Part 30
_Q._ Did you know when you were sent for to come to Boma that you were going to be tried for committing certain outrages on the natives?--_A._ No.
_Q._ Were you brought down to Boma under a military escort?--_A._ No; I came down alone; but when I arrived at Boma I was met by a guard of soldiers, and was taken to the prison, where I remained five days, and was then let out.
_Q._ Did you know that you were going to be tried for various outrages committed on the natives?--_A._ No; I was under the impression that I had been called as a witness against that man.
[Jones pointed to a man who was writing at a desk in the gaoler’s office, who, I was told, was M. Caudron.]
_Q._ You knew absolutely nothing about your being kept in Boma to be tried for serious offences you were accused of having committed?--_A._ I knew absolutely nothing.
_Q._ Would you have employed an advocate to defend you had you known that you were going to be tried for such serious offences against the laws of the country?--_A._ Most certainly I would. I brought down with me 3,500 fr., and the Judge has got 3,000 fr. of that sum, which I wish you to mind for me. I think you have the receipt.
[_Note._--The receipt was handed to Mr. Nightingale by a Lagos man named Shanu a few days ago.]
_Q._ You know, I suppose, that you have been sentenced to ten years’ penal servitude?--_A._ Yes; I was sentenced to ten years by the first Judge, but the second Judge reduced it to two and a-half years; and they say that if I behave properly that I may get my liberty in six months.
[_Note._--Jones has misunderstood his sentence. The sentence of ten years passed in the Court of First Instance was upheld in the Appeal Court.]
_Q._ What work have they given you to do here?--_A._ I am employed on the carpentering work of this building (pointing to a stone house that is in course of construction).
_Q._ You declare you are perfectly innocent of the charges brought against you, and for which you have been condemned to ten years’ penal servitude?--_A._ Yes, Sir; I am innocent.
_Q._ You wish me to hold the 3,000 fr. for you?--_A._ Yes; if you please, Sir.
(Signed) A. NIGHTINGALE.
_Boma, March 21, 1904._
Inclosure 3 in No. 3.
_Note._
JONES, SILVANUS, originaire de Lagos, clerc au service de la Société Commerciale Anversoise, prévenu d’avoir, à la fin de l’année 1902, envoyé des travailleurs de la Société Anversoise du Commerce au Congo, armés de fusils Albini, dans les environs de la factorerie de Bussu-Baya et avoir ainsi été la cause directe de la mort d’une femme de Bassanga, tuée d’un coup d’Albini, par son domestique Bangi--infractions prévues par les Articles 1 et 9 du Décret de 10 Mars, 1892, et l’Arrêté du 30 Avril, 1901, sur les armes à feu et 1 et 2 du Code Pénal.
L’Article 1 du Décret du 10 Mars, 1892 (B.O., 1892, p. 14), interdit l’importation, le trafic, le transport, et la détention d’armes à feu quelconques, ainsi que la poudre, de balles et de cartouches. L’Article 9 du même Décret punit toute infraction à cette disposition d’une amende de 100 fr. à 1,000 fr., et d’une servitude pénale n’excédant pas une année, ou de l’une de ces peines seulement. L’Arrêté du 30 Avril, 1901 (R.M., p. 86), subordonne à certaines formalités les demandes pour la délivrance de permis de port d’armes. L’Article 1 du Code Pénal (L. 11) définit l’homicide et les lésions corporelles volontaires. L’Article 2 définit le meurtre et le punit de la servitude pénale à perpétuité.
(Translation.)
SILVANUS JONES, native of Lagos, clerk in the Service of the Société Commerciale Anversoise, accused of having, at the end of the year 1902, sent some workmen in the employ of the Société Anversoise du Commerce au Congo, armed with Albini rifles, to the neighbourhood of the Bussu-Baya factory and thus been the direct cause of the death of a woman of Bassanga, who was killed by a shot from an Albini fired by his servant Bangi--which offences are covered by Articles 1 and 9 of the Decree of the 10th March, 1892, and the Order of the 30th April, 1901, respecting fire-arms and 1 and 2 of the Penal Code.
Article 1 of the Decree of the 10th March, 1892 (B.O., 1892, p. 14), forbids the importation, trade in, transport and keeping of, any fire-arms whatever, or of powder, bullets, or cartridges. Article 9 of the same Decree punishes every infraction of this provision by a fine of 100 fr. to 1,000 fr. and by a term of penal servitude not exceeding one year, or by one only of those penalties. The Order of the 30th April, 1901 (R.M., p. 86), attaches certain formalities to requests for the delivery of permits to carry arms. Article 1 of the Penal Code (L. 11) defines homicide and wilful bodily injury. Article 2 defines murder and punishes it by penal servitude for life.
