numerous criticisms, even on the part of State officials. The
Protestant missionaries heard at Bolobo, Ikoko (Lake Mantumba),
Lulonga, Bonginda, Ikau, Baringa and Bongandanga, drew up formidable
accusations against the acts of these intermediaries. They brought
before the Commission a MULTITUDE OF NATIVE WITNESSES, WHO REVEALED A
LARGE NUMBER OF CRIMES and excesses alleged to have been committed by
the sentinels. According to the witnesses these auxiliaries,
especially those stationed in the villages, abuse the authority
conferred upon them, convert themselves into DESPOTS, CLAIMING THE
WOMEN AND THE FOOD, NOT ONLY FOR THEMSELVES BUT FOR THE BODY OF
PARASITES AND CREATURES WITHOUT ANY CALLING WHICH A LOVE OF RAPINE
CAUSES TO BECOME ASSOCIATED WITH THEM, AND WITH WHOM THEY SURROUND
THEMSELVES AS WITH A VERITABLE BODYGUARD; THEY KILL WITHOUT PITY ALL
THOSE WHO ATTEMPT TO RESIST THEIR EXIGENCIES AND WHIMS. The Commission
was obviously unable in all cases to verify the exactitude of the
allegations made before it, the more so that the facts were often
several years old. However, TRUTH OF THE CHARGES IS BORNE OUT BY A
MASS OF EVIDENCE AND OFFICIAL REPORTS."
It adds:
"OF HOW MANY ABUSES HAVE THESE NATIVE SENTINELS BEEN GUILTY IT WOULD
BE IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY, EVEN APPROXIMATELY. SEVERAL CHIEFS OF BARINGA
BROUGHT US, ACCORDING TO THE NATIVE CUSTOM, BUNDLES OF STICKS, EACH OF
WHICH WAS MEANT TO SHOW ONE OF THEIR SUBJECTS KILLED BY THE CAPITAS.
ONE OF THEM SHOWED 120 MURDERS IN HIS VILLAGE COMMITTED DURING THE
LAST FEW YEARS. Whatever one may think of the confidence with which
this native form of book-keeping may inspire one, a document handed to
the Commission by the Director of the A.B.I.R. does not allow any
doubt to remain as to the sinister character of the system. It
consisted of a list showing that from 1st January to 1st August,
1905--that is to say, within a space of seven months--142 sentries of
the Society had been killed or wounded by the natives. Now, it is to
be assumed that in many cases these sentries had been attacked by the
natives by way of revenge. One may judge by this of the number of
bloody affrays to which their presence had given rise. ON THE OTHER
HAND, THE AGENTS INTERROGATED BY THE COMMISSION, OR WHO WERE PRESENT
AT THE AUDIENCES, DID NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO DENY THE CHARGES BROUGHT
AGAINST THE SENTINELS."
That last sentence seems the crown of the arch. If the agents on the spot
did not attempt before the Commission to deny the outrages who shall
venture to do it in their name?
The remainder of the Report, though stuffed with courtly platitudes and
with vague recommendations of reform which are absolutely unpractical, so
long as the root causes of all the trouble remain undisturbed, contains a
few positive passages which are worth preserving. Talking of the want of
definite instructions to military expeditions, it says:
"The consequences are often very murderous. And one must not be
astonished. If in the course of THESE DELICATE OPERATIONS, WHOSE
OBJECT IT IS TO SEIZE HOSTAGES AND TO INTIMIDATE THE NATIVES, constant
watch cannot be exercised over the sanguinary instincts of the
soldiers when orders to punish are given by superior authority, it is
difficult that the expedition should not degenerate into massacres,
accompanied by pillage and incendiarism."
Again:
"The responsibility for these abuses must not, however, always be
placed upon the commanders of military expeditions. In considering
these facts one must bear in mind the deplorable confusion still
existing in the Upper Congo between a state of war and a state of
peace; between administration and repression; between those who may be
regarded as enemies and those who have the right to be regarded as
citizens of the State and treated in accordance with its laws. The
Commission was struck with the general tone of the reports relating to
operations described above. Often, while admitting that the expedition
had been sent out SOLELY FOR SHORTAGE IN TAXATION, AND WITHOUT MAKING
ALLUSION TO AN ATTACK OR RESISTANCE ON THE PART OF THE NATIVES, WHICH
ALONE WOULD JUSTIFY THE USE OF ARMS, the authors of these reports
speak of 'SURPRISING VILLAGES,' 'ENERGETIC PURSUIT,' 'NUMEROUS ENEMIES
KILLED AND WOUNDED,' 'LOOT,' 'PRISONERS OF WAR,' 'CONDITIONS OF
PEACE.' Evidently these officers thought themselves at war, acted as
though at war."
