Chapter I: I: “The sentry there.” (2)

Nous dépasserions nous-mêmes la mesure si, de ce qui précède, nous concluions au rejet en bloc de toutes les informations indigènes enregistrées par le Consul. Mais il en ressort à l’évidence qu’une telle documentation est insuffisante pour asseoir un jugement fondé, et que ces informations obligent à une vérification minutieuse et impartiale.

Que si l’on dégage du volumineux Rapport du Consul, les autres cas qu’il _a vus_ et qu’il enregistre comme des cas de mutilation, on constate qu’il en cite deux comme s’étant produits au Lac Matumba[41] “il y a plusieurs années.”[42] Il en cite quelques autres--sur le nombre desquels les renseignements du Rapport ne semblent pas être concordants[43]--qu’il renseigne comme ayant été commis dans les environs de Bonginda,[44] précisément en cette région où s’est placée l’enquête Epondo et où, comme on l’a vu, les esprits étaient montés et influencés. Ce sont ces affaires que, dit-il, il n’a pas eu le temps d’approfondir,[45] et qui, au dire des indigènes, étaient imputables aux agents de la Société “La Lulanga.” Étaient-ce là des victimes de la pratique de coutumes indigènes, que les natifs se seraient bien gardés d’avouer? Les blessures constatées par le Consul étaient-elles dues à l’une ou l’autre lutte intestine entre villages ou tribus? Ou bien était-ce réellement le fait de sous-ordres noirs de la Société? On ne saurait se prononcer à la lecture du Rapport, les indigènes, ici comme toujours, étant la seule source d’informations du Consul et celui-ci s’étant borné à prendre rapidement note de leurs multiples affirmations en quelques heures de la matinée du 5 Septembre, pressé qu’il était par le temps “to reach K* (Bossunguma) at a reasonable hour.”[46]

Nonobstant la considération qu’il attache à “l’air de franchise” et “à l’air de conviction et de sincérité”[47] des indigènes, l’expérience faite par lui-même commande incontestablement la prudence et rend téméraire son appréciation: “qu’il était clair que ces hommes déclaraient soit ce qu’ils avaient réellement vu de leurs yeux, soit ce qu’ils pensaient fermement dans leurs cœurs.”[48]

Toutefois, il suffit que soient signalés ces quelques faits, actes de cruauté ou non, auxquels se réduisent en définitive ceux constatés personnellement par le Consul, sans qu’il puisse à suffisance de preuve en établir les causes réelles, pour que l’autorité doive y porter son attention et pour que des enquêtes soient ordonnées à leur sujet. A cet égard, le regret doit être exprimé de ce que l’exemplaire du Rapport, communiqué au Gouvernement de l’État Indépendant du Congo, ait systématiquement omis toute indication de date, de lieu, de noms. Il n’est pas à méconnaître que ces suppressions rendront excessivement malaisée la tâche des Magistrats Instructeurs, et, dans l’intérêt de la manifestation de la vérité, le Gouvernement du Congo formule le vœu d’être mis en possession du texte complet du Rapport du Consul.

On ne s’étonnera pas si le Gouvernement de l’État du Congo s’élève, en cette occasion, contre le procédé de ses détracteurs, mettant dans le domaine public la reproduction de photographies d’indigènes mutilés, et créant cette odieuse légende de mains coupées à la connaissance ou même à l’instigation des Belges en Afrique. C’est ainsi que la photographie d’Epondo, estropié dans les conditions que l’on sait, et qui “a été deux fois photographié,” est probablement une de celles circulant dans les pamphlets Anglais comme preuve de l’exécrable administration des Belges en Afrique. On a vu une revue Anglaise reproduisant la photographie d’un “cannibale entouré des crânes de ses victimes,” et la légende portait: “In the original photograph, the cannibal was naked. The artist has made him decent by ... covering his breast with the star of the Congo State. It is now a suggestive emblem of the Christian veneered cannibalism on the Congo.”[49] A ce compte, il suffirait, pour jeter le discrédit sur l’Administration de l’Uganda, de mettre dans la circulation des clichés reproduisant les mutilations dont le Dr. Castellani dit, dans une lettre datée d’Uganda, du 16 Décembre, 1902, avoir constaté l’existence aux environs mêmes d’Entebbe: “Il n’est pas difficile d’y rencontrer des indigènes sans nez, sans oreilles, &c.”[50]

C’est dire que dans l’Uganda comme au Congo, les indigènes sacrifient encore à leurs instincts sauvages. Mr. Casement a prévu l’objection en affirmant:--

“It was not a native custom prior to the coming of the white man;
it was not the outcome of the primitive instincts of savages in
their fights between village and village; it was the deliberate act
of soldiers of a European Administration, and these men themselves
never made any concealment that in committing these acts they were
but obeying the positive orders of their superiors.”[51]

