now 12. His statement was fully confirmed by S S

S and his relatives, who stood around him while I questioned him. The

soldiers had come to B C* from Coquilhatville by land through the

forest. They were led by an officer whose name was given as “U V.” His

father and mother were killed beside him. He saw them killed, and a

bullet hit him and he fell. He here showed me a deep cicatrized scar at

the back of the head, just at the nape of the neck, and said it was

there the bullet had struck him. He fell down, presumably insensible,

but came to his senses while his hand was being hacked off at the wrist.

I asked him how it was he could possibly lie silent and give no sign. He

answered that he felt the cutting, but was afraid to move, knowing that

he would be killed if he showed any sign of life.

 

I made some provision for this boy.

 

The names of six other persons mutilated in a similar way were given to

me. The last of these, an old woman, had died only a few months

previously, and her niece stated that her aunt had often told her how

she came to lose her hand. The town had been attacked by Government

troops and all had fled, pursued into the forest. This old woman (whose

name was V W) had fled with her son, when he fell shot dead, and she

herself fell down beside him--she supposed she fainted. She then felt

her hand being cut off, but had made no sign. When all was quiet and the

soldiers had gone, she found her son’s dead body beside her with one

hand cut off and her own also taken away.

 

Of acts of persistent mutilation by Government soldiers of this nature I

had many statements made to me, some of them specifically, others in a

general way. Of the fact of this mutilation and the causes inducing it

there can be no shadow of doubt. 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. I

obtained several specific instances of this practice of mutilation

having been carried out in the town of Q* itself, when the Government

soldiers had come across from P* to raid it or compel its inhabitants to

work.

 

 

Inclosure 5 in No. 3.

 

(See p. 43.)

 

_Circular dated October 20, 1900._

 

Le Gouvernement a délégué à des Sociétés Commerciales opérant dans

certaines parties du territoire non soumise à l’action immédiate de son

autorité une partie de ses pouvoirs en matière de police générale.

 

Ces Sociétés sont dites avoir “le droit de police.” Des interprétations

erronées ont été données à cette appellation.

 

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 pouvaient 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.

 

C’est-à-dire que “le droit de police” qui leur donnait le moyen de se

protéger eux-mêmes et l’obligation de protéger les individus contre

l’abus de la force, allait complètement à l’encontre de l’un de ces buts

principaux.

 

En présence de cette situation, j’ai décidé que “le droit de police,”

terme dont je conserve provisoirement l’emploi, ne laisserait que le

pouvoir de réquisitionner, à l’effet de maintenir ou de rétablir

l’ordre, la force armée qui se trouvera soit dans la Concession, soit en

dehors, mais même dans ce cas il doit être bien entendu que les

officiers de l’État conserveront, au cours des événements le Commandant

[? commandement] des soldats et seront seuls juges, sous leur

responsabilité, des opérations militaires qu’il importerait

d’entreprendre.

 

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.

 

Les fusils à piston ne sortiront ainsi des factoreries qu’isolément. Ne

pouvant être remis en dehors des établissements commerciaux dans les

mains de groupes plus ou moins importants ils ne constitueront ainsi

jamais une force offensive.

 

Je donne à nouveau les ordres les plus formels pour que tous les

fonctionnaires de l’État concourent à faire réprimer les infractions à

ces strictes défenses.

 

Le Gouverneur-Général,

(Signé) WAHIS.

 

_Boma, le 20 Octobre, 1900._

 

 

(Translation.)

 

The Government have delegated to commercial Companies operating in

certain parts of the territory not subject to the immediate exercise of

Government authority a part of their powers in matters of general

police.

 

These Companies are described as having “the right of police.” Erroneous

interpretations have been given to this __EXPRESSION__.

 

It has been held by some as giving to the Directors of these Companies,

and even to inferior officers, the right to undertake offensive military

operations, to “make war” on the native population; others, without even

troubling to ascertain what the limits of this right of police might be,

have used the means afforded by this delegation of power to commit the

gravest abuses.

 

That is to say, “the right of police,” which gave them the means of

protecting themselves, and imposed upon them the obligation of

protecting individuals against abuse of force, was used in a manner

absolutely opposed to one of these principal objects.

 

In view of these circumstances, I have decided that “the right of

police,” an __EXPRESSION__ the use of which I retain provisionally, shall

imply no more than the power of requisitioning, with a view to

maintaining or restoring order, the armed force existing either within

or without the Concession; but even in this case it must be well

understood that the officers of the State will retain command of the

soldiers during the proceedings, and will be the sole judges, on their

own responsibility, of the military operations which it may be desirable

to undertake.

 

Improved weapons which the Companies possess in their various factories

or establishments and for which, as for the arms of other Companies not

having the right of police, a permit, form (B), must be taken out, may

not in any case be removed from the establishments for which they were

issued.

 

With regard to cap-guns, they may not be removed from the factories

except into the hands of the Capitas, and on the condition that the

latter are in possession of a permit, form (C).

 

Cap-guns will thus only be removed from the factories one by one. As

they cannot be issued from the commercial establishments into the hands

of more or less numerous groups, they will thus never constitute a means

of offence.

 

I again give the most formal orders that all the State officials

co-operate to repress violations of these strict prohibitions.

 

The Governor-General,

(Signed) WAHIS.

 

_Boma, October 20, 1900._

 

 

Inclosure 6 in No. 3.

 

(See p. 56.)

 

_Note of Information taken in the Charge of Cutting off the boy I I’s

hand, preferred to Mr. Casement by the People of E*._

 

At village of E* in the C D* country, on left bank of E D*, tributary of the X* River.