“Avant-hier, disent les indigènes, des missionnaires de la Congo
Balolo Mission se sont rendus à Yvumi (Ifomi), où ils ont été
recueillir certaines réclamations après au préalable avoir fait
instiguer les habitants de ce village par le personnel du steamer.”
The letter then seeks to show that the scene Mr. Casement had witnessed
had no foundation in fact, and ends with the request that Mr. Ellery
should communicate its contents “au monsieur qui s’est rendu à Yvumi. Je
regrette, ne le connaissant pas, de ne pouvoir m’adresser à lui.”
It is evident from this letter that neither the natives of the village
referred to, the sentries placed there, nor the European agent
responsible for placing them there had any knowledge of the rôle of
“redresseur des griefs” which is now attributed to Mr. Casement.
This is the more significant, since Mr. Casement had passed Bokakata the
day before this letter was written, on his way to Ikau, whither the
Lulanga Company’s steamer, with the Director on board, followed on the
28th August in search of an unknown traveller who the natives said was a
missionary.
That Mr. Casement travelled independently of Government assistance was a
perfectly legitimate action on his part, and one calling for neither
comment nor explanation. The necessity for this, moreover, is made clear
by that passage in his Report (p. 24) wherein he points out the
difficulty of getting suitable accommodation on the Government steamer
“Flandre,” by which he had at first thought of quitting Leopoldville.
It may also be observed that it was only when he failed to find a French
steamer available at Brazzaville (which he visited in that hope on the
25th and 26th June) that he decided to seek the loan of a steamer
belonging to an American Mission.
A visit to his countrymen was a correct proceeding on his part, and it
was but natural that he should be assisted by them. As their Consul, it
was right he should visit his compatriots dwelling in isolated stations
amid savage surroundings; and since he was desirous of coming to an
independent judgment on the conditions of native life, it was much more
natural that he should choose his own means of separate, independent
conveyance than restrict himself to the not always convenient itinerary
of Government steamers or place himself under the guidance or conduct of
local authorities, who, if abuses did exist, were hardly likely to
disclose them. His Majesty’s Government can in no way accept the view
that Mr. Casement necessarily fell under the influence of the
missionaries, neither can they think that the English Protestant
missionaries are opposed, still less necessarily antagonistic, to the
Government of a friendly State in which they reside. Mr. Casement
moreover visited several American mission stations, and it is not the
case, as asserted in the “Notes,” that it was only by English
missionaries that he was assisted. The steamer he travelled on was the
property of the American Baptist Missionary Union, lent to him by their
Board; the Mission station at which he spent the longest time is an
American station, and he had on several occasions Americans with him as
his guests on board and during his visits to the natives.
The Congo Government endeavour to support their assertion that Mr.
Casement’s attitude was one of antagonism to established authority by
alleging as “characteristic” the fact that while he was at Bonginda the
natives collected on the banks of the river, and as the agents of the
Lulanga Company went by shouted out, “Votre violence est finie; elle
s’en va; les Anglais seuls restent! Mourez vous autres!”
Had the incident referred to occurred as recorded, it would indicate not
so much that the natives of the locality named were excited against
“established authority,” as against the agents of a trading Company.
But the above is hardly a correct description of the occurrence, as the
Congo Government must admit, seeing that they have themselves placed on
record a totally different version of the incident.
On the 2nd December, 1903, the Secretary-General of the Congo State in
drawing the attention of Dr. H. Grattan Guinness to the subject of this
pretended “disorder,” of the natives, described it in the following
terms:--
“On a vu dernièrement, après le voyage du Consul Britannique dans
la Lulanga, des indigènes en rapport avec la mission de la Congo
Balolo Mission, établie à Bonginda, s’attrouper au passage d’un
agent de l’État, en s’écriant dans leur dialecte--
“‘Votre violence est finie; elle s’en va; les Anglais seuls
restent! Mourez vous autres!’
“Ces propos séditieux étaient proférés en présence de missionnaires
de Bonginda.”