Again:
"The course of such expeditions grave abuses have occurred; men, women
and children have BEEN KILLED EVEN AT THE VERY TIME THEY SOUGHT SAFETY
IN FLIGHT. OTHERS HAVE BEEN IMPRISONED. WOMEN HAVE BEEN TAKEN AS
HOSTAGES."
There is an interesting passage about the missionaries:
"Often also, in the regions where evangelical stations are
established, the native, instead of going to the magistrate, his
natural protector, adopts the habit when he thinks he has a grievance
against an agent or an Executive officer, to confide in the
missionary. The latter listens to him, helps him according to his
means, and makes himself the echo of all the complaints of a region.
Hence the astounding influence which the missionaries possess in some
parts of the territory. It exercises itself not only among the natives
within the purview of their religious propaganda, but over all the
villages whose troubles they have listened to. The missionary becomes,
for the native of the region, the only representative of equity and
justice; he adds to the ascendancy acquired from his religious zeal,
the prestige which, in the interest of the State itself, should be
invested in the magistrates."
I will now turn for a moment to contemplate the document as a whole.
With the characteristic policy of the Congo authorities, it was originally
given to the world as being a triumphant vindication of King Leopold's
administration, which would certainly have been the greatest whitewashing
contract ever yet carried through upon this planet. Looked at more
closely, it is clearly seen that behind the veil of courtly phrase and
complimentary forms, every single thing that the Reformers have been
claiming has been absolutely established. That the land has been taken.
That the produce has been taken. That the people are enslaved. That they
are reduced to misery. That the white agents have given the capitas a free
hand against them. That there have been illegal holdings of hostages,
predatory expeditions, murders and mutilations. All these things are
absolutely admitted. I do not know that anything more has ever been
claimed, save that the Commission talks coldly of what a private man must
talk of hotly, and that the Commission might give the impression that they
were isolated acts, whereas the evidence here given and the general
depopulation of the country show that they are general, universal, and
parts of a single system extending from Leopoldville to the Great Lakes,
and from the French border to Katanga. Be it private domain, crown domain,
or Concessionnaire territory, be it land of the Kasai, the Anversoise, the
Abir, or the Katanga companies, the tale still tells of bloodshed and
horror.
Where the Commission differs from the Reformers is in their estimate of
the gravity of this situation and of the need of absolute radical reforms.
It is to be borne in mind that of the three judges two had never been in
Africa before, while the third was a direct servant of the attacked
institution. They seem to have vaguely felt that these terrible facts were
necessary phases of Colonial expansion. Had they travelled, as I have
done, in British West Africa, and had it been brought home to them that a
blow to a black man, Sierra Leone, for example, would mean that one would
be taken by a black policeman before a black judge to be handed over to a
black gaoler, they would understand that there are other methods of
administration. Had they ever read of that British Governor of Jamaica,
who, having in the face of dangerous revolt, executed a Negro without due
forms of law, was recalled to London, tried, and barely escaped with his
life. It is by such tension as this that Europeans in the Tropics,
whatever be their nation, must be braced up to maintain their civilized
_morale_. Human nature is weak, the influence of environment is strong.
Germans or English would yield and in isolated cases have yielded, to
their surroundings. No nation can claim much individual superiority in
such a matter. But for both Germany and England (I would add France, were
it not for the French Congo) can claim that their system works as strongly
against outrage as the Belgian one does in favour of it. These things are
not, as the Commissioners seemed to think, necessary evils, which are
tolerated elsewhere. How can their raw opinion weigh for a moment upon
such a point when it is counterbalanced by the words of such Reformers as
Sir Harry Johnston or Lord Cromer? The fact is that the running of a
tropical colony is, of all tests, the most searching as to the
development of the nation which attempts it; to see helpless people and
not to oppress them, to see great wealth and not to confiscate it, to have
absolute power and not to abuse it, to raise the native instead of sinking
yourself--these are the supreme trials of a nation's spirit. We have all
failed at times. But never has there been failure so hopeless, so
shocking, bearing such consequences to the world, such degradation to the
good name of Christianity and civilization as the failure of the Belgians
in the Congo.
