Part 31

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.

That Mr. Casement travelled independently of Government assistance was a perfectly legitimate action on his part, and one calling for neither comment nor explanation. The necessity for this, moreover, is made clear by that passage in his Report (p. 24) wherein he points out the difficulty of getting suitable accommodation on the Government steamer “Flandre,” by which he had at first thought of quitting Leopoldville.

It may also be observed that it was only when he failed to find a French steamer available at Brazzaville (which he visited in that hope on the 25th and 26th June) that he decided to seek the loan of a steamer belonging to an American Mission.

A visit to his countrymen was a correct proceeding on his part, and it was but natural that he should be assisted by them. As their Consul, it was right he should visit his compatriots dwelling in isolated stations amid savage surroundings; and since he was desirous of coming to an independent judgment on the conditions of native life, it was much more natural that he should choose his own means of separate, independent conveyance than restrict himself to the not always convenient itinerary of Government steamers or place himself under the guidance or conduct of local authorities, who, if abuses did exist, were hardly likely to disclose them. His Majesty’s Government can in no way accept the view that Mr. Casement necessarily fell under the influence of the missionaries, neither can they think that the English Protestant missionaries are opposed, still less necessarily antagonistic, to the Government of a friendly State in which they reside. Mr. Casement moreover visited several American mission stations, and it is not the case, as asserted in the “Notes,” that it was only by English missionaries that he was assisted. The steamer he travelled on was the property of the American Baptist Missionary Union, lent to him by their Board; the Mission station at which he spent the longest time is an American station, and he had on several occasions Americans with him as his guests on board and during his visits to the natives.

The Congo Government endeavour to support their assertion that Mr. Casement’s attitude was one of antagonism to established authority by alleging as “characteristic” the fact that while he was at Bonginda the natives collected on the banks of the river, and as the agents of the Lulanga Company went by shouted out, “Votre violence est finie; elle s’en va; les Anglais seuls restent! Mourez vous autres!”

Had the incident referred to occurred as recorded, it would indicate not so much that the natives of the locality named were excited against “established authority,” as against the agents of a trading Company.

But the above is hardly a correct description of the occurrence, as the Congo Government must admit, seeing that they have themselves placed on record a totally different version of the incident.

On the 2nd December, 1903, the Secretary-General of the Congo State in drawing the attention of Dr. H. Grattan Guinness to the subject of this pretended “disorder,” of the natives, described it in the following terms:--

“On a vu dernièrement, après le voyage du Consul Britannique dans la Lulanga, des indigènes en rapport avec la mission de la Congo Balolo Mission, établie à Bonginda, s’attrouper au passage d’un agent de l’État, en s’écriant dans leur dialecte--

“‘Votre violence est finie; elle s’en va; les Anglais seuls restent! Mourez vous autres!’

“Ces propos séditieux étaient proférés en présence de missionnaires de Bonginda.”

Without further enlargement upon so trivial an altercation as that which actually occurred between the canoe boys of a passing trader and some natives of the neighbourhood, it is only necessary to call attention to the discrepancy which exists between M. de Cuvelier’s complaint of the 2nd December and the terms in which it is now formulated.

In the former communication the Secretary of the Congo Government addressed the Congo Balolo Mission in terms of reproof upon a subject upon which he was obviously but imperfectly informed, since he asserted the incident to have occurred after Mr. Casement’s departure from Bonginda, and the offensive words to have been addressed to a Government official. Dr. Guinness, however, explained to M. de Cuvelier that the incident occurred when Mr. Casement was present, that it had no significance, and that the canoe jeered at by the natives contained, not a State Agent, but an agent of the Lulanga Company; further, that the words used were, in reality, not those imputed, but: “The rubber is finished; the people refuse to work rubber.” Yet in spite of this explanation, which seems amply sufficient, the “Notes” still maintain that the incident shows that Mr. Casement’s attitude was incorrect.

The next subject discussed in the “Notes” is what has come to be known as the Epondo Case.

This is dealt with at great length, and the explanation for so doing is afforded by a statement that His Majesty’s Consul himself attributed a capital importance to it. The inference that it is intended to draw would seem to be that since the result of the investigations made by the local authorities, subsequent to Mr. Casement’s departure, is said to have demonstrated quite other facts than those he had too hastily assumed, the rest of his Report need not be taken seriously.

