in all cases, prescribe repression by force; they enjoined the
exercise of their influence and authority with a view to deterring
the natives by persuasion from indulging in these inhuman practices.
A further advance has been made: the moment the authority of the
State was sufficiently established in the neighbourhood of its
posts and stations, the toleration of such customs was formally
prohibited within a certain distance round the State stations or
European establishments, and the Penal Law made their repression in
these places possible by its provisions respecting acts of violence
against the person. Outside this limit it lay with the officers of
the Department of Criminal Justice (_Ministère Public_) to prosecute
or not, according as the situation of the district and the forces at
the disposal of the authorities permitted.
These measures have not been without result. Not only have cases
of cannibalism become less frequent in the centres occupied by the
officers of the State, but the native himself has learnt, and now
knows, the horror felt by Europeans for cannibalism, and is no longer
ignorant of the fact that by giving way to it he renders himself
liable to punishment. As a general rule, indeed, it is only in
secret, and out of sight of Europeans, that he still indulges in the
odious custom, for he has become convinced that, save in exceptional
cases in which the white man is powerless to do otherwise, he will
not let him go unpunished.
The Government considers that an even more decisive step should be
taken in the direction of repression. As the State’s occupation of
these districts becomes more and more complete, as its posts are
multiplied all along the Upper Congo, and as regular Courts are
gaining a footing in the interior, the moment seems to have come to
endeavour to reach the evil once for all, and to seek to extirpate it
everywhere where our authority is sufficiently established to enable
us to enforce absolute respect for the Penal Law.
It was with this view that the Decree of the 18th December, 1896,
was drawn up, by which more particularly cases of cannibalism and
ordeal by poison were made special offences. It is the Government’s
intention that these provisions shall be strictly enforced, and it
is the aim of the present Circular to direct all our officers to
bring to justice any offences of this kind which may come to their
knowledge. It will be the duty of the officers of the Department
of Criminal Justice (_Ministère Public_) to institute proceedings
against the delinquents, and in these special cases they will not
be at liberty to apply Article 84 of the Decree of the 27th April,
1889, and to hand them over to the jurisdiction of the local Chief
to be dealt with by native custom. It is, indeed, evident that such
a course is out of the question in dealing with a class of offences
which are contrary to the principles of our civilisation, and which
are the outcome of customs which we are seeking to abolish.
The Government count on general assistance, with a view to insuring
the prompt and certain repression of these offences, and they believe
that a few severe examples will have a powerful effect in inducing
the native to put an end to these reprehensible practices. The
District Commissioners and Heads of Stations are in this connection
expected to police the territories under their administration, and to
take the necessary measures to obtain exact information.
The Director of Justice will forward to the Government every quarter
a Report on the practice of cannibalism, on the cases prosecuted,
and, if necessary, on the new measures which should be taken in order
to check and extirpate this custom.
* * * * *
MISSIONARY GRENFELL ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
BAPTIST MISSIONARY SOCIETY, BOLOBO, July 13, 1897.
SIR,
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated the
17th May, together with the enclosure, relative to cannibalism, proof
by poison, and human sacrifices, dated Brussels, the 27th February,
1897.
I need hardly say, M. le Gouverneur, that I sympathise most sincerely
with the Government in its desire to eradicate the evils referred
to; and you may rely upon my best efforts in the long and arduous
struggle involved in combating them.
I am glad to recognise the gradual extension of the zone where
justice is administered by regularly constituted Judges, for there
is no doubt that where the administration of the State has been
sufficiently advanced to allow of this, the evils referred to are
very markedly on the decrease. It is not possible, of course, to
complete at a stroke the organisation of distant territory, or at
once to appoint Judges in new districts, but the fact that the
State is persistently pushing the regular administration of justice
towards the interior encourages one in confidently looking forward
to the reducing of the cases of cannibalism, proof by poison, and
human sacrifices in those parts of the Colony that as yet have not
benefited by the ameliorating influences that have done so much for
its western section.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) GEORGE GRENFELL.
M. le Gouverneur-Général,
Boma.
* * * * *
CO-ORDINATED TEXT OF VARIOUS INSTRUCTIONS RESPECTING RELATIONS
BETWEEN CONGO STATE OFFICIALS AND NATIVES
It will be the especial care of Heads of Expeditions and of
District Commissioners to see that their subordinates, of whatever
degree, act, in their dealings with the natives, with the tact
which is necessary to avoid such conflict as might arise from
misunderstandings or from proceedings which run too sharply counter
to native habits and customs.
They will recommend their officers to proceed slowly in reforming the
native, and will draw their serious attention to the danger of trying
to obtain too rapid results. Before using force, they will try to
enter into negotiations with the natives, and they must remember that
it is better to obtain redress for harm done to the State by pacific
means rather than by force of arms.
The Government are aware that energetic measures of repression are
sometimes necessary, but they consider that such measures should be
used only in exceptional cases, and after every means of conciliation
has been exhausted.
In many cases negotiations skilfully conducted and prolonged will
avoid direct hostilities.
It is, for instance, obviously advisable, with a view to avoid
bloodshed, to make use of such Chiefs as are at once devoted to the
State and in friendly relations with the tribes in conflict with the
authorities.
In this way the natives, and especially those who are not in
continuous relations with Europeans, will not misunderstand
the intentions and sentiments of the State towards them, a
misunderstanding which would certainly arise from a too hasty
recourse to extreme measures.
In any case, whenever resort to force has become inevitable, the
Government must receive exact and complete information in regard to
the motives which have led to its employment, and operations must, as
far as possible, be so carried out that only the guilty suffer.
No officer is to engage in hostilities with the natives, unless in
self-defence, or duly authorised by the Commissioner of his district
or the Head of his expedition.
Moreover, the regular and auxiliary troops engaged in warlike
operations must always be commanded by a European. No exception to
this rule will be admitted, and officers who transgress it will
render themselves liable to dismissal as well as to any judicial
proceedings it may be thought advisable to institute against them.
In case of hostilities, the property of natives is not to be
destroyed, and under no pretext may villages be burnt as a means of
repression. The European commissioned and non-commissioned officers
will take especial care that the operations shall be conducted in
such a manner as to avoid all cruelty. Wounded rebels are to receive
careful attention, and the bodies of the dead must be respected.
The barbarous mutilation of dead bodies, as often practised by the
natives among themselves, is to be absolutely forbidden by the
Europeans.
All Europeans at the head of troops engaged in warfare will be held
personally responsible for all such cruelties as they may tolerate;
all guilty persons will be brought before a military Court and dealt
with according to law.
Prisoners of war and hostages are to be treated humanely, and their
ill-usage is strictly forbidden.
Any women and children found among them shall be placed under the
immediate protection of the officer in command of the operations.
Officers of the State must remember that the disciplinary penalties
provided by the Military Regulations are only applicable to such as
are military recruits, and then only for offences against discipline
and in accordance with the special provisions of the said Regulations.
The said penalties can, under no pretence, be put into force against
non-military servants of the State or against the natives, whether
rebels or not.
Those among them who are accused of offences or crimes must be
remitted to the competent Tribunals and tried according to law.
Should officers of the State infringe the Rules laid down respecting
the relations which they are to have with the natives, or tolerate
mutilations and cruelties on the part of their soldiers, they will,
in case of a specified offence, be remitted to a Court of Justice.
They would, in any case, be subjected to disciplinary punishment.
Moreover, the guilty officers, if already decorated with the Service
Star, will lose their right to wear it.