No. 4.
_Sir C. Phipps to the Marquess of Lansdowne._--(_Received May 16._)
My Lord,
_Brussels, May 14, 1904._
M. de Cuvelier handed to me this evening a Memorandum, of which I have the honour to inclose copy, which has been drawn up at the Congo Ministry in rejoinder to the points raised in your Lordship’s despatch of the 19th ultimo, on the subject of the administration of the Congo.
I have, &c. (Signed) CONSTANTINE PHIPPS.
Inclosure in No. 4.
_Memorandum._
La dépêche de Lord Lansdowne du 19 Avril, 1904, dont copie a été remise par Son Excellence Sir Constantine Phipps au Gouvernement du Congo le 27 Avril suivant, appelle quelque considérations.
Relativement à l’appréciation contre laquelle s’élève cette dépêche “that the interests of humanity have been used in this country as a pretext to conceal designs for the abolition of the Congo State,” l’on voudra bien se souvenir qu’un membre de la Chambre des Communes déclarait qu’il préfèrerait “voir la vallée du Congo passer à une Puissance étrangère,” et que des pamphlets indiquaient comme “absolute and immediate necessities,” “Disruption of the Congo Free State,” “Partition of the Congo Free State among the Powers,” et suggéraient même les bases d’un tel partage, tandis que des organes de la presse Anglaise envisageaient soit l’alternative “advocated by the more thorough-going critics of the present Administration, namely, the disruption of the Congo Free State,” soit l’alternative de “the partition of the Congo territory among the Great Powers whose possessions in Africa border those of the Congo State,” ou déclaraient “what Europe ought to do, under the leadership of Great Britain, is summarily to sweep the Congo Free State out of existence.” La Note de l’État du Congo du 17 Septembre a relevé ces suggestions, dont nous n’indiquons ici que la tendance et qui toutes avaient pour objet de spolier le Roi-Souverain, de le déposséder de l’État qui était sa création personnelle--suggestions qui se concilient bien mal avec le respect du droit et des Traités, et avec les motifs d’ordre purement humanitaire et philanthropique dont se disent exclusivement animés les adversaires de l’État dans la campagne passionnée qu’ils mènent contre lui.
En réponse aux objections que le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté élève contre la communication du texte intégral du Rapport de Mr. Casement, le Gouvernement de l’État du Congo fait remarquer qu’il a demandé la communication de ce Rapport complet en vue précisément de le transmettre aux autorités judiciaires et administratives compétentes, sans quoi cette communication serait sans objet. Le souci d’une enquête impartiale et les droits de la défense exigent impérieusement que les accusés connaissent, d’une manière précise et dans leurs détails, les faits mis à leur charge, et l’appréhension que les personnes accusées pourraient, de par la connaissance qu’elles auraient de ces détails, influencer ou supprimer des témoignages ne semble pas justifiée par ce seul fait que des indigènes, qui, dans l’affaire Epondo, avaient fourni au Consul des informations mensongères, ont évité par la suite de se représenter devant le Magistrat enquêteur; la fuite de ces témoins s’explique plus naturellement par le sentiment de la faute grave qu’ils avaient commise en trompant sciemment le Consul Anglais. Si le Gouvernement du Congo peut donner, et donne volontiers, l’assurance que tout acte ou toute tentative de subornation de témoins serait poursuivi, il n’est évidemment pas en son pouvoir de préjuger ou d’enrayer les mesures légales que croiraient devoir prendre, dans l’intérêt de leur honneur ou de leur considération, des personnes qui se trouveraient avoir été faussement accusées.
Le Gouvernement de l’État du Congo regrette que le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté Britannique n’estime pas devoir lui communiquer les autres Rapports Consulaires antérieurs auxquels faisait allusion la dépêche de Lord Lansdowne du 8 Août, 1903. Ainsi que le disaient les notes du 12 Mars dernier, ces rapports présentaient l’intérêt d’avoir été écrits à une date à laquelle de débat actuel n’était pas né.
Une copie de ce Mémorandum sera adressée aux Puissances auxquelles a été transmise la copie de la dépêche de Lord Lansdowne du 19 Avril dernier.
_État Indépendant du Congo, Bruxelles, le 14 Mai, 1904._
(Translation.)