And all this has happened and all this has been tolerated in an age of
progress. The greatest, deepest, most wide-reaching crime of which there
is any record, has been reserved for these latter years. Some excuse there
is for racial extermination where, as with Saxons and Celts, two peoples
contend for the same land which will but hold one. Some excuse, too, for
religious massacre when, like Mahomet the Second at Constantinople, or
Alva in the Lowlands, the bigoted murderers honestly conceived that their
brutal work was in the interest of God. But here the real doers have sat
remote with cold blood in their veins, knowing well from day to day what
they were doing, and with the sole object of adding more to wealth which
was already enormous. Consider this circumstance and consider also the
professions of philanthropy with which the huge massacre was inaugurated,
the cloud of lies with which it has been screened, the persecution and
calumny of the few honest men who uncovered it, the turning of religion
against religion and of nation against nation in the attempt to perpetuate
it, and having weighed all this, tell me where in the course of history
there is any such story. What is progress? Is it to run a little faster in
a motor-car, to listen to gabble in a gramophone?--these are the toys of
life. But if progress is a spiritual thing, then we do _not_ progress.
Such a horror as this of Belgium and the Congo would not have been
possible fifty years ago. No European nation would have done it, and if it
had, no other one would have failed to raise its voice in protest. There
was more decorum and principle in life in those slower days. We live in a
time of rush, but do not call it progress. The story of the Congo has made
the idea a little absurd.
IX
THE CONGO AFTER THE COMMISSION
The high hopes which the advent of the Commission raised among the natives
and the few Europeans who had acted as their champions, were soon turned
to bitter disappointment. The indefatigable Mr. Harris had sent on after
the Commission a number of fresh cases which had come to his notice. In
one of these a chief deposed that he had been held back in his village
(Boendo) in order to prevent him from reaching the Commission. He
succeeded in breaking away from his guards, but was punished for his
enterprise by having his wife clubbed to death by a sentry. He brought
with him, in the hope that he might lay them before the judges, one
hundred and eighty-two long twigs and seventy-six smaller ones, to
represent so many adults and children who had been murdered by the
A.B.I.R. Company in his district during the last few years. His account of
the methods by which these unfortunate people met their deaths will not
bear printing. The wildest dreams of the Inquisition were outdone. Women
had been killed by thrusting stakes into them from below. When the
horrified missionary asked the chief if this was personally known to him,
his answer was, "They killed my daughter, Nsinga, in this manner; I found
the stake in her." And a reputable Belgian statesman can write in this
year of grace that they are carrying on the beneficent and philanthropic
mission which has been handed down to them.
In a later communication Mr. Harris gives the names of men, women and
children killed by the sentries of a M. Pilaet.
"Last year," he says, "or the year before, the young woman, Imenega,
was tied to a forked tree and chopped in half with a hatchet,
beginning at the left shoulder, chopping down through the chest and
abdomen and out at the side." Again, with every detail of name and
place, he dwelt upon the horrible fact that public incest had been
enforced by the sentries--brother with sister, and father with
daughter. "Oh, Inglesia," cried the chief in conclusion, "don't stay
away long; if you do, they will come, I am sure they will come, and
then these enfeebled legs will not support me, I cannot run away. I am
near my end; try and see to it that they let me die in peace; don't
stay away."
"I was so moved, your Excellency, at these people's story that I took
the liberty of promising them, in the name of the Congo Free State,
that you will only kill them in future for crimes. I told them the
Inspector Royal was, I hoped, on his way, and that I was sure he would
listen to their story, and give them time to recover themselves."
It is terrible to think that such a promise, through no fault of Mr.
Harris, has not been fulfilled. Are the dreams of the Commissioners never
haunted by the thought of those who put such trust in them, but whose only
reward has been that they have been punished for the evidence they gave
and that their condition has been more miserable than ever. The final
practical result of the Commission was that upon the natives, and not upon
their murderers, came the punishment.
M. Malfeyt, a Royal High Commissioner, had been sent out on pretence of
reform. How hollow was this pretence may be seen from the fact that at the
same time M. Wahis had been despatched as Governor-General in place of
that Constermann who had committed suicide after his interview with the
judges of the Commission. Wahis had already served two terms as Governor,
and it was under his administration that all the abuses the Commission had
condemned had actually grown up. Could King Leopold have shown more
clearly how far any real reform was from his mind?