It is equally indispensable that officers should act justly, and in
accordance with the instructions in force, in their dealings with
the servants of the State. They are forbidden to act illegally, _i.
e._, to inflict punishments other than those provided for breaches of
discipline or to disregard legal forms for the purpose of repressing
offences of which the servants of the State, and notably soldiers,
may be guilty. When sentences have been passed, they must be
undergone in accordance with the specified legal conditions.
Any officer departing from these Rules would be guilty of abuse of
authority, and render himself liable to dismissal.
District Commissioners and Heads of expeditions must exercise the
most vigilant control over such detachments of black soldiers as
they may be obliged to place among the natives. These detachments
must on no account be provided with improved firearms. Their task is
exclusively one of protection and supervision.
They are never to intervene in quarrels between natives. They must
confine themselves to informing the nearest station commanded by an
European.
It is the duty of the European officers to make frequent inspections
of such detachments, and to see that they do not in any way
transgress the limits imposed upon them by their orders. They are
to summon the neighbouring native Chiefs on the occasion of these
inspections, and will receive their complaints, should they have any
to make.
The Negro officers of the stations are strictly forbidden themselves
to take any measures of repression against the natives; the duty of
taking measures, when occasion arises, devolves upon the European
officers alone.
The arrangements to be made with the villages must be concluded by a
European.
Any Chief of a Negro station levying exactions on the natives, or
ill-treating them, or in any way abusing his authority over them,
must be prosecuted according to law, and immediately suspended from
his duties.
The Heads of expeditions and Commissioners of Districts are
personally responsible for the conduct of any Negro posts under their
orders. They would be guilty of a very serious offence if they gave
these detachments any duties other than those defined above, and if
they did not constantly supervise them and immediately repress all
abuses coming under their notice.
* * * * *
REPORT OF THE FIRST MEETING OF THE COMMISSION FOR THE PROTECTION
OF NATIVES, HELD AT LEOPOLDVILLE ON MAY 17, 1897. PRESENT, THE
REVEREND FATHER VAN HENCXTHOVEN, DR. SIMS, AND THE SECRETARY, MR.
GRENFELL
In the absence of Mgr. van Ronslé, the Rev. Father van Hencxthoven
was elected President for the sitting.
Seeing that the members of the Commission live far apart, and in view
of the difficulty of all the members meeting, it was decided that
three members should form a quorum.
The members of the Commission found that from the date of the
constitution of the Commission, so far as their personal experience
went, the laws of the State had been duly administered with a view
to the protection of life and property, as well as to the well-being
of the community. They found, further, that every case of injustice
brought to the notice of the authorities had been immediately
followed by measures of the most energetic description.
In the absence of Mr. Bentley, his Report was communicated to
the Secretary. He writes that the Judge of the district where he
resides, had, in each case notified to him, at once taken measures
to punish the guilty, some cases having been settled satisfactorily,
and the others being before the Court. The Judge informed Mr. Bentley
that he would always be ready, on receiving a week’s notice, to go to
Lutete, and try any case.
The members of the Commission, recalling the days of native rule,
take this opportunity of recording their sincere appreciation of, and
their gratitude for, the law and order introduced by the Independent
State into the districts where they reside.
The members of the Commission also record with the deepest
satisfaction their opinion that, as far as they know, the laws
forbidding the introduction of alcoholic liquor for natives to the
east of the River N’Kissi have been satisfactorily enforced. They
consider the restriction of the zone up to the west of the River
Kwilu as a really judicious and beneficent measure, and they trust
that the Government will be as successful within the new limit as
heretofore within the old.
The members of the Commission deeply regret that ordeal by poison
is still practised over so great an extent of the country, and that
its suppression is so difficult. In those districts which are more
completely administered, ordeal by poison is practised in secret,
owing to the penalties of the law, and the members hope that the same
measures of repression will be taken in the interior districts as
soon as the organisation of the Government allows of it.
The Commission desire to call the attention of the Government to the
fact that all its members are chosen from the Stanley Pool district
and below, and that no one has been chosen from the immense districts
which are supposed to furnish the reason for the existence of the
Commission for the protection of the natives.
The members of the Commission, also, seeing that it is only possible
for them to act within the very narrow scope of their personal
experience, venture to hope that the Inspector specially nominated
by His Majesty the King-Sovereign, will soon arrive, seeing that his
powers of observation would be infinitely greater than our own.
(Signed) GEORGE GRENFELL, _Secretary_.
LEOPOLDVILLE, May 17, 1897.
* * * * *
PROTECTION OF NATIVES—COMMISSION
Leopold II., King of the Belgians, Sovereign of the Independent State
of the Congo, to all present and to come, greeting:
On reconsideration of our Decree of the 18th September, 1896,
appointing a Commission for the protection of natives:
On the suggestion of our Secretary of State,
We have decreed and do hereby decree:
Article I. The following are appointed members of this Commission,
for the period of two years mentioned by the said Decree:
Mgr. van Ronslé, Bishop of Thymbrium, Vicar Apostolic of the Vicariat
of Belgian Congo, President.
The Reverend Father van Hencxthoven, J., of the Society of Jesus.
The Reverend Father Cambier, of the Congregation of Scheut.
Mr. William Holman Bentley, of the Baptist Missionary Society
Corporation.
Dr. A. Sims, of the American Baptist Missionary Union.
Mr. George Grenfell, of the Baptist Missionary Society Corporation,
Secretary.
Art. 2. The members of the Commission shall carry out their mandate
in accordance with the terms of the above-mentioned Decree of the
18th September, 1896.
Art. 3. Our Secretary of State is intrusted with the execution of the
present Decree.
Done at Brussels, March 23, 1901.
(Signed) LEOPOLD.
By the King-Sovereign:
In the name of the Secretary of State,
The Secretaries-General,
(Signed) CHEVALIER DE CUVELIER,
H. DROOGMANS,
LIEBRECHTS.
* * * * *
DISPATCH 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, Petersburg, Vienna, Madrid,
Constantinople, Brussels, Lisbon, the Hague, Copenhagen, and
Stockholm._
FOREIGN OFFICE, August 8, 1903.
SIR,
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 dispatches 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 terrorised over their own
officers and maltreated the natives without regard to discipline or
fear of punishment.
As regards the ill-treatment of natives, a distinction may be drawn
between isolated acts of cruelty committed by individuals, whether
in the service of the State or not, and a system of administration
involving and accompanied by systematic cruelty or oppression.
The fact that many individual instances of cruelty have taken place
in the Congo State is proved beyond possibility of contradiction by
the occurrence of cases in which white officials have been convicted
of outrages on natives. These white officials must, however, in view
of the vast extent of the territory under their administration, in
most cases be of necessity isolated the one from the other, with
the result that detection becomes additionally difficult. It is
therefore not unfair to assume that the number of convictions falls
considerably short of the number of actual offences committed.
It is, however, with regard to the system of administration that the
most serious allegations are brought against the Independent State.
It is reported that no efforts are made to fit the native by training
for industrial pursuits; that the method of obtaining men for labour
or for military service is often but little different from that
formerly employed to obtain slaves; and that force is now as much
required to take the native to the place of service as it used to
be to convey the captured slave. It is also reported that constant
compulsion has to be exercised in order to exact the collection
of the amount of forest produce allotted to each village as the
equivalent of the number of days’ labour due from the inhabitants,
and that this compulsion is often exercised by irresponsible native
soldiers uncontrolled by any European officer.
His Majesty’s Government do not know precisely to what extent these
accusations may be true; but they have been so repeatedly made, and
have received such wide credence, that it is no longer possible to
ignore them, and the question has now arisen whether the Congo State
can be considered to have fulfilled the special pledges, given under
the Berlin Act, to watch over the preservation of the native tribes,
and to care for their moral and material advancement.