L’articulation d’une aussi grave accusation, sans qu’elle soit en même temps étayée sur des preuves irréfragables, semble donner raison à ceux qui pensent que les emplois antérieurs de Mr. Casement ne l’avaient pas préparé entièrement aux fonctions Consulaires. Mr. Casement est resté dix-sept jours au Lac Mantumba, un lac, dit de 25 à 30 milles de long et de 12 ou 15 milles de large, entouré d’épaisses forêts.[52] Il ne s’est guère éloigné de la rive. On ne voit pas dès lors quelles investigations utiles il a pu faire sur les mœurs d’autrefois et les habitudes anciennes des populations. La constatation que ces tribus sont encore très sauvages et adonnées au cannibalisme[53] permet de croire, au contraire, qu’elles n’étaient pas exemptes de la pratique de ces actes cruels qui, d’une manière générale en Afrique, étaient le cortège habituel de la barbarie des mœurs et de l’anthropophagie. Dans une partie des régions que le Consul a visitées, les témoignages des missionnaires Anglais ne sont à cet égard que trop instructifs. Le Révérend McKittrick, parlant des luttes meurtrières entre indigènes, dit ses efforts d’autrefois auprès des Chefs pour pacifier la contrée: “ ...Nous leur dîmes qu’à l’avenir nous ne laisserions plus passer par notre station aucun homme armé de lance ou de couteau. Notre Dieu était un Dieu de paix, et nous, ses enfants, nous ne pouvions supporter de voir nos frères noirs se couper et se blesser l’un l’autre (cutting and stabbing each other).”[54] “Lorsque j’allais çà et là dans la rivière, dit un autre missionnaire, on me montrait les endroits de la rive d’où avaient coutume de partir les guerriers pour capturer les canots et les hommes. Il était affligeant d’entendre décrire les terribles massacres qui avaient lieu d’habitude à la mort d’un grand Chef. Un trou profond était creusé en terre, où des vingtaines d’esclaves jetés après que leurs têtes avaient été coupées (after having their heads cut off), et sur cette horrible pile, on plaçait le cadavre du Chef couronnant ce carnage humain indescriptible.”[55] Et les missionnaires constatent combien encore en ces jours actuels les indigènes reviennent aisément à leurs anciennes coutumes. Il apparaît aussi que cette autre affirmation du Rapport[56] qu’à la différence d’aujourd’hui, les indigènes autrefois ne s’enfuyaient pas à l’approche d’un steamer, n’est pas d’accord avec les récits des voyageurs et explorateurs.

Il est, en tout cas, à remarquer que le Consul n’a constaté dans le territoire où s’exerce l’activité de la Société A.B.I.R. aucun de ces faits de cruauté qui eût pu être représenté comme imputable aux agents commerciaux. La coïncidence est à relever, puisque la Société A.B.I.R. est précisément une Compagnie à Concession et qu’on ne cesse d’attribuer au régime des Concessions les conséquences les plus désastreuses pour les indigènes.

Ce qui domine les innombrables questions touchées par le Consul et la multiplicité des menus faits qu’il a recueillis, c’est de savoir si vraiment cette sorte de tableau d’une existence misérable, qui serait celle des indigènes, répond à la réalité des choses. Nous prendrons pour exemple la région de la Lulanga et du Lopori, parce que là se trouvent, depuis des années, des centres de Missions de la “Congo Balobo Mission.” Ces missionnaires y sont établis en des endroits les plus distants et les plus intérieurs: à Lulonga, Bonginda, Ikau, Bougandanga, et Baringa, tous points situés dans la région où opèrent la Société “La Lulonga” et la Société A.B.I.R. Ils sont en contact suivi avec les populations indigènes, et une revue spéciale mensuelle, “Regions Beyond,” publie régulièrement leurs lettres, notes, et rapports. Que l’on parcoure la collection de ce recueil; nulle part, à aucun moment avant Avril 1903--à cette dernière date, la motion de Mr. Herbert Samuel était, il est vrai, annoncée au Parlement--on ne trouve trace d’une appréciation quelconque signalant ou révélant que la situation générale des populations indigènes dût être dénoncée au monde civilisé. Les missionnaires s’y félicitent de la sympathie active des agents, officiels, et commerciaux à leur égard,[57] des progrès de leur œuvre d’évangélisation,[58] des facilités que leur apporte la création de routes,[59] de la pacification des mœurs, “dû à la fois aux missionnaires et aux commerçants,”[60] de la disparition de l’esclavage,[61] de la densité de la population,[62] du nombre grandissant de leurs élèves, “grâce à l’État, qui a donné des ordres pour que les enfants fussent menés à l’école,”[63] de la disparition graduelle des pratiques indigènes primitives,[64] du contraste enfin entre le présent et le passé.[65] Admettra-t-on que ces missionnaires Chrétiens et Anglais, qui, au cours de leurs itinéraires, visitaient les postes de factorerie et étaient témoins des marchés de caoutchouc, se seraient rendus complices par leur silence d’un régime inhumain ou tortionnaire? Un des Rapports annuels de la “Congo Bolobo Mission” dit dans ses conclusions: “Dans l’ensemble, le coup d’œil rétrospectif est encourageant. S’il n’y a pas eu une avance considérable, il n’y a pas eu de triste déception, et il n’est aucune opposition définitive à l’œuvre.... Il y a eu de la disette et des maladies parmi les natifs, notamment à Bonginda.... A part cela, il n’y a pas eu de sérieux empêchements au progrès....”[66] Et, parlant incidemment des effets bienfaisants du travail sur l’état social des indigènes, un missionnaire écrit: “The greatest obstacle to conversion is polygamy. Many evils have been put down, _e.g._, idleness, thanks to the State having compelled the men to work; and fighting, through their not having time enough to fight.”[67] Ces appréciations des missionnaires nous paraissent plus précises que les données d’un Rapport à chaque page duquel, pour ainsi dire, on lit: “I was told;” “it was said;” “I was informed;” “I was assured;” “They said;” “it was alleged;” “I had no means of verifying;” “It was impossible to me to verify;” “I have no means of ascertaining,” &c. En dix lignes, par exemple, on rencontre quatre fois l’expression: “appears;” “would seem;” “would seem;” “do not seem.”[68]

