The names of six other persons mutilated in a similar way were given to
me. The last of these, an old woman, had died only a few months
previously, and her niece stated that her aunt had often told her how
she came to lose her hand. The town had been attacked by Government
troops and all had fled, pursued into the forest. This old woman (whose
name was V W) had fled with her son, when he fell shot dead, and she
herself fell down beside him--she supposed she fainted. She then felt
her hand being cut off, but had made no sign. When all was quiet and the
soldiers had gone, she found her son’s dead body beside her with one
hand cut off and her own also taken away.
Of acts of persistent mutilation by Government soldiers of this nature I
had many statements made to me, some of them specifically, others in a
general way. Of the fact of this mutilation and the causes inducing it
there can be no shadow of doubt. It was not a native custom prior to the
coming of the white man; it was not the outcome of the primitive
instincts of savages in their fights between village and village; it was
the deliberate act of the soldiers of a European Administration, and
these men themselves never made any concealment that in committing these
acts they were but obeying the positive orders of their superiors. I
obtained several specific instances of this practice of mutilation
having been carried out in the town of Q* itself, when the Government
soldiers had come across from P* to raid it or compel its inhabitants to
work.
Inclosure 5 in No. 3.
(See p. 43.)
_Circular dated October 20, 1900._
Le Gouvernement a délégué à des Sociétés Commerciales opérant dans
certaines parties du territoire non soumise à l’action immédiate de son
autorité une partie de ses pouvoirs en matière de police générale.
Ces Sociétés sont dites avoir “le droit de police.” Des interprétations
erronées ont été données à cette appellation.
On a voulu y voir l’attribution aux Directeurs de ces Sociétés et même à
des agents subalternes, du droit de diriger des opérations militaires
offensives, “de faire la guerre” aux populations indigènes; d’autres,
sans même s’inquiéter d’examiner quelles pouvaient être les limites de
ce droit de police, se sont servis de moyens que cette délégation avait
mis entre leurs mains, pour commettre les abus les plus graves.
C’est-à-dire que “le droit de police” qui leur donnait le moyen de se
protéger eux-mêmes et l’obligation de protéger les individus contre
l’abus de la force, allait complètement à l’encontre de l’un de ces buts
principaux.
En présence de cette situation, j’ai décidé que “le droit de police,”
terme dont je conserve provisoirement l’emploi, ne laisserait que le
pouvoir de réquisitionner, à l’effet de maintenir ou de rétablir
l’ordre, la force armée qui se trouvera soit dans la Concession, soit en
dehors, mais même dans ce cas il doit être bien entendu que les
officiers de l’État conserveront, au cours des événements le Commandant
[? commandement] des soldats et seront seuls juges, sous leur
responsabilité, des opérations militaires qu’il importerait
d’entreprendre.
Les armes perfectionnées que les Sociétés posséderaient dans leurs
diverses factoreries ou établissements et qui doivent faire l’objet
comme les armes d’autres Sociétés n’ayant pas le droit de police, d’un
permis modèle B, ne peuvent en aucun cas sortir des établissements pour
lesquels elles ont été délivrées.
Quant aux fusils à piston ils ne peuvent être mis en dehors des
factoreries qu’entre les mains des Capitas et à condition que ceux-ci
aient un permis suivant modèle C.
Les fusils à piston ne sortiront ainsi des factoreries qu’isolément. Ne
pouvant être remis en dehors des établissements commerciaux dans les
mains de groupes plus ou moins importants ils ne constitueront ainsi
jamais une force offensive.
Je donne à nouveau les ordres les plus formels pour que tous les
fonctionnaires de l’État concourent à faire réprimer les infractions à
ces strictes défenses.
Le Gouverneur-Général,
(Signé) WAHIS.
_Boma, le 20 Octobre, 1900._
(Translation.)
The Government have delegated to commercial Companies operating in
certain parts of the territory not subject to the immediate exercise of
Government authority a part of their powers in matters of general
police.
These Companies are described as having “the right of police.” Erroneous
interpretations have been given to this expression.
It has been held by some as giving to the Directors of these Companies,
and even to inferior officers, the right to undertake offensive military
operations, to “make war” on the native population; others, without even
troubling to ascertain what the limits of this right of police might be,
have used the means afforded by this delegation of power to commit the
gravest abuses.
That is to say, “the right of police,” which gave them the means of
protecting themselves, and imposed upon them the obligation of
protecting individuals against abuse of force, was used in a manner
absolutely opposed to one of these principal objects.
In view of these circumstances, I have decided that “the right of
police,” an expression the use of which I retain provisionally, shall
imply no more than the power of requisitioning, with a view to
maintaining or restoring order, the armed force existing either within
or without the Concession; but even in this case it must be well
understood that the officers of the State will retain command of the
soldiers during the proceedings, and will be the sole judges, on their
own responsibility, of the military operations which it may be desirable
to undertake.
Improved weapons which the Companies possess in their various factories
or establishments and for which, as for the arms of other Companies not
having the right of police, a permit, form (B), must be taken out, may
not in any case be removed from the establishments for which they were
issued.
With regard to cap-guns, they may not be removed from the factories
except into the hands of the Capitas, and on the condition that the
latter are in possession of a permit, form (C).
Cap-guns will thus only be removed from the factories one by one. As
they cannot be issued from the commercial establishments into the hands
of more or less numerous groups, they will thus never constitute a means
of offence.
I again give the most formal orders that all the State officials
co-operate to repress violations of these strict prohibitions.
The Governor-General,
(Signed) WAHIS.
_Boma, October 20, 1900._
Inclosure 6 in No. 3.
(See p. 56.)
_Note of Information taken in the Charge of Cutting off the boy I I’s
hand, preferred to Mr. Casement by the People of E*._
At village of E* in the C D* country, on left bank of E D*, tributary of
the X* River.
Y Y, with many of the townsmen and a few women and children, also
present.
A lad, about 14 or 15 years of age, I I by name, whose left hand had
been cut off, the stump wrapped up in a rag, the wound being yet
scarcely healed, appears, and, in answer to Consul’s question, charges a
sentry named K K (placed in the town by the local agent of the La
Lulanga Society to see that the people work rubber) with having done it.
This sentry is called, and after some delay appears with a cap-gun.
The following inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the loss of I
I’s hand then takes place:--
The Consul, through W W, speaking in E F*, and X X repeating his
utterances both in F G* to the sentry and in the local dialect to the
others, asks I I, in the presence of the accused:
“Who cut off your hand?”