The graver charges against the State relate almost exclusively to the
upper valleys of the Congo and of its affluents. The lands forming
these vast territories are held either by the State itself or by
Companies closely connected with the State, under a system which,
whatever its object, has effectually kept out the independent trader,
as opposed to the owner or to the occupier of the soil, and has
consequently made it difficult to obtain independent testimony.
His Majesty’s Government have further laboured under the disadvantage
that British interests have not justified the maintenance of a large
Consular staff in the Congo territories. It is true that in 1901 His
Majesty’s Government decided to appoint a Consul of wide African
experience to reside permanently in the State, but his time has been
principally occupied in the investigation of complaints preferred by
British subjects, and he has as yet been unable to travel into the
interior and to acquire, by personal inspection, knowledge of the
condition of the enormous territory forming his district.
His reports on the cases of British subjects, which have formed
the basis of representations to the Government of the Independent
State, afford, however, examples of grave maladministration and
ill-treatment. These cases do not concern natives of the Congo
State, and are therefore in themselves alien to the subject of this
dispatch; but as they occurred in the immediate vicinity of Boma, the
seat of the central staff, and in regard to British subjects, most
of whom were under formal engagements, they undoubtedly lead to the
belief that the natives, who have no one in the position of a Consul
to whom they can appeal and have no formal engagements, receive even
less consideration at the hands of the officers of the Government.
Moreover, information which has reached His Majesty’s Government from
British officers in territory adjacent to that of the State tends to
show that, notwithstanding the obligations accepted under Article VI.
of the Berlin Act, no attempt at any administration of the natives
is made, and that the officers of the Government do not apparently
concern themselves with such work, but devote all their energy to the
collection of revenue. The natives are left entirely to themselves,
so far as any assistance in their government or in their affairs is
concerned. The Congo stations are shunned, the only natives seen
being soldiers, prisoners, and men who are brought in to work. The
neighbourhood of stations which are known to have been populous a few
years ago is now uninhabited, and emigration on a large scale takes
place to the territory of neighbouring States, the natives usually
averring that they are driven away from their homes by the tyranny
and exaction of the soldiers.
The sentiments which undoubtedly animated the founders of the Congo
State and the representatives of the Powers at Berlin were such as to
deserve the cordial sympathy of the British Government, who have been
loath to believe either that the beneficent intentions with which the
Congo State was constituted, and of which it gave so solemn a pledge
at Berlin, have in any way been abandoned, or that every effort has
not been made to realise them.
But the fact remains that there is a feeling of grave suspicion,
widely prevalent among the people of this country, in regard to
the condition of affairs in the Congo State, and there is a deep
conviction that the many charges brought against the State’s
administration must be founded on a basis of truth.
In these circumstances, His Majesty’s Government are of opinion
that it is incumbent upon the Powers parties to the Berlin Act to
confer together and to consider whether the obligations undertaken
by the Congo State in regard to the natives have been fulfilled;
and, if not, whether the Signatory Powers are not bound to make such
representations as may secure the due observance of the provisions
contained in the Act.
As indicated at the beginning of this dispatch, His Majesty’s
Government also wish to bring to the notice of the Powers the
question which has arisen in regard to rights of trade in the basin
of the Congo.
Article I. of the Berlin Act provides that the trade of all nations
shall enjoy complete freedom in the basin of the Congo; and Article
V. provides that no Power which exercises sovereign rights in the
basin shall be allowed to grant therein a monopoly or favour of any
kind in matters of trade.
In the opinion of His Majesty’s Government, the system of trade now
existing in the Independent State of the Congo is not in harmony with
these provisions.
With the exception of a relatively small area on the Lower Congo, and
with the further exception of the small plots actually occupied by
the huts and cultivation patches of the natives, the whole territory
is claimed as the private property either of the State or of holders
of land concessions. Within these regions the State or, as the case
may be, the concession-holder alone may trade in the natural produce
of the soil. The fruits gathered by the natives are accounted the
property of the State, or of the concession-holder, and may not be
acquired by others. In such circumstances, His Majesty’s Government
are unable to see that there exists the complete freedom of trade or
absence of monopoly in trade which is required by the Berlin Act. On
the contrary, no one other than the agents of the State or of the
concession-holder has the opportunity to enter into trade relations
with the natives; or, if he does succeed in reaching the natives, he
finds that the only material which the natives can give in exchange
for his trade goods or his money is claimed as having been the
property of the State or of the concession-holder from the moment it
was gathered by the native.
His Majesty’s Government in no way deny either that the State has
the right to partition the State lands among _bona-fide_ occupants,
or that the natives will, as the land is so divided out among
_bona-fide_ occupiers, lose their right of roaming over it and
collecting the natural fruits which it produces. But His Majesty’s
Government maintain that until unoccupied land is reduced into
individual occupation, and so long as the produce can only be
collected by the native, the native should be free to dispose of that
produce as he pleases.
In these circumstances, His Majesty’s Government consider that
the time has come when the Powers parties to the Berlin Act
should consider whether the system of trade now prevailing in the
Independent State is in harmony with the provisions of the Act; and,
in particular, whether the system of making grants of vast areas of
territory is permissible under the Act if the effect of such grants
is in practice to create a monopoly of trade by excluding all persons
other than the concession-holder from trading with the natives in
that area. Such a result is inevitable if the grants are made in
favour of persons or Companies who cannot themselves use the land
or collect its produce, but must depend for obtaining it upon the
natives, who are allowed to deal only with the grantees.
His Majesty’s Government will be glad to receive any suggestions
which the Governments of the Signatory Powers may be disposed to
make in reference to this important question, which might perhaps
constitute, wholly or in part, the subject of a reference to the
Tribunal at the Hague.
I request that you will read this dispatch to the Minister for
Foreign Affairs, and leave a copy of it with his Excellency.
I am, etc.,
(Signed) LANSDOWNE.
REPLY OF THE CONGO STATE GOVERNMENT TO THE BRITISH DISPATCH OF
AUGUST 8TH, TO THE POWERS SIGNATORY TO THE BERLIN ACT
BRUSSELS, September 17, 1903.
The Government of the Independent State of the Congo have examined
the dispatch from the Foreign Office, dated the 8th August last,
which was communicated to the Signatory Powers of the Berlin Act,
and declare themselves in agreement with His Majesty’s Government on
two fundamental points, viz., that natives ought to be treated with
humanity and gradually led into the paths of civilisation, and that
freedom of commerce in the Conventional Basin of the Congo ought to
be entire and complete.
They deny, however, that the manner in which the State is
administered involves a systematic _régime_ “of cruelty or
oppression,” and that the principle of commercial freedom would
introduce modifications in the rights of property as universally
understood, seeing that there is not a word to this effect in the
Berlin Act. The Congo State observes that there is in that Act
no provision which would sanction restrictions of any kind on
the exercise of the rights of property, or give to one Signatory
Power the right of intervention in the interior administration of
another. It desires faithfully to observe the Berlin Act, that great
International Act which binds all Signatory or Adhering Powers,
according to the clear grammatical sense of the text, which none has
power either to take from or add to.
The English note observes that it is within the last few years that a
definite shape has been assumed by the campaign conducted in England
against the Congo State, on the two-fold pretext of the ill-treatment
of natives and the existence of commercial monopolies.