Lord Lansdowne’s despatch of the 19th April, 1904, a copy of which was handed to the Congo Government on the 27th April by his Excellency Sir Constantine Phipps, calls for certain remarks.
With regard to the opinion to which this despatch takes exception, “that the interests of humanity have been used in this country as a pretext to conceal designs for the abolition of the Congo State,” it will be well to remember that a Member of the House of Commons declared that he would prefer “to see the Valley of the Congo pass into the hands of a foreign Power,” and that some pamphlets described the “Disruption of the Congo Free State,” the “Partition of the Congo Free State among the Powers,” as absolute and immediate necessities, and even went so far as to suggest the bases of such a partition, while the organs of the English press contemplated one of two alternatives, either that “advocated by the more thorough-going critics of the present Administration, namely, the disruption of the Congo Free State,” or “the partition of the Congo territory among the Great Powers whose possessions in Africa border those of the Congo Free State,” or declared that “what Europe ought to do, under the leadership of Great Britain, is summarily to sweep the Congo Free State out of existence.” The Congo State Note of the 17th September has called attention to these suggestions, of which we merely point out the tenour in this instance, and which all aimed at despoiling the Sovereign King, and at dispossessing him of the State which was his own creation--suggestions which are entirely incompatible with respect for rights and Treaties, and with the motives of a purely humanitarian and philanthropic nature by which the enemies of the State allege themselves to be exclusively animated in the passionate campaign which they are conducting against it.
In reply to the objections raised by His Majesty’s Government against the communication of the entire text of Mr. Casement’s Report, the Government of the Congo State points out that it has asked for the complete Report precisely with a view to transmitting it to the competent judicial and administrative authorities, without which this communication would be purportless. The anxiety to obtain an impartial inquiry and the rights of the defence render it an imperative necessity that the men accused should be informed, in a precise and fully-detailed manner, of the acts laid to their charge; the fear that the persons accused might be able, by means of the knowledge they would have of the details, to influence or suppress evidence, does not appear to be justified by the mere fact that the natives, who, in the Epondo case, had given mendacious information to the Consul, subsequently avoided presenting themselves before the Magistrate presiding over the inquiry; the flight of these witnesses is explained more naturally by the fact that they were conscious of the grave fault they had committed in wittingly deceiving the English Consul. If the Congo Government be permitted to give an assurance, which it does willingly, that any case of suborning witnesses, or any attempt to do so, would form the subject of a prosecution, it is evidently not within its power to prejudice or quash such legal measures as persons who might find themselves wrongfully accused might consider it necessary to take, either in the interests of their honour or their dignity.
The Government of the Congo State regrets that His Majesty’s Government does not deem it necessary to communicate to it the other previous Consular Reports to which Lord Lansdowne’s despatch of the 8th August, 1903, alluded. As was stated in the notes of the 12th March last, these reports possessed the interest of having been written at a date anterior to the inception of the present discussion.
A copy of this Memorandum will be addressed to the Powers to whom copies of Lord Lansdowne’s despatch of the 19th April last was transmitted.
_Congo Free State, Brussels, May 14, 1904._
No. 5.
_The Marquess of Lansdowne to Sir C. Phipps._
Sir,
_Foreign Office, June 6, 1904._
With reference to my despatch of the 19th April, I transmit to you, for communication to the Congo Government, a Memorandum on the remaining points in the “Notes” handed to you on the 13th March which would appear to His Majesty’s Government to call for observation.
I request you, in presenting this Memorandum, to take the opportunity of stating that His Majesty’s Government much regret that, in M. de Cuvelier’s Memorandum of the 14th May, a more definite reply is not returned to the inquiries which they deemed it necessary to make before considering whether they could furnish the full text of Mr. Casement’s Report. My despatch explained that the names in the Report had been suppressed, not from any want of confidence in the Central Government of the Congo State, but from apprehension that the information, if made generally public, would place it in the power of persons charged with abuses to procure the suppression or repudiation of evidence, or to punish those who had given it. His Majesty’s Government asked, therefore, whether the Congo Government would accept full responsibility for the use which would be made of the information, and would communicate the measures they were prepared to adopt and enforce in order to protect the witnesses who gave evidence to Mr. Casement from the possibility of exposure to acts of intimidation or retaliation. It was clearly incumbent upon His Majesty’s Government to provide as far as possible for the safety of those at any rate whose statements to a British officer were made with no knowledge that they would be cited by name as responsible for charges upon which public proceedings would be based. They entertained therefore no doubt that the Congo Government would appreciate their motives, and would willingly undertake, in furtherance of the object which both Governments have in view, to meet, so far as lay in their power, the requirements of the case. The Memorandum handed to you by M. de Cuvelier, after dwelling upon the necessity of full information for the purpose of investigation, merely declares that the Government of the Congo are ready to give an assurance that proceedings will be taken against all who attempt to suborn witnesses, but that they cannot prejudice or prevent legal measures instituted in defence of their honour or reputation by those who may have been falsely accused.