From a consideration of the Consul’s Report, it will be seen that the case of this boy Epondo is dealt with in one single paragraph of thirty-seven lines of print on p. 56, and is referred to again in some few lines of p. 58, in all less than one page of a document of thirty-nine pages; while in the Appendix of nearly twenty-three pages of print a copy of the notes taken by Mr. Casement in the case at Bosunguma extends to less than two pages.

On the other hand, the Congo Government, in their reply, devote some six or seven pages of a document of eighteen pages in all to endeavouring to show that in the case of this one mutilated individual, the boy’s hand had not been cut off by a sentry, but had been bitten off by a wild boar; and in the Appendix to the “Notes,” which comprises nineteen pages of small print, more than ten pages are devoted to extracts from the proceedings in this one case.

Thus, of a document running to thirty-seven pages in all, almost one-half is assigned to a single incident which, in Mr. Casement’s Report, had given occasion for some two and a quarter pages of remark and notes out of nearly sixty pages of printed matter.

Far from having attributed capital importance to this incident, it is evident from the Report itself that it was but one of many cases calling for explanation brought to Mr. Casement’s notice during his journey, and that he himself by no means attributed to it undue weight.

To show how far he was from generalizing from this one incident, it is only necessary to cite a letter he addressed to the Governor-General on the 4th September when in the Lopori River, 150 miles away from Bosunguma (of the existence of which he did not then know), written some days before the cases of mutilation on the Lower Lulongo were brought to his notice. In that letter, which dealt mainly with certain illegalities he had observed in the Abir territory at Bongandanga, he said:--

“I am sure your Excellency would share my feelings of indignation had the unhappy spectacles I have witnessed of late come before your Excellency’s own eyes.

“I cannot believe that the full extent of the illegality of the system of arbitrary impositions, followed by dire and illegal punishments, which is in force over so wide an area of the country I have recently visited, is known to, or properly appreciated by, your Excellency or the Central Administration of the Congo State Government.”

Also after recording some of the outrages practised upon women and children he had witnessed in order to obtain food supplies, or compel the production of india-rubber, he said, in referring to one of these so-called trading factories:--

“I must confess with pain and astonishment that, instead of visiting a trading or commercial establishment, I felt I was visiting a penal settlement.”

A study of the case will show the successive steps by which the statement made on p. 7 of the “Notes” (p. 5, _supra_) is reached:--

“L’enquête montre Epondo, enfin acculé, rétractant ses premières affirmations au Consul, et avouant avoir été influencé par les gens de son village.”

The facts throw a light on the motives which inspired, or the influences which compelled, this retractation by the mutilated boy other than the “Notes” afford, and show that a not unimportant part of the inquiry was conducted under conditions which scarcely merit the description of an “enquête judiciaire dans les conditions normales en dehors de toute influence étrangère,” as, on p. 6 of the “Notes” (p. 4, _supra_), it is said to have been.

A noteworthy illustration of the method adopted to arrive at an impartial finding in this case will be found to consist in the fact that an inquiry into grave charges preferred against an agent of the Lulanga Company was conducted in part through agents of that society--itself primarily involved; that the Substitut du Procureur d’État visited the district as the guest of that Company, putting up at its stations and travelling on its steamer in company with its agents, and that the “retractation” of Epondo only took place when the boy had been removed to the head-quarters of that Company, on the steamer of that Company, surrounded, not by friends, but by the agents of the very Company which had an obvious interest in securing a withdrawal of the charge.

Had the “retractation” of Epondo, first made at Mampoko, the head-quarters of the Lulanga Company, on the 8th October (see p. 31, “Notes”) (p. 35, _supra_) been sincere and quite uninfluenced by the environment to which he found himself removed at Bonginda, its sincerity would best have been demonstrated by its being repeated before Mr. Armstrong at Bonginda, whence the boy had just been removed.

Mr. Armstrong had cognizance of the case from the first. Bonginda lies only some 8 miles from Mampoko, and it would have been but just to Mr. Armstrong, as well as much more convincing, if, when the boy altered his statement, he had been taken back to where only the day before (see p. 29, “Notes”) (p. 33, _supra_) he had reiterated in the presence of Mr. Armstrong the original charge against Kelengo.