It is indeed worthy of remark that this campaign dates from the time
when the prosperity of the State became assured. The State had been
founded for years, and administered in the same way as it is now; its
principles in regard to the State-ownership of vacant lands, and the
manner in which its armed forces were organised and recruited, were
known to the public, without any interest in the matter being shown
by the philanthropists and traders to whose opinion the note begins
by referring. This was the period during which the State Budget could
only be balanced by means of the King-Sovereign’s subsidies and
Belgian loans, and when the commerce of the Congo did not attract
attention. The term “Congo atrocities” was at that time only used
in connection with “the alleged ill-treatment of African natives by
English and other adventurers in the Congo Free State.”[85] After
1895 the trade of the Congo State developed remarkably, and the
amount of its exports shows a progressive increase from ten millions
in 1895 to fifty millions in 1902. It is also about this time that
the anti-Congo movement took shape. As the State gave increased proof
of vitality and progress, the campaign became more active, reliance
being placed on a few individual and isolated cases with a view to
using the interests of humanity as a pretext and concealing the real
object of a covetousness which, in its impatience, has betrayed
itself in the writings of pamphleteers and in the speeches of members
of the House of Commons, in which the abolition and partition of the
Congo State has been clearly put forward.
Such being the object in view, it became necessary to bring a whole
series of charges against the State. So far as the humanitarian side
of the question is concerned, the alleged cases of violence offered
to natives have once more been brought forward and re-edited _ad
infinitum_. For in all the meetings, writings, and speeches which
have latterly been directed against the State, it is always the same
facts which are brought up, and the same evidence which is produced.
With regard to the economic side of the question, the State has been
accused of having violated the Act of Berlin, notwithstanding the
legal opinions of such lawyers as are most qualified to speak to the
point, which afford ample legal justification both for its commercial
and for its land system. With regard to the political side, a heresy
in international law has been imagined, viz., that a State, the
independence and sovereignty of which are absolute, should, at the
same time, owe its position to the intervention of Foreign Powers.
With regard to the cases of ill-treatment of natives, we attach
special importance to those which, according to the note, have been
reported in the dispatches of His Majesty’s Consular Agents. At
the sitting of the House of Commons on the 11th March, 1903, Lord
Cranborne referred to these official documents, and we have requested
through his Excellency Sir C. Phipps that the British Government will
make known to us the facts alluded to. We repeat the request.
The Government of the State have, however, never denied that crimes
and offences are committed in the Congo, as in every other country
or colony. The note itself recognises that these offences have been
brought before the Tribunals, and that the criminals have been
punished. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that the State
fulfils its mission; the conclusion actually drawn is that “many
individual instances of cruelty have taken place in the Congo State,”
and that “the number of convictions falls considerably short of the
number of offences actually committed.” This deduction does not
appear necessarily to follow. It would seem more logical to say that
the severe sentences inflicted will serve as a wholesome example,
and that a decrease of crime may on that account be looked for.
If some offences have indeed, in the extensive territories of the
State, escaped the vigilance of the judicial authorities, this is a
circumstance which is not peculiar to the Congo State.
The English note proceeds chiefly on hypotheses and suppositions:
“It was alleged ... It is reported ... It is also reported ...” and
it even says that “His Majesty’s Government do not know precisely to
what extent these accusations may be true.” This is an acknowledgment
that, in the eyes of the British Government themselves, the
accusations in question are neither established nor proved. And,
indeed, the violence, the passion, and the improbability of many of
these accusations must raise doubt in an impartial mind as to their
genuineness. To give but one example:—a great deal has been made
of the statement that, in a train coming down from Leopoldville to
Matadi, three carriages were full of slaves, a dozen of whom were in
chains and guarded by soldiers. The Governor-General was asked for
a report on the case. He replied: “The individuals represented as
composing a convoy of slaves were, the great majority of them (125),
levies proceeding from the district of Lualaba-Kassai, Lake Leopold
II., and the Bangalas to the camp in the Lower Congo. Annexed you
will find lists of these persons. As regards the men in chains, they
were certain individuals on whom sentence had been passed by the
territorial Tribunal at Basoko, and who were on their way to undergo
their sentence at the central prison at Boma. They are Nos. 3642 to
3649 on the prison register at Boma.”
In the same way, quite a recent “interview,” in which the usual
accusations of cruelty were reproduced, is due to a person formerly
in the employ of the State, who was “declared unfit for service,” and
who has failed to persuade the State to accept his proposal to write
for the press articles favourable to the Administration.
The note ignores the replies, contradictions, and corrections which
the attacks on the agents of the State have occasioned at the
various times when they have taken place. It ignores the official
declarations publicly made by the Government of the State in June
last, after the debate in the House of Commons on the 20th May,
the report of which is annexed to the note. We also annex the
text of these declarations which dealt, by anticipation, with the
considerations set forth in the dispatch of the 8th August.
The only fresh cause of complaint which the note brings
forward—doubtless with the object of explaining the not unimportant
fact that the English Consul, who has resided in the Congo since
1901, does not appear to support, by his personal authority, the
accusations of private individuals—is that this agent has been
“principally occupied in the investigation of complaints preferred
by British subjects.” The impression which one would derive from
this is that such complaints have been exceptionally numerous. No
doubt the Consul has, on different occasions, communicated with the
Administration at Boma in the interests of his countrymen, but the
subjects of his representations, if one may judge by such of their
number as the English Legation has had to bring to the notice of the
Central Government at Brussels, do not appear, either in number or
importance, to have been more than matters of everyday administrative
routine: some cases in particular concerned the regulation of
the succession to property in the Congo left by deceased English
subjects; the object in others was to repair errors of judicial
procedure, such as occur elsewhere, and it is not even alleged that
the proper action has not been taken upon these representations. The
same Consul, who was appointed in 1898, wrote to the Governor-General
on the 2nd July, 1901, as follows:
“I pray believe me when I express now, not only for myself,
but for my fellow-countrymen in this part of Africa, our very
sincere appreciation of your efforts on behalf of the general
community—efforts to promote goodwill among all and to bring together
the various elements of our local life.”
Nor do the predecessors of Mr. R. Casement—for English Consuls with
jurisdiction in the Congo were appointed by His Majesty’s Government
as long ago as 1888—appear to have been absorbed in the examination
of innumerable complaints; at all events, that is not the view
taken in the Report (the only one published) by Consul Pickersgill,
who, by the mere fact of giving an account of his journey into the
interior of the Congo as far as Stanley Falls, disproves the alleged
impossibility for the English consular agents to form an opinion _de
visu_ in regard to every part of their district.
With regard to the charges against the administrative system of the
State, the note deals with taxes, public armed forces, and what is
termed forced labour.
It is, at bottom, the contributions made by the Congo natives to the
public charges which are criticised, as if there existed a single
country or colony in which the inhabitants do not, under one form
or another, bear a part in such charges. A State without resources
is inconceivable. On what legitimate grounds could the exemption
of natives from all taxes be based, seeing that they are the first
to benefit by the material and moral advantages introduced into
Africa? As they have no money, a contribution in the shape of labour
is required from them. It has been said that, if Africa is ever
to be redeemed from barbarism, it must be by getting the Negro to
understand the meaning of work by the obligation of paying taxes.
“It is a question [of native labour] which has engaged my most
careful attention in connection with West Africa and other Colonies.
To listen to the right honourable gentlemen, you would almost think
that it would be a good thing for the native to be idle. I think it
is a good thing for him to be industrious; and by every means in our
power we must teach him to work.... No people ever have lived in the
world’s history who would not work. In the interests of the natives
all over Africa, we have to teach them to work.”
Such was the language used by Mr. Chamberlain in the House of Commons
on the 6th August, 1901; and still more recently he expressed himself
as follows:
“We are all of us taxed, and taxed heavily. Is that a system of
forced labour?... To say that because we put a tax on the native
therefore he is reduced to a condition of servitude and of forced
labour is, to my mind, absolutely ridiculous.... It is perfectly fair
to my mind that the native should contribute something towards the
cost of administering the country.”—(House of Commons, 9th March,
1903.)