Without further enlargement upon so trivial an altercation as that which
actually occurred between the canoe boys of a passing trader and some
natives of the neighbourhood, it is only necessary to call attention to
the discrepancy which exists between M. de Cuvelier’s complaint of the
2nd December and the terms in which it is now formulated.
In the former communication the Secretary of the Congo Government
addressed the Congo Balolo Mission in terms of reproof upon a subject
upon which he was obviously but imperfectly informed, since he asserted
the incident to have occurred after Mr. Casement’s departure from
Bonginda, and the offensive words to have been addressed to a Government
official. Dr. Guinness, however, explained to M. de Cuvelier that the
incident occurred when Mr. Casement was present, that it had no
significance, and that the canoe jeered at by the natives contained, not
a State Agent, but an agent of the Lulanga Company; further, that the
words used were, in reality, not those imputed, but: “The rubber is
finished; the people refuse to work rubber.” Yet in spite of this
explanation, which seems amply sufficient, the “Notes” still maintain
that the incident shows that Mr. Casement’s attitude was incorrect.
The next subject discussed in the “Notes” is what has come to be known
as the Epondo Case.
This is dealt with at great length, and the explanation for so doing is
afforded by a statement that His Majesty’s Consul himself attributed a
capital importance to it. The inference that it is intended to draw
would seem to be that since the result of the investigations made by the
local authorities, subsequent to Mr. Casement’s departure, is said to
have demonstrated quite other facts than those he had too hastily
assumed, the rest of his Report need not be taken seriously.
From a consideration of the Consul’s Report, it will be seen that the
case of this boy Epondo is dealt with in one single paragraph of
thirty-seven lines of print on p. 56, and is referred to again in some
few lines of p. 58, in all less than one page of a document of
thirty-nine pages; while in the Appendix of nearly twenty-three pages of
print a copy of the notes taken by Mr. Casement in the case at Bosunguma
extends to less than two pages.
On the other hand, the Congo Government, in their reply, devote some six
or seven pages of a document of eighteen pages in all to endeavouring to
show that in the case of this one mutilated individual, the boy’s hand
had not been cut off by a sentry, but had been bitten off by a wild
boar; and in the Appendix to the “Notes,” which comprises nineteen pages
of small print, more than ten pages are devoted to extracts from the
proceedings in this one case.
Thus, of a document running to thirty-seven pages in all, almost
one-half is assigned to a single incident which, in Mr. Casement’s
Report, had given occasion for some two and a quarter pages of remark
and notes out of nearly sixty pages of printed matter.
Far from having attributed capital importance to this incident, it is
evident from the Report itself that it was but one of many cases calling
for explanation brought to Mr. Casement’s notice during his journey, and
that he himself by no means attributed to it undue weight.
To show how far he was from generalizing from this one incident, it is
only necessary to cite a letter he addressed to the Governor-General on
the 4th September when in the Lopori River, 150 miles away from
Bosunguma (of the existence of which he did not then know), written some
days before the cases of mutilation on the Lower Lulongo were brought to
his notice. In that letter, which dealt mainly with certain illegalities
he had observed in the Abir territory at Bongandanga, he said:--
“I am sure your Excellency would share my feelings of indignation
had the unhappy spectacles I have witnessed of late come before
your Excellency’s own eyes.
“I cannot believe that the full extent of the illegality of the
system of arbitrary impositions, followed by dire and illegal
punishments, which is in force over so wide an area of the country
I have recently visited, is known to, or properly appreciated by,
your Excellency or the Central Administration of the Congo State
Government.”
Also after recording some of the outrages practised upon women and
children he had witnessed in order to obtain food supplies, or compel
the production of india-rubber, he said, in referring to one of these
so-called trading factories:--
“I must confess with pain and astonishment that, instead of
visiting a trading or commercial establishment, I felt I was
visiting a penal settlement.”
A study of the case will show the successive steps by which the
statement made on p. 7 of the “Notes” (p. 5, _supra_) is reached:--
“L’enquête montre Epondo, enfin acculé, rétractant ses premières
affirmations au Consul, et avouant avoir été influencé par les gens
de son village.”