His Majesty’s Government cannot accept as adequate or satisfactory an answer which implies that the information which they are asked to supply will be accessible to the very persons whose conduct has been impugned, before any measures have been taken to shield the witnesses from the exercise of improper pressure. They have, of course, never entertained the idea that the Congo Government would connive at any such malpractice as the subornation of witnesses. They have not asked, and have never intended to suggest, that legal remedies should be denied to those against whom unfounded accusations have been publicly brought, nor do they desire that those, if any, who have given such false evidence should be shielded from the proper legal penalty for their offence. What they require is that the Congo Government, in accordance with the recognized principles of civilized administration, will take every means to secure that the witnesses, if their names should be divulged, will suffer no harm in their property or persons from the unlawful violence of those to whose desire for revenge they may be exposed. No argument can be entertained to the effect that acts of violence are improbable or impossible under a system such as that revealed by the Judgment pronounced by the Court of Appeal at Boma in the Caudron Case, and His Majesty’s Government earnestly trust that the Congo Government will recognize the immense service that will be rendered both to the cause of humanity and to the credit of their own officers by promoting unreservedly a full and public investigation by a Tribunal of recognized competence and impartiality into the charges made against their agents and against their system of administration.
There is another point to which His Majesty’s Government must call attention. The inquiry promised in the “Notes” is, no doubt, intended to be of a searching and impartial character, and His Majesty’s Government hoped that they would before now have received some indication of the measures designed to carry out this intention. In the peculiar circumstances which have arisen, strict impartiality will hardly be attributed to an investigation conducted as in the Epondo case solely by the officers of the State or by the agents of the Concessionary Companies, nor will the result carry conviction to the degree which seems essential. The matter is one which must be left to the decision of the Congo Government, and it is only because, in the judgment of His Majesty’s Government, the whole question at issue turns in a great measure upon the position and character of those charged with the inquiry that they feel justified in mentioning the point, and in suggesting that a Special Commission should be appointed, composed of Members of well-established reputation, and in part, at least, of persons unconnected with the Congo State, to whom the fullest powers should be intrusted both as regards the collection of evidence and the measures for the protection of witnesses. Were a Commission of this character appointed His Majesty’s Government would be prepared to place at the disposal of the Members, for their own use and guidance, all the information they possess respecting the position of affairs in the Congo, and would give them every assistance, in the confident belief that an independent Commission such as they have suggested would elicit the truth, and effect in a manner commanding general acceptance a settlement of the existing controversy.
You will read this despatch to M. de Cuvelier and give a copy of it to his Excellency. Copies of the despatch and of the inclosed Memorandum will also be forwarded to the Powers who were Parties to the Berlin Act.
I am, &c.
(Signed) LANSDOWNE.
Inclosure in No. 5.
_Memorandum._
The first portion of the “Notes” refers to the desire expressed by the Congo Government for the production of the previous Reports of His Majesty’s Consuls alluded to in the Circular of His Majesty’s Government of the 8th August last. This matter has already been dealt with in the despatch addressed to Sir C. Phipps on the 19th of April.
The next point in the “Notes” is the statement made by Mr. Casement that the population has decreased in certain districts; doubt is expressed as to how, in the course of his rapid visits, he was able to arrive at the figures which he gives, and attention is drawn to alleged discrepancies in those figures. With regard to Mr. Casement’s ability to form an opinion on the subject, it is to be observed that the means at his disposal for doing so were neither greater nor less than those of Mgr. van Ronslé, viz., personal knowledge of what the population had been in former years and what it appeared to him to be at the date of his last visit. The alleged discrepancy in his figures consists in the fact that, having estimated the population of the entire community of the F line of villages at 500, a few lines further on he estimates that of “the several villages whose task it is to keep the wood post victualled” at 240. The explanation is to be found in the fact that in the first instance Mr. Casement alluded to all the villages comprising the Settlement, whereas in the second he referred only to the inhabitants of that portion of the Settlement whose business it was to supply food for the neighbouring wood-cutting post.
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.”