“If that really is the last word of civilisation, if we are to
proceed on the assumption that the nearer the native or any human
being comes to a pig the more desirable is his condition, of course
I have nothing to say.... I must continue to believe that, at all
events, the progress of the native in civilisation will not be
secured until he has been convinced of the necessity and the dignity
of labour. Therefore, I think that anything we reasonably can do to
induce the native to labour is a desirable thing.”
And he defended the principle of taxing the native on the ground that
“the existence of the tax is an inducement to him to work.”—(House of
Commons, 24th March, 1903.)
Moreover, it is to be observed that in nearly every part of Africa
the natives are taxed. In the Transvaal every native pays a “head
tax” of £2; in the Orange River Colony he is subject to a “poll tax”;
in Southern Rhodesia, Bechuanaland, Basutoland, Uganda, and Natal a
“hut-tax” is levied; in Cape Colony we find a “hut-tax” and a “labour
tax”; in German East Africa also a tax is levied on huts, payable
either in money, in kind, or in labour. This species of tax has also
been applied in the Sierra Leone Protectorate, where payment could be
made “in kind by rice or palm nuts,” and it has been suggested that
work on roads and useful works should be accepted in lieu of payment
in money or produce.
The legality of a tax is, therefore, not affected by the mode of its
payment, whether in money or in kind, so long as the amount is not
excessive. It is certainly not so in the Congo, where the work done
by the native does not represent more than forty hours’ work a month.
Such work, moreover, is paid for, and the tax in kind thus gives the
native as it were some return for his labour.
Payment of taxes is obligatory everywhere; and non-payment involves
measures of compulsion. The regulations under which the hut-tax
is levied impose on the native, for non-payment, such penalties
as imprisonment and forced labour. Nor in the Congo is payment of
taxes optional. Repressive measures have occasionally been rendered
necessary elsewhere by the refusal of natives to conform to the law,
_e. g._, the disturbances at Sierra Leone, in connection with which
an English publicist, speaking of the police force, states:
“Between July, 1894, and February, 1896, no fewer than sixty-two
convictions, admittedly representing a small proportion of offences
actually committed, were recorded against them for flogging,
plundering, and generally maltreating the natives.”
Further instances might be recalled of the opposition encountered
among native populations to the institution of governmental
regulations. Civilisation necessarily comes into collision with
their savage instincts and barbarous customs and habits; and it
can be understood that they submit but impatiently to, and even
try to escape from, a state of society which seems to them to be
restrictive of their licence and excesses. It frequently happens in
Africa that an exodus of natives takes place from one territory to
another, in the hope of finding beyond the frontier a government
less well established or less strong, and of thus freeing themselves
from all obligations and restraints. Natives of the State may
quite well, under the influence of considerations of this kind,
have crossed into neighbouring territories, although no kind of
emigration on a large scale, such as is referred to in the English
note, has ever been reported by the commandants of the frontier
provinces. On the contrary, it is a fact that natives in the Upper
Nile region who had settled in British territory have returned to
the left bank in consequence of the imposition of new taxes by the
English authorities. Besides, if it is these territories which are
alluded to, the information contained in the note would seem to be in
contradiction with other particulars furnished, for instance, by Sir
Harry Johnston.
“This much I can speak of with certainty and emphasis, that from the
British frontier near Fort George to the limit of my journeys into
the Mbuba country of the Congo Free State, up and down the Semliki,
the natives appear to be prosperous and happy.... The extent to which
they were building their villages and cultivating their plantations
within the precincts of Fort Mbeni showed that they had no fear of
the Belgians.”
Major H. H. Gibbons, who was for several months on the Upper Nile,
writes:
“Having had occasion to know many officers, and to visit their
stations in the Congo State, I am convinced that their behaviour has
been much misunderstood by the press. I have quoted as a proof my
experience, which is at variance with an article recently published
in the English press, in which they are accused of great cruelties.”
The declaration of last June, of which a copy is enclosed, has
disposed of the criticisms directed against the public forces of the
State, by pointing out that recruitment for them is regulated by
law, and that it is only one man in every 10,000 who is affected. To
say that “the method of obtaining men for military service is often
but little different from that formerly employed to obtain slaves”
is to misunderstand the carefully drawn regulations which have, on
the contrary, been issued to check abuses. Levies take place in each
district; the District Commissioners settle the mode of conscription
in agreement with the native chiefs. Voluntary enlistment, and
numerous re-enlistments, easily fill up the ranks, which only reach,
all told, the moderate total of 15,000 men.
Those who allege, as the note says, that “the men composing the
armed force of the State were in many cases recruited from the most
warlike and savage tribes” must be unaware that the public forces
are recruited from every province, and from the whole population. It
is inconceivable that the authorities of a State, with due regard to
its interests, should form an army out of undisciplined and savage
elements, and instances are to be found—such as the excesses said
to have been perpetrated by irregular levies in Uganda, and the
revolts which formerly occurred in the Congo—which, on the contrary,
render it necessary that special care should be exercised in raising
armed forces. The European establishment, consisting of Belgian,
Italian, Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish officers, maintains strict
discipline, and it would be vain to seek the actual facts alluded to
in the assertion that the soldiers “not infrequently terrorised over
their own officers.” Such an assertion is as unfounded as the one
“that compulsion is often exercised by irresponsible native soldiers
uncontrolled by any European officer.” For a long time past the
authorities have been alive to the danger arising from the existence
of stations of Negro soldiers, who inevitably abuse their authority,
as recognised in the Report of Sir D. Chalmers on the insurrection
in Sierra Leone. In the Congo such stations have been gradually
abolished.
Those who do not refuse to accept patent facts will recognise that,
of the reproaches levelled at the State, the most unjust is the
statement “that no attempt at any administration for the natives
is made, and that the officers of the Government do not apparently
concern themselves with such work.”
It is astonishing to come across such an assertion in a dispatch from
a government, one of whose members, Lord Cranborne, Under-Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs, stated on the 20th May last:
“There was no doubt that the administration of the Congo Government
had been marked by a very high degree of a certain kind of
administrative development. There were railways, there were steamers
upon the river, hospitals had been established, and all the machinery
of elaborate judicial and police systems had been set up.”
Another member of the House of Commons acknowledged:
“That the Congo State had done good work in excluding alcoholic
liquor from the greater part of their domain; that they had
established a certain number of hospitals, had diminished smallpox by
means of vaccination, and had suppressed the Arab Slave Trade.”
However limited these admissions, still they contradict the assertion
now made that “the natives are left entirely to themselves, so far as
any assistance in their government or in their affairs is concerned.”
Such does not seem to have been the conclusion at which Mr.
Pickersgill, the English Consul, had arrived as long ago as 1898.
“Has the welfare of the African,” he asks, “been duly cared for in
the Congo State?” He answers: “The State has restricted the liquor
trade.... It is scarcely possible to overestimate the service
which is being rendered by the Congo Government to its subjects
in this matter.... Intertribal wars have been suppressed over a
wide area, and the imposition of European authority being steadily
pursued, the boundaries of peace are constantly extending.... The
State must be congratulated upon the security it has created for all
who live within the shelter of its flag and abide by its laws and
regulations.... Credit is also due to the Congo Government in respect
of the diminution of cannibalism.... The yoke of the notorious Arab
slave-traders has been broken, and traffic in human beings amongst
the natives themselves has been diminished to a considerable degree.”
This Report also showed that the labour of the native was
remunerated, and gave due credit to the State for its efforts to
instruct the young natives, and to open schools.
