The Congo Government admit that Mr. Casement attributes, equally with Mgr. van Ronslé, a large share of the diminution of the population to the sleeping sickness, but attach to another cause, viz., the facility with which the natives are able to migrate, greater weight than appears to His Majesty’s Government to be justifiable, since more than one reference in the Consul’s Report shows that the natives are not allowed to leave their own districts.
On p. 4 of the “Notes” (p. 3, supra) the complaint is made that Mr. Casement’s Report contains, not exact, precise, and proved facts, but statements and declarations by natives. It is difficult, however, to see how the facts dealt with can be proved without hearing the statements and declarations of natives: the grounds of their complaints at all events can be learnt exactly and precisely from them alone.
In the last paragraph of p. 4 (p. 3, supra) an attempt is made to show that because during his journey into the interior of the Congo State, Mr. Casement was not the guest of the authorities, and because during that journey he visited his countrymen, therefore his presence must “inevitably” have been considered by the natives as antagonistic to “established authority.” Mr. Casement was, however, obviously at liberty to move about his Consular district without previous consultation with the authorities, and he was at special pains to impress on the people that he had no authority to set things right. It is clear from his Report, as indeed is borne out by the “Notes,” that he was careful to refer the natives to the Government of the State. As a matter of fact, in many parts of the country the natives did not know who he was, while it is equally certain that the rumour of the “campagne menée contre l’État du Congo” to which allusion is made as having influenced the inhabitants could not possibly have reached them, since it is difficult to imagine that a population who are represented as among the most savage and backward of mankind, and dwelling in the heart of Africa, could be aware of debates in a European assembly, or of the press comments made thereon.
Mr. Casement could not, as asserted, have appeared to all the natives of the Lulongo River in the character attributed to him, and this is shown in a letter the agent of the Lulanga Company at Bokakata addressed to Mr. Ellery, of the Congo Balolo Mission at Ikau, on the 28th August.
Mr. Casement had found women hostages tied up and guarded by two sentries of that Company who told him how it was these women came to be captured and detained, in order to compel their husbands to bring in rubber.
This letter begins by stating that—
“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.