The facts throw a light on the motives which inspired, or the influences
which compelled, this retractation by the mutilated boy other than the
“Notes” afford, and show that a not unimportant part of the inquiry was
conducted under conditions which scarcely merit the description of an
“enquête judiciaire dans les conditions normales en dehors de toute
influence étrangère,” as, on p. 6 of the “Notes” (p. 4, _supra_), it is
said to have been.
A noteworthy illustration of the method adopted to arrive at an
impartial finding in this case will be found to consist in the fact that
an inquiry into grave charges preferred against an agent of the Lulanga
Company was conducted in part through agents of that society--itself
primarily involved; that the Substitut du Procureur d’État visited the
district as the guest of that Company, putting up at its stations and
travelling on its steamer in company with its agents, and that the
“retractation” of Epondo only took place when the boy had been removed
to the head-quarters of that Company, on the steamer of that Company,
surrounded, not by friends, but by the agents of the very Company which
had an obvious interest in securing a withdrawal of the charge.
Had the “retractation” of Epondo, first made at Mampoko, the
head-quarters of the Lulanga Company, on the 8th October (see p. 31,
“Notes”) (p. 35, _supra_) been sincere and quite uninfluenced by the
environment to which he found himself removed at Bonginda, its sincerity
would best have been demonstrated by its being repeated before Mr.
Armstrong at Bonginda, whence the boy had just been removed.
Mr. Armstrong had cognizance of the case from the first. Bonginda lies
only some 8 miles from Mampoko, and it would have been but just to Mr.
Armstrong, as well as much more convincing, if, when the boy altered his
statement, he had been taken back to where only the day before (see p.
29, “Notes”) (p. 33, _supra_) he had reiterated in the presence of Mr.
Armstrong the original charge against Kelengo.
Instead of adopting this simple course, however, the boy, having been
brought to “retract,” was carried off to Coquilhatville--fully 80 miles
away--and a week later a declaration is required from Mr. Faris, a
missionary, whose residence was situated far from the scene of the
occurrences, who had no knowledge of the boy’s antecedents, or any means
of testing his statement by cross-examination or otherwise.
A retractation by a lad of some 15 years of age brought about at Mampoko
under influences not unfavourable to the accused sentry cannot be held
as satisfactory. That the authorities at Coquilhatville did not
themselves consider it convincing is clear from their action in calling
upon Mr. Faris to furnish an extraneous support to the decision arrived
at by their own magisterial inquiry at Mampoko.
Epondo’s “retractation” was made on the 8th October at Mampoko, and one
statement in it, as given on p. 31 of the “Notes,” (p. 35, _supra_)
throws doubt on much of the rest.
_Question_ (by the Substitut): “Depuis combien do temps cet
accident vous est-il arrivé?”
_Answer_ (Epondo): “Je ne me rappelle pas: c’est depuis longtemps.”
When Mr. Casement visited Bosunguma on the 7th September the boy’s
mutilated stump had evident signs of not being then completely healed:
blood showed still in two places, over which the skin had not entirely
formed, and it was wrapped up in a cloth.
“The “Notes” (p. 9) (p. 7, _supra_) allude to the attitude of the
missionaries in the following words:--
“Et le fait n’est pas non plus sans importance, si l’on veut
exactement se rendre compte de la valeur des témoignages, de la
présence aux côtés de Mr. Casement, qui interrogeait les indigènes
de deux missionnaires Protestants Anglais de la région, présence
qui, à elle seule, a dû nécessairement orienter les dépositions.”
If it is permissible to cast this reflection upon the attitude towards
the Government of the missionaries of the district, it is certainly
relevant to point out that the presence beside Lieutenant Braeckman (who
conducted the preliminary inquiry) and the Substitut du Procureur d’État
of the agents of the Company having a deep interest in the charge
against its employé, and the part those agents were permitted to take in
the inquiry, must have vitally affected the testimony of the witnesses
who deposed at Mampoko that the charge against the Lulanga sentry was
inspired solely by a desire on the part of the natives to escape their
rubber dealings with that firm.