Le Consul ne semble pas s’être rendu compte que c’est le travail qui constitue l’impôt indigène au Congo, et que cette forme d’impôt se justifie autant par son caractère moralisateur que par l’impossibilité de taxer autrement l’indigène, en raison même du fait, constaté par le Consul, que l’indigène n’a pas de numéraire. Cette dernière considération fait, pour en donner un autre exemple, que sur 56,700 huttes imposées dans la North-Eastern Rhodesia, 19,653 payent la taxe “in labour” et 4,938 la payent “in produce.”[69] Que ce travail soit fourni directement à l’État ou à telle ou telle entreprise privée, qu’il soit adapté, selon les possibilités locales, à telles prestations ou à telles autres, sa justification a toujours l’une de ses bases dans ce que le Mémorandum du 11 Février dernier reconnaît être la “necessity of the natives being induced to work.” Le Consul s’inquiète surtout de la qualification à donner à la fourniture du travail; il s’étonne, si c’est là un impôt de ce que cet impôt soit payé et recouvrable parfois par des agents commerciaux. Dans la rigueur des principes, il est à reconnaître, en effet, que la rémunération d’un impôt heurte les notions fiscales ordinaires; elle s’explique cependant en fait si l’on songe 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, notamment dans des régions dont l’organisation administrative n’est pas complétée? Mais il s’impose que, dans leurs rapports de cet ordre avec les indigènes, les agents commerciaux, comme d’ailleurs les agents de l’État eux-mêmes, s’inspirent de pratiques bienveillantes et humaines. A cet égard, les éléments que fournit le Rapport du Consul seront l’objet d’une étude approfondie, et si le résultat de cet examen révélait des abus réels ou commandait des réformes, l’Administration supérieure agirait comme l’exigeraient les circonstances.

Nul n’a jamais pensé, d’ailleurs, que le régime fiscal au Congo eût atteint d’emblée la perfection, notamment au point de vue de l’assiette de l’impôt et des moyens de recouvrement. Le système des “chefferies,” bon en soi en ce qu’il place entre l’autorité et l’indigène l’intermédiaire de son chef naturel, procédait d’une idée mise en pratique ailleurs:--

“The more important Chiefs who helped the Administration have been
paid a certain percentage of the taxes collected in their
districts, and I think that if this policy is adhered to each year,
the results will continue to be satisfactory and will encourage the
Chiefs to work in harmony with the Administration.”[70]