Instead of adopting this simple course, however, the boy, having been brought to “retract,” was carried off to Coquilhatville--fully 80 miles away--and a week later a declaration is required from Mr. Faris, a missionary, whose residence was situated far from the scene of the occurrences, who had no knowledge of the boy’s antecedents, or any means of testing his statement by cross-examination or otherwise.

A retractation by a lad of some 15 years of age brought about at Mampoko under influences not unfavourable to the accused sentry cannot be held as satisfactory. That the authorities at Coquilhatville did not themselves consider it convincing is clear from their action in calling upon Mr. Faris to furnish an extraneous support to the decision arrived at by their own magisterial inquiry at Mampoko.

Epondo’s “retractation” was made on the 8th October at Mampoko, and one statement in it, as given on p. 31 of the “Notes,” (p. 35, _supra_) throws doubt on much of the rest.

_Question_ (by the Substitut): “Depuis combien do temps cet accident vous est-il arrivé?”

_Answer_ (Epondo): “Je ne me rappelle pas: c’est depuis longtemps.”

When Mr. Casement visited Bosunguma on the 7th September the boy’s mutilated stump had evident signs of not being then completely healed: blood showed still in two places, over which the skin had not entirely formed, and it was wrapped up in a cloth.

“The “Notes” (p. 9) (p. 7, _supra_) allude to the attitude of the missionaries in the following words:--

“Et le fait n’est pas non plus sans importance, si l’on veut exactement se rendre compte de la valeur des témoignages, de la présence aux côtés de Mr. Casement, qui interrogeait les indigènes de deux missionnaires Protestants Anglais de la région, présence qui, à elle seule, a dû nécessairement orienter les dépositions.”

If it is permissible to cast this reflection upon the attitude towards the Government of the missionaries of the district, it is certainly relevant to point out that the presence beside Lieutenant Braeckman (who conducted the preliminary inquiry) and the Substitut du Procureur d’État of the agents of the Company having a deep interest in the charge against its employé, and the part those agents were permitted to take in the inquiry, must have vitally affected the testimony of the witnesses who deposed at Mampoko that the charge against the Lulanga sentry was inspired solely by a desire on the part of the natives to escape their rubber dealings with that firm.

It appears that there were two inquiries: the first conducted by Lieutenant Braeckman, at which the original witnesses against the sentry and others reaffirmed their accusation that it was he who had mutilated Epondo. At the second inquiry, conducted by the Substitut, which took place some fortnight later, none of the original witnesses against Kelengo appeared (see “Ordonnance de Non-Lieu,” p. 8, “Notes”) (p. 6, _supra_); but a number of persons--some of them servants of the Lulanga Company--made statements, contradictory in many respects, but agreeing with much unanimity that a wild boar, which no one of them had seen, at a date no one could assign, in an indeterminate locality, had eaten off the hand of this lad of 14 or 15 years of age, who, according to the first deposition cited (that of Efundu, on the 28th September, at Coquilhatville, p. 24, Annexe III) (p. 29, _supra_), had attempted to catch the wounded and infuriated creature by the ears!

It is obvious that the “conclusions posées” as the result of his inquiry by Lieutenant Braeckman (see “Ordonnance de Non-Lieu” of the 9th October, p. 8 of “Notes”) must, in part, have rested on evidence of natives he had interrogated at Bosunguma, in Mr. Armstrong’s presence, on the 14th September.

In this “Ordonnance” we find, however, that while the “conclusions” of Lieutenant Braeckman are accepted, the evidence on which those “conclusions,” in some part, must have rested is rejected on the ground that the witnesses took flight, and did not reappear at the second inquiry.

If the “conclusions” are accepted, the evidence on which they are founded should be also admissible.

There is, moreover, open contradiction if one turns to the evidence of the “Chief Bofoko, of Ikundja,” cited on p. 30 of Annexe III in the “Notes” (p. 34, _supra_).

This deponent appeared before the Substitut at Mampoko on the 8th October, and in the course of his interrogatory it is asserted that he was one of those who had originally testified against Kelengo before the British Consul.