M. Malfeyt's visit had been held up as a step toward improvement. The
British Government had been assured that his visit would be of a nature to
effect all necessary reforms. On arriving in the country, however, he
announced that he had no power to act, and only came to see and hear. Thus
a few more months were gained before any change could be effected. The
only small consolation which we can draw from all this succession of
impotent ambassadors and reforming committees, which do not, and were
never intended to, reform, is that the game has been played and exposed,
and surely cannot be played again. A Government would deservedly be the
laughing-stock of the world which again accepted assurances from the same
source.
What, in the meanwhile, was the attitude of that A.B.I.R. Company, whose
iniquities had been thoroughly exposed before the Commission, and whose
manager M. Le Jeune, had fled to Europe? Was it ashamed of its
bloodthirsty deeds? Was it prepared in any way to modify its policy after
the revelations which its representatives had admitted to be true? Read
the following interview which Mr. Stannard had with M. Delvaux, who had
visited the stations of his disgraced colleague:
"He spoke of the Commission of Inquiry in a contemptuous manner, and
showed considerable annoyance about the things we had said to the
Commission. He declared the A.B.I.R. had full authority and power to
send out armed sentries, and force the people to bring in rubber, and
to imprison those who did not. A short time ago, the natives of a town
brought in some rubber to the agent here, but he refused it because it
was not enough, and the men were thrashed by the A.B.I.R. employees,
and driven away. The director justified the agent in refusing the
rubber because the quantity was too small. The Commissioners had
declared that the A.B.I.R. had no power to send armed sentries into
the towns in order to flog the people and drive them into the forests
to seek rubber; they were 'guards of the forest,' and that was their
work. When we pointed this out to M. Delvaux, he pooh-poohed the idea,
and said the name had no significance; some called the sentries by one
name, some by another. We pointed out that the people were not
compelled to pay their taxes in rubber only, but could bring in other
things, or even currency. He denied this, and said that the
alternative tax only meant that an agent could impose whatever tax he
thought fit. It had no reference whatever to the natives. The A.B.I.R.
preferred the taxes to be paid in rubber. This is what the A.B.I.R.
says, in spite of the interpretation by Baron Nisco, the highest
judicial authority in the State, that the natives could pay their
taxes in what they were best able. All these things were said in the
presence of the Royal High Commissioner, who, whether he approved or
not, certainly did not contradict or protest against them."
Within a week or two of the departure of the Commission the state of the
country was as bad as ever. It cannot be too often repeated that it was
not local in its origin, but that it occurred there, as elsewhere, on
account of pressure from the central officials. If further proof were
needed of this it is to be found in the Van Caelchen trial. This agent,
having been arrested, succeeded in showing (as was done in the Caudron
case) that the real guilt lay with his superior officers. In his defence
he
"Bases his power on a letter of the Commissaire-General de Bauw (the
Supreme Executive Officer in the District), and in a circular
transmitted to him by his director, and signed 'Constermann'
(Governor-General), which he read to the Court, deploring the
diminished output in rubber, and saying that the agents of the
A.B.I.R. should not forget that they had the same powers of
'_contrainte par corps_' (bodily detention) as were delegated to the
agent of the Societe Commerciale Anversoise au Congo for the increase
of rubber production; that if the Governor-General or his
Commissaire-General did not know what they were writing and what they
signed, he knows what orders he had to obey; it was not for him to
question the legality or illegality of these orders; his superiors
ought to have known and have weighed what they wrote before giving him
orders to execute; that bodily detention of natives for rubber was no
secret, seeing that at the end of every month a statement of
'_contrainte par corps_' (bodily detention) during the month has to be
furnished in duplicate, the book signed, and one of the copies
transmitted to the Government."
