The Decree on the subject of these Chieftaincies[129] 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 land 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 in 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 Zambezi delta, gave some trouble on being summoned to pay taxes.”[130]
“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).”[131]
“Milala’s people have succeeded in evading taxes.”[132]
“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.”[133]
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.”[134] 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.[135] 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.[136] 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 to be here observed that in calculating the number of these forest guards the Consul is obliged to rely on hypothesis,[137] 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.”[138] 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.[139] But these few infractions of the rule are obviously not enough to prove the existence of a sort of vast armed organization 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.[140]
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 authorized 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 authorized 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.