Since 1898 the general condition of the native has been still further
improved. The system of carriers (_le portage à dos d’homme_),
the hardships of which, so far as the native was concerned, were
specially pointed out by Mr. Pickersgill, has disappeared from those
parts of the country where it was most practised, in consequence of
the opening of railways. Elsewhere motor cars are used as means of
transport. The “sentry,” the station of Negro soldiers which the
Consul criticised, not without reason, no longer exists. Cattle have
been introduced into every district. Sanitary commissions have been
instituted. Schools and workshops have multiplied.
“The native,” says the enclosed document,[86] “is better housed,
better clad, and better fed; he is replacing his huts by better
built and healthier dwelling-places; thanks to existing transport
facilities, he is able to obtain the produce necessary to satisfy
his new wants; workshops have been opened for him, where he learns
handicrafts, such as those of the blacksmith, carpenter, mechanic,
and mason; he extends his plantations and, taking example by the
white man, learns rational modes of agriculture; he is always able
to obtain medical assistance; he sends his children to the State
school-colonies and to the missionary schools.”
As stated in the House of Commons, it is only right to recognise that
the material and moral regeneration of Central Africa cannot be the
work of a day. The results so far obtained have been considerable,
and these we shall try to consolidate and develop, in spite of the
way in which an effort is being made to hamper the action of the
State, which in the real interests of civilisation should rather be
promoted.
The English note does not show that the economic system of the State
is in opposition to the Berlin Act. It does not meet the points
of law and fact by means of which the State has demonstrated the
conformity of its system of land tenure and concessions with the
provisions of that Act. It does not explain either how or why
freedom of trade—a term used at the Conference of Berlin in its
usual, grammatical, and economic sense—is incomplete in the Congo
State because there are landowners there.
The note confuses the utilisation of his property by the owner with
trade. The native who collects on behalf of the owner does not become
the owner of what is so collected, and naturally cannot dispose of
it to a third party, any more than a miner can rob the proprietor of
the produce of the mine and dispose of it himself. These rules are
in accordance with the principles of justice and are explained in
numerous documents, such as legal opinions and judicial decisions,
some of which are annexed. His Majesty’s Government do not deny that
the State is justified in allotting domain lands to _bona-fide_
occupants, or that the native has no longer any right to the
produce of the soil as soon as the “land is reduced into individual
occupation.” The distinction is without legal foundation. If the
State can part with land, it is because the native is not the owner;
by what title could he then retain a right to the produce of property
which has been lawfully acquired by others? Could it be contended,
for instance, that the Lower Congo Railway Company, or the South
Cameroons Company, or the Italian Colonial Trading Company are, on
the ground that they are not at present in occupation, bound to allow
the native to plunder the territories allotted to them? As a matter
of fact, moreover, in the Congo State the appropriation of lands
worked on Government account or by the Concessionary companies is an
accomplished fact. The State and the companies have devoted large
sums, amounting to many millions of francs, to the development of the
lands in question, and more especially to that of the forests. There
can, therefore, be no doubt that throughout the territories of the
Congo the State really and completely works its property, just as the
companies really and completely work their concessions.
The state of affairs then which actually exists, and is established
in the Independent State, is such that there is really no need, as
far as the State itself is concerned, to dwell longer on the theory
set forth in the note which deals in turn with the rights of the
State, with those of _bona-fide_ occupiers, and those of the natives.
Still this theory calls for the attention of the Powers in view of
the serious difficulties which would arise were it to be implicitly
accepted.
The note lays down the three following propositions:
“The State has the right to partition the State lands among
_bona-fide_ occupants.”
“The natives will, as the land is so divided out amongst _bona-fide_
occupiers, lose their right of roaming over it and collecting the
natural fruits which it produces.”
“Until unoccupied land is reduced into individual occupation, and so
long as the produce can only be collected by the native, the native
should be free to dispose of that produce as he pleases.”
There is no single one of these propositions but apparently excludes
the other two, and, as a matter of fact, such contradictions amount
to a denial of the right to grant concessions.
If _bona-fide_ occupiers ever existed they have become proprietors;
occupation, where it can be exercised is, under all legislative
codes, one of the methods by which property can be acquired, and
in the Congo State titles of ownership deriving from it have been
legally registered. If the land has never been legally occupied, it
is without an owner, or, rather the State is the owner; the State can
allot it to a third party, for whom such allotment is a complete and
absolute title. In either case it is hard to see how the fruits of
the soil can be reserved for any but the owner on the pretext that
the latter is not able to collect the produce of his property.
By a curious contradiction it is observed in the note that, as a
consequence of the allotment of lands by the State, the natives “lose
their right of collecting the natural fruits,” and, on the other
hand, that they retain the right of disposing of these fruits “until
unoccupied land is reduced into [_sic_] individual occupation.” It is
difficult to understand what is meant by a right which belongs to the
natives or not according to the action of a third party. Either they
lost their rights on the lands being allotted, and in that case they
have lost them entirely and completely, or else they have retained
them, and are entitled to retain them, although the “land is reduced
into [_sic_] individual occupation.”
Again, what are we to understand by the expressions “_bona-fide_”
occupiers and “individual occupation?” Who is to determine whether
the occupier has brought his lands into a state of individual
occupation, whether he is able to collect their produce, or whether
it is still for the native to do so? In any case, such a question is
essentially one to be settled by municipal law.
The note is, moreover, incomplete in another respect. It states that
where the land has not yet been worked by those who have a right to
it, the option of working should belong to the native. Rights would
thus be given to the natives to the prejudice of the Government or
of white concessionaires, but the note does not explain how nor by
whom the wrong thus caused would be repaired or made good. Though the
system thus advocated cannot be applied in the Congo State, as there
are no longer any unappropriated lands there, attention should be
called to the statement in the interest of white men established in
the Conventional Basin. If it is right to treat the Negro well, it is
none the less just not to despoil the white man, who, in the interest
of all, must remain the dominant race.
From an economic point of view, it would be very regrettable if,
in spite of the rights regularly acquired by white men, the
domain lands were, even temporarily, handed over to the natives.
Such a course would involve a return to their former condition
of abandonment, when the natives left them unproductive; for the
collection of rubber, the plantation of coffee, cocoa, tobacco, etc.,
date from the day when the State itself took the initiative: the
export trade was insignificant before the impetus it received from
Government enterprise. Such a course would furthermore certainly
involve the neglect of rational methods of work, of planting and
of replanting—measures which the State and the Concessionary
companies have assumed as an obligation with a view to securing the
preservation of the natural riches of the country.
Never in the Congo, so far as we know, have requests to buy natural
produce been addressed to the rightful owners. Up to now the only
attempts made have been to buy the produce which has been stolen, and
the State, as was its duty, has had those guilty of these unlawful
attempts prosecuted.
It is not true, as has been asserted, that the policy of the State
has killed trade; it has, on the contrary, created the materials
which trade deals in and keeps up the supply; it is thanks to the
State that, on the Antwerp market—and soon even in the Congo where
the possibility of establishing trade depots is being considered—5000
tons of rubber collected in the Congo can be annually put on sale
to all and sundry without privilege or monopoly, while formerly, in
1887, for instance, the rubber export amounted to hardly 30 tons. It
is the State which, after having created, at its own expense, the
material of trade, carefully preserves the source of it by means of
planting and replanting.
It must not be forgotten either that the Congo State has been obliged
to rely on its own resources. It was forced to utilise its domain
in the public interest. All the receipts of the domain go into the
Treasury, as also the dividends of the shares which the State holds
in exchange for concessions granted. It has only been by utilising
its domain lands, and pledging the greater part of their revenues,
that it has been able to raise loans, and encourage the construction
of railways by guarantees of interest, thus realising one of the
means most advocated by the Brussels Conference for promoting
civilisation in Central Africa. Nor has it hesitated to mortgage its
domain lands with this object.