It appears that there were two inquiries: the first conducted by
Lieutenant Braeckman, at which the original witnesses against the sentry
and others reaffirmed their accusation that it was he who had mutilated
Epondo. At the second inquiry, conducted by the Substitut, which took
place some fortnight later, none of the original witnesses against
Kelengo appeared (see “Ordonnance de Non-Lieu,” p. 8, “Notes”) (p. 6,
_supra_); but a number of persons--some of them servants of the Lulanga
Company--made statements, contradictory in many respects, but agreeing
with much unanimity that a wild boar, which no one of them had seen, at
a date no one could assign, in an indeterminate locality, had eaten off
the hand of this lad of 14 or 15 years of age, who, according to the
first deposition cited (that of Efundu, on the 28th September, at
Coquilhatville, p. 24, Annexe III) (p. 29, _supra_), had attempted to
catch the wounded and infuriated creature by the ears!
It is obvious that the “conclusions posées” as the result of his inquiry
by Lieutenant Braeckman (see “Ordonnance de Non-Lieu” of the 9th
October, p. 8 of “Notes”) must, in part, have rested on evidence of
natives he had interrogated at Bosunguma, in Mr. Armstrong’s presence,
on the 14th September.
In this “Ordonnance” we find, however, that while the “conclusions” of
Lieutenant Braeckman are accepted, the evidence on which those
“conclusions,” in some part, must have rested is rejected on the ground
that the witnesses took flight, and did not reappear at the second
inquiry.
If the “conclusions” are accepted, the evidence on which they are
founded should be also admissible.
There is, moreover, open contradiction if one turns to the evidence of
the “Chief Bofoko, of Ikundja,” cited on p. 30 of Annexe III in the
“Notes” (p. 34, _supra_).
This deponent appeared before the Substitut at Mampoko on the 8th
October, and in the course of his interrogatory it is asserted that he
was one of those who had originally testified against Kelengo before the
British Consul.
_Question_ (by Substitut): “Pourquoi vous-même avez-vous déclaré au
Consul Anglais avoir vu la main coupée par terre, le sang coulait,
et les habitants du village qui couraient dans toutes les
directions?”
_Answer_ (Bofoko): “Je n’ai pas parlé avec les Anglais. Je ne les
ai pas même vus. Quand ils sont arrivés à Bosunguma, je n’étais pas
là.”
_Substitut_: “Vous mentez, parce que le Consul Anglais déclare
avoir parlé avec vous.”
_Answer_ (Bofoko): “Oui, c’est vrai. J’y étais. J’ai dit comme les
autres,” &c.
Despite this record by himself on the 8th October of the _procès-verbal_
of the evidence of Bofoko, the Substitut, on the following day, draws up
his “Ordonnance de Non-Lieu,” wherein, in the third paragraph, he states
that--
“Attendu que tous les indigènes qui ont accusé Kelengo, soit au
Consul de Sa Majesté Britannique, soit au Lieutenant Braeckman,
convoqués par nous, Substitut, ont pris la fuite, et tous les
efforts faits pour les retrouver n’ont abouti à aucun résultat: que
cette fuite discrédite évidemment leurs affirmations”--(p. 8 of
“Notes”).
In view of a discrepancy of this kind, it is, perhaps, needless further
to investigate the character of the evidence upon which a sustained
effort is made to discredit Mr. Casement’s testimony.
It may be observed that the natives cited by the Congo Government
concurred in describing the accusation against the Lulanga Company’s
sentry as prompted by the wish of the natives to escape from their
rubber dealings with that Company.
If these dealings are but those of commerce, as has been repeatedly
asserted (_e.g._, “Bulletin Officiel,” June 1903), there would not
appear to be any sufficient pretext for the accusation these natives are
said to have brought against that Company’s sentry.
We find it stated that the “liberté du commerce” the men of Bosunguma
enjoyed presented itself to them in the following guise:--
“Pour ne pas faire de caoutchouc: Kelengo est sentinelle du
caoutchouc.” (Efundu, the 28th September, 1903, p. 24.)
