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.”