The Berlin Act is not opposed to such a course, for it never
prescribed the rights of property as there is now an _ex post facto_
attempt to make out, an attempt tending, consciously or not, to the
ruin of the whole Conventional Basin of the Congo.
It will not escape the notice of the Powers that the English note,
by suggesting a reference to the Court at the Hague, tends to bring
into consideration as cases for arbitration questions of sovereignty
and internal administration as questions for arbitration which,
according to prevailing doctrines, are excluded from arbitral
decisions. As far as the present case is concerned, it must be
assumed that the suggestion of referring the matter to the Court at
the Hague has a general meaning, if it is true that, in the opinion
of the English Chambers of Commerce, “the principles and practice
introduced into the administration of the affairs of the French
Congo, the Congo Free State, and other areas in the Conventional
Basin of the Congo being [_sic_] in direct opposition to the Articles
of the Act of Berlin, 1885.” The Government of the Congo State have
never ceased advocating arbitration as a mode of settling questions
which are of an international nature, and can thus be suitably
treated, as, for instance, the divergencies of opinion which have
arisen in connection with the lease of the territories of the
Bahr-el-Ghazal.
The Government of the Congo State, after careful examination of the
English note, remain convinced that, in view of its vagueness, and
the complete lack of evidence, which is implicitly admitted, there
is no tribunal in the world, supposing there were one possessing
competent jurisdiction, which could, far from pronouncing a
condemnation, take any decision other than to refuse action on mere
supposition.
If the Congo State is attacked, England may admit that she, more than
any other nation, has been the object of attacks and accusations of
every kind, and the list would be long of the campaigns which have
at various times, and even quite recently, been directed against her
colonial administration. She has certainly not escaped criticism in
regard to her numerous and bloody wars against native populations,
nor the reproach of oppressing natives and invading their liberty.
Has she not been blamed in regard to the long insurrections in Sierra
Leone; to the disturbed state of Nigeria, where quite recently,
according to the English newspapers, military measures of repression
cost, on one single occasion, the lives of 700 natives, of most of
their Chiefs, and of the Sultan; and to the conflict in Somaliland,
which is being carried on at the cost of many lives, without,
however, exciting expressions of regret in the House of Commons,
except on the score of the heavy expense?
Seeing that these attacks have left England indifferent, it is some
what surprising to find her now attaching such importance to those
made on the Congo State.
There is, however, reason to think that the natives of the Congo
State prefer the Government of a small and pacific nation, whose aims
remain as peaceful as its creation, which was founded on treaties
concluded with the natives.
(Signed) CHR. DR CUVELIER.
ANNEXES[87]
I. _Bulletin Officiel de l’État Indépendant du Congo_, Juin, 1903.
II. Judgments delivered by the Tribunals of French Congo.
III. Opinions of Messrs, van Maldeghem and de Paepe, Van Berchem,
Barboux, and Nys.
FOOTNOTES:
[85] _Transactions of the Aborigines Protection Society_, 1890-1896,
p. 155.
[86] See Annex No. I.
OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CONGO FREE STATE AND GREAT BRITAIN
THE CONGO REJOINER TO CHARGES CONTAINED IN THE REPORT OF CONSUL
CASEMENT
The Appendices on pages 591 to 611 are taken from the official
correspondence[88] sent by Sir Constantine Phipps, his Britannic
Majesty’s Minister at Brussels, to the Marquess of Lansdowne, His
Britannic Majesty’s Foreign Secretary, enclosing the reply of the
Government of the Congo Free State to the Report of Mr. Roger
Casement, British Consul at Boma. Having regard to the voluminous
nature of Consul Casement’s report, and the fact that the Congo
State’s Note (reply) cites its principal charges against that
Government, it is not printed herewith, to expand a volume already
extended beyond practical dimensions.
* * * * *
NO. 1
_Sir C. Phipps to the Marquess of Lansdowne.—(Received March 14)_
BRUSSELS, March 13, 1904.
MY LORD,
I have the honour to enclose the rejoinder on the part of the Congo
Government to the Report of His Majesty’s Consul at Boma on the
condition of the Congo.
In handing these “Notes” to me this afternoon M. de Cuvelier was
instructed to call my attention to the passage where his Government
expresses a desire to be placed in possession of the full Report,
including names, dates, and places referred to. The “Notes” will be
communicated to-morrow to the Representatives of the other Powers.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) CONSTANTINE PHIPPS.
* * * * *
ENCLOSURE IN NO. 1
NOTES BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CONGO FREE STATE ON THE REPORT
OF MR. CASEMENT, CONSUL OF HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY, OF THE 11TH
DECEMBER, 1903.
(_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 recognised 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 dispatch 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
dispatches 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 farther 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,”[89] and
that this malady is “probably one of the principal factors” in the
diminution of the population.[90] 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 population 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 smallpox 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.”[91]
“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.”[92]
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.”[93]
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.”[94]
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.”[95]
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 Balolo, or the upkeep 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 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 II., 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 Balolo 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 Kalengo,[96] 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 the Consul’s
question, charged a sentry named ‘Kalengo’ (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 Kalengo; 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 Kalengo of it. “Nearly all those present,
about forty persons, shouted out with one voice that it was ‘Kalengo’
who did it.”
In order to understand the violence with which the natives accused
Kalengo, 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 “Kalengo deserved severe
punishment for his illegal and cruel acts.” He proceeded to dramatise
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 emphasising 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 append (Annex No. III.)
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 Kalengo 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 Kalengo?”
_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 Lulonga. 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 Lulonga.
Mongongolo took away six photographs.”[97]
Epondo of his own accord repeated his declarations and retractions
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 Kalengo, 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 Kalengo adds that of having
killed a native of the name of Baluwa;
“Having regard to the conclusions arrived at by the police employee
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 Kalengo, 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 declaration 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;
“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 Kalengo 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 Kalengo,
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,[98]
“that of the boy II., 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
II.”[99]
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.”[100]
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 Coquilhatville on the
10th instant, when the _mutilated boy Epondo stood before us as an
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, 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[101]; 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.[102] 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[103] 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.[104]
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[105] “some years ago.”[106] He mentions several others, in
regard to the number of which the particulars given in the Report do
not seem to agree,[107] as having taken place in the neighbourhood of
Bonginda,[108] 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,[109] and which, according to the natives, were due to agents
of the La Lulonga 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.[110]
Notwithstanding the weight which he attached to the “air of
frankness” and the “air of conviction and sincerity”[111] 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.”[112]
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 shown, 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.”[113] 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, etc.”[114]
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.”[115]
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 a dense forest.[116]
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,[117] 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.”[118] “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 despatch 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.”[119] And the missionaries speak of the facility with which
even nowadays the natives return to their old customs. It would seem,
too, the statement made in the Report,[120] 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.
Be this as 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
Lulonga and the Lopori, as the head-stations of the missions of the
Congo Balolo Mission have been established there for years past.
These missions 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 civilised world.