“Oui; j’ai entendu les indigènes se plaindre qu’ils travaillent
beaucoup pour rien; que les Chefs s’emparaient des mitakos que les
blancs payaient pour la récolte du caoutchouc; enfin, qu’ils
mouraient de faim. Ils ajoutaient qu’ils avaient réclamé plusieurs
fois inutilement,” &c. (Mongombe, the 28th September, 1903, p. 25.)
“Parce qu’ils étaient fatigués de faire du caoutchouc, qui n’était
plus dans leur forêt. Ils ont cru qu’avec l’intervention des
Anglais ils pourraient se soustraire à un travail très dur, &c.....
Ils ont parlé avec les habitants, qui se plaignaient de ce qu’ils
devaient travailler beaucoup. Ils disaient que le caoutchouc
n’était plus dans leur forêt, qu’ils voulaient faire un travail
moins dur,” &c. (Libuso, the 6th October, 1903, p. 27, “Notes.”)
“Parce qu’ils trouvent que le travail du caoutchouc est trop dur,
et ont cru de pouvoir s’en libérer, et pour les induire à s’en
occuper ils sont allés leur conter des mensonges.” (Bofoko, the 8th
October, 1903, p. 30, “Notes.”)
If, as the Congo “Notes” assert on p. 6 (p. 5, _supra_), these
“dépositions sont typiques, uniformes, et concordantes, elles ne
laissent aucun doute sur la cause de l’accident, attestent que les
indigènes ont menti au Consul, et révèlent le mobile auquel ils ont
obéi”--they unquestionably leave no doubt that the relations of the
Lulanga Company to the natives of the surrounding country were not those
of a trading Company engaged in exclusively commercial dealings, but of
an organization compelling, with the approval and support of the
Executive, a widespread system for which no legal authority exists.
Whatever may have been the truth of the charge against the sentry, the
very evidence cited to disprove it attests that the natives spoke truly
as to their abject condition, and shows that in a region repeatedly
visited by Government officials, traversed weekly by Government
steamers, lying close to the head-quarters of the Executive of the
district, the trading operations of a private Company depended for their
profits upon the “obligation de l’impôt.”
The appended Table of exports and imports of the Congo State, taken from
the “Bulletin Officiel” for April 1903 (No. 4), will suffice to indicate
the larger aspect of the situation of the native producer:--
----------+---------------+------------------
| Exports from | Imports to
| Congo State. | Congo State.
+---------------+--------------
| Fr. | Fr.
1895 | 10,943,019 | 10,685,847
1896 | 12,389,599 | 15,227,776
1897 | 15,146,976 | 21,181,462
1898 | 22,163,481 | 23,084,446
1899 | 36,067,959 | 22,325,846
1900 | 47,377,401 | 24,724,108
1901 | 50,488,894 | 23,102,064
1902 | 50,069,514 | 18,080,909
----------+---------------+--------------
The exports of native produce (“le négoce des autres produits
indigènes”--“Bulletin Officiel,” April 1903, p. 65), it is seen, have
enormously increased. They have considerably more than trebled in the
six years from 1897 to 1902.
During the same period the imports into the Congo State--a small portion
of which are trade goods for the purchase of produce or the remuneration
of the producers--remained not merely stationary, but even decreased by
4,000,000 fr. during the last year.
These figures, as they stand, are remarkable. Their significance is
increased when it is borne in mind that the population of the regions
exporting this great increase of native produce has enormously decreased
during the same period. That decrease is admitted by the authorities.
(“Du reste, il n’est malheureusement que trop exact que la diminution de
la population a été constatée”--“Notes,” p. 2) (p. 2, _supra_). We thus
find that a diminishing population,[150] a diminishing market-value of
the article produced and a diminishing means of purchase have been
accompanied during a period of only six years by a more than trebled
production.
It may be permitted to doubt whether this state of affairs is adequately
explained anywhere in the Congo Government “Notes.”
