The story of the Congo Free State

by Henry Wellington Wack

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.