The missionaries congratulate themselves on the active sympathy
shown them by the various official and commercial agents,[121] on
the progress of their work of evangelisation,[122] on the facilities
afforded them by the construction of roads,[123] on the manner in
which the natives are becoming civilised, “owing to the mere presence
of white men in their midst, both missionaries and traders,”[124]
on the disappearance of slavery,[125] on the density of the
population,[126] on the growing number of their pupils, “especially
since the State has issued orders for all children within reach to
attend the mission schools,”[127] on the gradual disappearance of the
primitive customs of the natives,[128] and lastly, on the contrast
between the present and the past.[129] 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....”[130]
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.”[131] 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 expressions 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,” etc. Within a space
of ten lines, indeed, occur four times the expressions, “appears,”
“would seem,” “do not seem.”[132]
The Consul does not appear to have realised 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 4938 pay it “in produce.”[133] 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
recognises 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 the 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, for
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 organisation 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.”[134]
The Decree on the subject of these Chieftaincies[135] 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
kind 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 is 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
Zambesi delta, gave some trouble on being summoned to pay taxes.”[136]
“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).”[137]
“Milala’s people have succeeded in evading taxes.”[138]
“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.”[139]
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.”[140]
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.[141] 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.[142] 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; in any case, the complaints which
have been made on this head will form a subject for inquiry in the
Congo, as also the other remark of the Report that the manner in
which these forest guards are armed is excessive, and liable to
abuse. It is here to be observed that in calculating the number of
these forest guards the Consul is obliged to rely on hypothesis,[143]
and that he himself admits “I have no means of ascertaining the
number of this class of armed men employed by the A. B. I. R.
Company.”[144] He mentions that the gun of one of these men was
marked on the butt “Depôt 2210.” But it is evident that such a mark
can only have the significance which the Consul would like to see
in it in so far as it can be proved that it refers to the numbering
of the arms used in the Concession, and such is not the case, since
this particular mark “Depôt” is not used either by the officials of
the State or those of the Company, and it would seem that it is an
old manufactory or store mark. In regard to the manner of arming
the capitas, the Consul can hardly be ignorant that the higher
authorities have always given great attention to the matter, which
is, indeed, one surrounded with difficulties, seeing that while
on the one hand it is necessary to consider the question of the
personal protection of the capita, on the other the possibility of
the arms in question being used for improper purposes must not be
lost sight of. It is not only in the Circular of the 20th October,
1900, which the Consul has reprinted, that this question is dealt
with; there is a whole collection of Circulars on the subject, among
which may be mentioned those of the 12th March, 1897, 31st May and
28th November, 1900, and 30th April, 1901. Copies of them are annexed
as proof of the fixed determination of the Government to see that
the law relating to this question is strictly enforced (Annex V.).
Yet, in spite of all these precautions, the Consul has ascertained
that several capitas were not provided with permits (perhaps they
might have been found at the head office), and that two of them were
furnished with arms of precision.[145] But these few infractions of
the rule are obviously not enough to prove the existence of a sort of
vast armed organisation destined to strike terror into the natives.
On the contrary, the Circular of the 7th September, 1903, printed in
Annex VII. of the Consul’s Report, is a proof of the care taken by
the Government that the regular black troops should always be under
the control of European officers.[146]
Such are the preliminary remarks suggested by Mr. Casement’s Report,
and we reserve to ourselves the right of dealing with it more in
detail as soon as the Government shall be in possession of the
results of the inquiry which the local authorities are about to make.
It will be observed that the Government, in its desire not to seem to
wish to avoid the discussion, has not raised a question in regard to
the manner, surely unusual, in which His Britannic Majesty’s Consul
has acted in a foreign country. It is obviously altogether outside
the duties of a Consul to take upon himself, as Mr. Casement has
done, to institute inquiries, to summon natives, to submit them to
interrogatories as if duly authorised thereto, and to deliver what
may be styled judgments in regard to the guilt of the accused. The
reservations called for by this mode of procedure must be all the
more formal, as the Consul was thus intervening in matters which only
concerned subjects of the Congo State, and which were within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the territorial authorities. Mr. Casement,
indeed, made it his business himself to point out how little
authorised he was to interfere when on the 4th September, 1903, he
wrote to the Governor-General: “I have no right of representation
to your Excellency save where the persons or interests of British
subjects dwelling in this country are affected.” It is thus obvious
that he was aware that he was exceeding his duties by investigating
facts which concerned only the internal administration, and so,
contrary to all laws of Consular jurisdiction, encroaching on the
province of the territorial authorities.
“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.”
These lines are extracted from the Report for 1903 of the British and
Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, and the natives referred to are the
natives of the Fiji Isles. The Report goes on:
“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.”
Such are also our conclusions in regard to Mr. Casement’s Report.
CHR. DE CUVELIER.
BRUSSELS, March 12, 1904.
FOOTNOTES:
[87] Copies have been sent to the Library of each House of Parliament.
[88] See _Africa_, No. 7, 1904, presented to both Houses of
Parliament, June, 1904.
[89] Report, p. 21.
[90] _Idem_, p. 26.
[91] M. Boudot, missionary of the Congo Balolo Mission. _Regions
Beyond_, December, 1901, p. 337.
[92] W. H. Bentley, _Pioneering on the Congo_, ii., p. 229.
[93] _Idem_, p. 243.
[94] _Pioneering on the Congo_, by the Rev. W. Holman Bentley, ii.
pp. 235-236.
[95] Report, p. 29.
[96] K. K. in _Africa_, No. 1 (1904).
[97] See Annex No. III.
[98] _Report_, p. 58.
[99] _Report_, p. 58.
[100] _Idem_, p. 56.
[101] See Annex No. II. (enclosure No. 6 in III.).
[102] _Regions Beyond_, 1900, p. 198.
[103] _Idem._, January-February, 1903, p. 53.
[104] See Annex No. II. “Present: Rev. W. D. Armstrong and Rev. D.
J. Danielson of the Congo Balolo Mission of Bonginda, Vinda Bidilou
(Consul’s head man) and Bateko as interpreters, and His Britannic
Majesty’s Consul.” This passage is omitted in Annex No. 6 of the
Consul’s Report (p. 78).
[105] _Report_, p. 34.
[106] _Idem_, pp. 76 and 77.
[107] Cf. _Idem_, pp. 54 and 55 and p. 58.
[108] _Idem_, pp. 54, 55.
[109] _Idem_, p. 56.
[110] _Idem_, p. 56.
[111] _Idem_, p. 62.
[112] _Idem_, p. 57.
[113] _Review of Reviews_, February 14, 1903.
[114] The _Tribuna_ of Rome.
[115] _Report_, Annex No. IV., p. 77.
[116] _Idem_, p. 30.
[117] _Report_, Annex No. IV., p. 30.
[118] “Ten Years at Bonginda.” D. McKittrick, _Regions Beyond_, 1900,
p. 21.
[119] “Congo Contrasts.” M. Boudot, _Regions Beyond_, 1900, p. 197.
[120] _Report_, p. 34.
[121] _Regions Beyond_, 1900, p. 150; 1902, p. 209.
[122] _Idem, passim._
[123] _Idem_, 1900, p. 150.
[124] _Idem_, 1901, p. 27.
[125] _Idem_, 1900, p. 199.
[126] _Idem_, 1900, pp. 243, 297, 306.
[127] _Idem_, 1901, p. 40; 1902, p. 315.
[128] _Idem_, 1901, p. 40.
[129] _Idem_, 1900, p. 196.
[130] _Idem_, 1901, p. 43.
[131] _Idem_, 1901, p. 60.
[132] _Report_, p. 28.
[133] _Reports on the Administration of Rhodesia_, 1900-1902, p. 408.
[134] _Reports on the Administration of Rhodesia_, 1900-1902, p. 408.
[135] Decree of the 6th October, 1891 (_Bulletin Officiel_, 1891, p.
259).
[136] _Reports on the Administration of Rhodesia_, 1900-1902, p. 409.
[137] _Idem_, p. 410.
[138] _Idem_, p. 410.
[139] _Idem_, 1900-1902, pp. 145, 146.
[140] _Report_, p. 44.
[141] Annex III., p. 26.
[142] _Reports on the Administration of Rhodesia_, 1900-1902, pp.
397, etc.