It is not met by the statement on p. 14 (p. 9, _supra_) of this
document:--
“Qu’il s’est agi de faire contracter l’habitude de travail à des
indigènes qui y ont été réfractaires de tout temps.
“Et si cette idée du travail peut être plus aisément inculquée aux
natifs sous la forme de transactions commerciales entre eux et des
particuliers, faut-il nécessairement condamner ce mode d’action?”
&c.
On the same page of the “Notes” (14) it is sought to institute a
comparison between the system of taxation in force on the Congo and that
in operation in North and Eastern Rhodesia, and the conclusion is drawn
that, since the latter is justified in a British Colonial
administration, no exception can be taken to the former.
It is only necessary to point out that in North and Eastern Rhodesia, or
in any other British Colony where direct taxation of the natives exists
by law, the tax collector is a Government officer responsible for the
sums levied to a central authority, not a trading agent having a direct
personal interest in the amount of the “obligation de l’impôt.”
The native under the British system knows the fixed amount of his
obligation, and, once discharged from it, he is free to seek, where he
will, labour or leisure. The Congo taxpayer with an ever-present,
perpetually-recurring, weekly or fortnightly imposition to make good,
may not even leave his village, save as a fugitive, and is a close
bondsman to these endless tasks.
With regard to the arming of the sentries or “forest guards” in the
employ of the trading Companies on the Upper Congo, the “Notes” throw
doubt on the estimate Mr. Casement formed of the number of these guns,
and the use to which they are put, and it cites Circulars of the
Governor-General of the Congo State, dating from the 12th March, 1897,
to the 30th April, 1901, as evidence that the Executive authority had
been careful to guard against a possible misuse of the arms.
But the issue of successive Circulars, which, by their own terms, show
clearly that the law had been ignored or evaded, cannot be claimed as an
effective fulfilment of a weighty obligation of the Executive.
It must further be borne in mind that the Congo Executive were
themselves the direct agency for placing all the arms these Circulars
refer to in the hands of those who are there shown to have ignored the
law.
Every gun misused on the Upper Congo, with its accompanying ammunition,
was carried to its destination by the vessels of the Government
flotilla, which charged a considerable sum for their transport. They
were housed in Government stores _en route_, for which a charge of
“magasinage” is levied, and were distributed to the “factories” from
Government steamers by Government Agents, who, having made a profit from
their agency in the matter, subsequently issued circular instructions to
those into whose hands they knowingly gave the weapons.
“Les capitas qui, dans le Haut-Congo, parcourent le pays pour
compte de commerçants, et qui sont pourvus d’un fusil, doivent
également être munis d’un permis de port d’armes.” (Circular of the
12th March, 1897. Annexe V. “Notes,” p. 34.)
* * * * *
“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
pourraient 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.
“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.”
(Circular of the 20th October, 1900; see p. 78, Mr. Casement’s
Report.)
If the native sentries or capitas of these factories ranged the country
with unlicensed arms, if these “Commercial” Companies made war on the
natives, it was the Congo Government which carried those arms to their
destinations and placed them in the hands of those who used them
illegally.
“Nonobstant les précautions incessantes, le Consul a constaté que
plusieurs capitas n’étaient pas porteurs de permis.”
(“Notes” of the Congo Government, the 12th March, 1904.)
The law prescribes clearly that no weapon can be issued for individual
use save on the authority and personal licence of the Government.
That this law can be effectively observed was evidenced in Mr.
Casement’s own case. A Winchester rifle for his use arrived on the Congo
while he was in the interior. It could not be dispatched to him from
Boma to Stanley Pool (where he found it on coming down river) until a
licence had been granted. This rifle was branded and numbered according
to law and the tax of 20 fr. levied.
A law thus rightly obligatory in the case of a foreign official, who
could not be suspected of misuse of the weapon he had imported, should
have had at least as stringent application to the capitas, and forest
guards and sentries of the numerous Companies, which are shown by the
Government Circulars quoted to have been recognized for years as seeking
to evade the law.