Whilst these organized outrages were continuing in the Congo, King
Leopold, at Belgium, had taken a fresh step, which, in its cynical
disregard for any attempt at consistency, surpassed any of his previous
performances. Feeling that something must be done in the face of the
finding of his own delegates, he appointed a fresh Commission, whose terms
of reference were "to study the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry,
to formulate the proposals they call for, and to seek for practical means
for realizing them." It is worth while to enumerate the names of the men
chosen for this work. Had a European Areopagus called before it the head
criminals of this terrible business, all of these men, with the exception
of two or three, would have been standing in the dock. Take their names in
turn: Van Maldeghem, the President--a jurist, who had written on Congo
law, but had no direct complicity in the crimes; Janssens, the President
of the former Commission, a man of integrity; M. Davignon, a Belgian
politician--so far the selection is a possible one--now listen to the
others! De Cuvelier, creature of the King, and responsible for the Congo
horrors; Droogmans, creature of the King, administrator of the secret
funds derived from his African estates, and himself President of a Rubber
Trust; Arnold, creature of the King; Liebrechts, the same; Gohr, the same;
Chenot, a Congo Commissioner; Tombeur, the same; Five, a Congo inspector;
Nys, the chief legal upholder of the King's system; De Hemptinne,
President of the Kasai Rubber Trust; Mobs, an Administrator of the
A.B.I.R. Is it not evident that, save the first three, these were the very
men who were on their trial? The whole appointment is an example of that
cynical humour which gives a grotesque touch to this inconceivable story.
It need not be added that no result making for reform ever came from such
an assembly. One can but rejoice that the presence of the small humane
minority may have prevented the others from devising some fresh methods of
oppression.
It cannot be said, however, that no judicial proceedings and no
condemnation arose from the actions of the Congo Commission. But who could
ever guess who the man was who was dragged to the bar. On the evidence of
natives and missionaries, the whole white hierarchy, from Governor-General
to subsidized cannibal, had been shown to be blood-guilty. Which of them
was punished? None of them, but Mr. Stannard, one of the accusing
witnesses. He had shown that the soldiers of a certain M. Hagstrom had
behaved brutally to the natives. This was the account of Lontulu the
chief:
"Lontulu, the senior chief of Bolima, came with twenty witnesses,
which was all the canoe would hold. He brought with him one hundred
and ten twigs, each of which represented a life sacrificed for rubber.
The twigs were of different lengths and represented chiefs, men, women
and children, according to their length. It was a horrible story of
massacre, mutilation and cannibalism that he had to tell, and it was
perfectly clear that he was telling the truth. He was further
supported by other eye-witnesses. These crimes were committed by those
who were acting under the instructions and with the knowledge of white
men. On one occasion the sentries were flogged because they had not
killed enough people. At one time, after they had killed a number of
people, including Isekifasu, the principal chief, his wives and
children, the bodies, except that of Isekifasu, were cut up, and the
cannibalistic fighters attached to the A.B.I.R. force were rationed on
the meat thus supplied. The intestines, etc., were hung up in and
about the house, and a little child who had been cut in halves was
impaled. After one attack, Lontulu, the chief, was shown the dead
bodies of his people, and asked by the rubber agent if he would bring
in rubber now. He replied that he would. Although a chief of
considerable standing, he has been flogged, imprisoned, tied by the
neck with men who were regarded as slaves, made to do the most menial
work, and his beard, which was of many years' growth, and reached
almost to the ground, was cut off by the rubber agent because he
visited another town."
Lontulu was cross-examined by the Commission and his evidence was not
shaken. Here are some of the questions and answers:
"President Janssens: 'M. Hagstrom leur a fait la guerre. Il a tue
beaucoup d'hommes avec ses soldats.'
"To Lontulu: 'Were the people of Monji, etc., given the corpses to
eat?'
"Lontulu: 'Yes, they cut them up and ate them.'
"Baron Nisco: 'Did they flog you?'
"Lontulu: 'Repeatedly.'
"Baron Nisco: 'Who cut your beard off?'
"Lontulu: 'M. Hannotte.'
"President Janssens: 'Did you see sentries kill your people? Did they
kill many?'
"Lontulu: 'Yes, all my family is finished.'
"President: 'Give us names.'
"Lontulu: 'Chiefs Bokomo, Isekifasu, Botamba, Longeva, Bosangi,
Booifa, Eongo, Lomboto, Loma, Bayolo.'
"Then followed names of women and children and ordinary men (not
chiefs).
"Lontulu: 'May I call my son lest I make a mistake?'
"President: 'It is unnecessary; go on.'
"Lontulu: 'Bomposa, Beanda, Ekila.'
"President: 'Are you sure that each of your twigs (110) represents one
person killed?'
"Lontulu: 'Yes.'