_Question_ (by Substitut): “Pourquoi vous-même avez-vous déclaré au Consul Anglais avoir vu la main coupée par terre, le sang coulait, et les habitants du village qui couraient dans toutes les directions?”

_Answer_ (Bofoko): “Je n’ai pas parlé avec les Anglais. Je ne les ai pas même vus. Quand ils sont arrivés à Bosunguma, je n’étais pas là.”

_Substitut_: “Vous mentez, parce que le Consul Anglais déclare avoir parlé avec vous.”

_Answer_ (Bofoko): “Oui, c’est vrai. J’y étais. J’ai dit comme les autres,” &c.

Despite this record by himself on the 8th October of the _procès-verbal_ of the evidence of Bofoko, the Substitut, on the following day, draws up his “Ordonnance de Non-Lieu,” wherein, in the third paragraph, he states that--

“Attendu que tous les indigènes qui ont accusé Kelengo, soit au Consul de Sa Majesté Britannique, soit au Lieutenant Braeckman, convoqués par nous, Substitut, ont pris la fuite, et tous les efforts faits pour les retrouver n’ont abouti à aucun résultat: que cette fuite discrédite évidemment leurs affirmations”--(p. 8 of “Notes”).

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.”

The appended Table of exports and imports of the Congo State, taken from the “Bulletin Officiel” for April 1903 (No. 4), will suffice to indicate the larger aspect of the situation of the native producer:--

+---------------+------------------ | Exports from | Imports to | Congo State. | Congo State. +---------------+-------------- | Fr. | Fr. 1895 | 10,943,019 | 10,685,847 1896 | 12,389,599 | 15,227,776 1897 | 15,146,976 | 21,181,462 1898 | 22,163,481 | 23,084,446 1899 | 36,067,959 | 22,325,846 1900 | 47,377,401 | 24,724,108 1901 | 50,488,894 | 23,102,064 1902 | 50,069,514 | 18,080,909 ----------+---------------+--------------

The exports of native produce (“le négoce des autres produits indigènes”--“Bulletin Officiel,” April 1903, p. 65), it is seen, have enormously increased. They have considerably more than trebled in the six years from 1897 to 1902.

During the same period the imports into the Congo State--a small portion of which are trade goods for the purchase of produce or the remuneration of the producers--remained not merely stationary, but even decreased by 4,000,000 fr. during the last year.

These figures, as they stand, are remarkable. Their significance is increased when it is borne in mind that the population of the regions exporting this great increase of native produce has enormously decreased during the same period. That decrease is admitted by the authorities. (“Du reste, il n’est malheureusement que trop exact que la diminution de la population a été constatée”--“Notes,” p. 2) (p. 2, _supra_). We thus find that a diminishing population,[150] a diminishing market-value of the article produced and a diminishing means of purchase have been accompanied during a period of only six years by a more than trebled production.

It may be permitted to doubt whether this state of affairs is adequately explained anywhere in the Congo Government “Notes.”

It is not met by the statement on p. 14 (p. 9, _supra_) of this document:--

“Qu’il s’est agi de faire contracter l’habitude de travail à des indigènes qui y ont été réfractaires de tout temps.

“Et si cette idée du travail peut être plus aisément inculquée aux natifs sous la forme de transactions commerciales entre eux et des particuliers, faut-il nécessairement condamner ce mode d’action?” &c.

On the same page of the “Notes” (14) it is sought to institute a comparison between the system of taxation in force on the Congo and that in operation in North and Eastern Rhodesia, and the conclusion is drawn that, since the latter is justified in a British Colonial administration, no exception can be taken to the former.

It is only necessary to point out that in North and Eastern Rhodesia, or in any other British Colony where direct taxation of the natives exists by law, the tax collector is a Government officer responsible for the sums levied to a central authority, not a trading agent having a direct personal interest in the amount of the “obligation de l’impôt.”

The native under the British system knows the fixed amount of his obligation, and, once discharged from it, he is free to seek, where he will, labour or leisure. The Congo taxpayer with an ever-present, perpetually-recurring, weekly or fortnightly imposition to make good, may not even leave his village, save as a fugitive, and is a close bondsman to these endless tasks.