That the Congo Government have intimate cognizance of the exact number
of guns in use by the commercial Companies on the Upper Congo is
evident, since every case of rifles and “ballot de fusils” imported into
the Congo State has to enter the custom-house of Boma or Matadi, where
it can only be withdrawn by authority.
Its subsequent transport to the interior is effected often by direct
Government carriage, and always under Government control and
supervision.
The Government of the Congo State, in concluding these preliminary
“Notes” on Mr. Casement’s Report, formulate a complaint as to the manner
in which he proceeded in investigating native statements brought to his
notice.
This complaint has application to the one case of the boy Epondo, and to
that case alone.
In no other instance did he attempt to interrogate, “comme par voie
d’autorité,” any of the many natives whose homes he visited during his
journey. In that one case it may be urged that, however unusual were the
proceedings, it was clearly his duty not to turn a deaf ear to the
appeal the people of Bosunguma addressed to him.
Whether they spoke truly or falsely in accusing the sentry of the act of
mutilation, he had no option but to seek to arrive at the truth if he
wished his intervention with the local authorities to have any effect.
Had he contented himself with merely listening to and reporting the
accusation the natives of Bosunguma brought to him at Bonginda, the
officials at Coquilhatville would have said he had formulated a grave
charge against an individual on mere native report, without having taken
the trouble to satisfy himself of its truth.
He could not, clearly, leave the mutilated boy in the town, where his
assailant was represented as terrorizing the inhabitants.
It was his obvious duty to go to the spot, to see with his own eyes what
truth lay in the report brought to him at Bonginda.
Once in Bosunguma, the only way to arrive at anything like the truth was
to see the accusers and the accused face to face and to hear what each
said.
He distinctly disclaimed any right of intervention or power to help; but
if he was going to report the charge made against the sentry, and to ask
for investigation, it was clearly necessary that he should first find
out whether there was good ground for addressing the local authorities.
With regard to the question of mutilation, His Majesty’s Government note
with interest that the Congo Government are aware that Mr. Casement is
not alone in his opinion that such atrocities occur (§ 5, p. 5, of
“Notes”) (§ 5, p. 4, _supra_).
The accusation as to “forced labour on the roads and restrictions which
practically amount to slavery in Fiji” are due to an imperfect
understanding of the communal system under which land is held there.
Individual land ownership does not exist, and the members of each
commune have to perform their share of the necessary work, whatever it
may be.
There is also the custom of “lala,” under which the local Chiefs are
entitled to extract a certain number of days’ work from their commoners
for the purpose of planting their gardens, building their houses, &c.
The Chiefs are bound to feed the workers so employed, and it is nothing
more than a contribution towards their maintenance, paid by the
commoners in work instead of taxes.
Instances have, no doubt, occurred in which these rights have been
abused, but every effort is made to prevent them.
The whole system has been in force for centuries, and when His Majesty’s
Government took over the islands it was thought expedient to continue
it. It is understood by the natives, and is eminently suited to the
needs of a primitive and half savage race.
The allegation as to the flogging of natives is, doubtless, an allusion
to a case which occurred in 1902, of which the facts are briefly as
follows:--
A native was arrested for two cases of indecent assault upon European
women. He was tried according to native custom by the Commissioner and
Chiefs of the island to which he belonged, having first been given his
choice of being tried in this way or being referred to the Supreme
Court. He pleaded guilty to one assault, and there was strong evidence
against him in the other case. He was, accordingly, sentenced to be
flogged.
Although for various reasons this summary procedure was advantageous,
the case should properly have been referred to the Supreme Court. The
Commissioner was, therefore, severely censured for his action.
The statement that the natives are constantly subject to imprisonment
for frivolous causes is not borne out by any evidence in the possession
of His Majesty’s Government.
AFRICA. No. 7 (1904).
FURTHER Correspondence respecting the Administration
of the Independent State of the Congo.
[In continuation of “Africa No. 1 (1904).”]
_Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command
of His Majesty. June 1904._
LONDON
PRINTED BY HARRISON AND SONS.
AFRICA. No. 14 (1903).