Le Décret sur les chefferies[71] établissait le principe de l’impôt, et sa perception selon “un tableau des prestations annuelles à fournir, par chaque village, en produits, en corvées, travailleurs ou soldats.” L’application de ce Décret a été formulée en des actes d’investiture, des tableaux statistiques et des états de prestation, dont les modèles sont reproduits à l’Annexe IV. Contrairement à ce que pense le Rapport, ce Décret a reçu l’exécution compatible avec l’état d’avancement social des tribus; de nombreux actes d’investiture ont été dressés et des efforts ont été faits pour établir des états de répartition équitable des prestations. Le Consul eût pu s’en assurer dans les bureaux des Commissariats, notamment des districts du Stanley-Pool et de l’Équateur qu’il a traversés; mais il a généralement négligé les sources d’informations officielles. Sans doute, l’application fut et devait être limitée dans les débuts, et il a pu en résulter que les demandes d’impôts ont atteint, pendant quelque temps, les seuls villages dans un certain périmètre autour des stations; mais cette situation s’est améliorée progressivement au fur et à mesure que, les régions plus distantes se trouvant englobées dans la zone d’influence des postes gouvernementaux, le nombre des villages astreints à l’impôt s’est accru successivement et que les taxes ont pu être réparties sur un chiffre plus grand de contribuables. Le Gouvernement vise à ce que le progrès soit constant dans cette voie, c’est-à-dire à ce que l’impôt soit le plus équitablement réparti et soit, autant que possible, personnel; le Décret du 18 Novembre, 1903, tend à ce but en prescrivant l’établissement de “rôles des prestations indigènes” de manière que les obligations de chacun des natifs soient nettement précisées.

“Chaque année, dit l’Article 28 de ce Décret, les Commissaires de
District dresseront dans les limites de l’Article 2 du présent
Règlement (c’est-à-dire dans la limite de quarante heures de
travail par mois par indigène), les rôles des prestations à
fournir, en espèce et en durée de travail par chacun des indigènes
résidant dans les territoires de leur district respectif.” Et
l’Article 55 punit “quiconque, chargé de la perception des
prestations, aura exigé des indigènes, soit comme impôt en nature
soit comme heures de travail, des prestations d’une valeur
supérieure à celles prévues dans les rôles d’impositions.”

Nul n’ignore que le recouvrement de l’impôt se heurte parfois au mauvais vouloir, et même au refus de payer. La démonstration qu’en fait le Rapport du Consul pour le Congo est corroborée par l’expérience faite, par exemple, dans la Rhodésia.

“The Ba-Unga (Awemba district), inhabitants of the swamps in the
Chambezi delta, gave some trouble on being summoned to pay
taxes.”[72]--“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).”[73]--“Milala’s people have succeeded in evading
taxes.”[74]--“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 to 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.”[75]

C’est là un exemple de ces “punitive expeditions” auxquelles l’autorité se voit obligée de recourir parfois, et aussi de ce procédé des natifs, non spécial aux indigènes Congolais, de se déplacer en territoire voisin pour se soustraire à l’exécution de la loi.--Que si, au Congo, dans le recouvrement des prestations indigènes, des cas, parmi ceux cités par le Consul, ont réellement dépassé les limites d’une rigueur juste et pondérée, ce sont là des circonstances de faits que des investigations sur les lieux pourront seules élucider, et des instructions seront, à cet effet, données à l’administration de Boma.

Il ne peut être davantage accepté, jusqu’à plus ample informé, les considérations du Rapport sur l’action des gardes forestiers au service de la Société A.B.I.R. et de “La Lulonga.” Ces sous-ordres sont représentés par le Consul comme exclusivement préposés à “obliger par force la récolte du caoutchouc ou les approvisionnements dont chaque factorerie a besoin.”[76] Une autre explication a cependant été donnée, mais elle n’émane pas d’un indigène, à savoir que ces gardes forestiers ont pour mission de veiller à ce que la récolte du caoutchouc se fasse rationnellement et d’empêcher notamment que les indigènes ne coupent les lianes.[77] On sait, en effet, que la loi a prescrit des mesures rigoureuses pour assurer la conservation des zones caoutchoutières, a réglementé leur exploitation et a imposé des plantations et replantations, en vue d’éviter l’épuisement complet du caoutchouc, comme on l’a vu par exemple dans la “North-Eastern and Western Rhodesia.”[78] Les Sociétés et particuliers exploitants ont de ce chef une lourde responsabilité et ont incontestablement une surveillance minutieuse à exercer sur les modes et procédés de récoltes. La raison d’être de ces gardes forestiers peut donc, en réalité, être tout autre que celle dite par le Consul; en tout cas, les plaintes formulées à ce sujet formeront l’un des points de l’enquête au Congo, de même que cette autre remarque du Rapport que l’armement de ces gardes forestiers serait excessif et abusif. Il faut dès à présent remarquer que dans ses évaluations du nombre des gardes armés, le Consul procède par déductions hypothétiques[79] et qu’il dit lui-même: “I have no means of ascertaining the number of this class of armed men employed by the A.B.I.R. Company.”[80] Il donne le détail que le fusil d’un de ces hommes était marqué sur la crosse: “Dépôt 2,210.” Or, il est évident qu’une telle indication ne peut avoir la signification que voudrait lui donner le Consul que pour autant qu’il soit établi qu’elle se rapporte à un numérotage des armes utilisées dans la Concession, et tel n’est pas le cas, car cette marque: Dépôt ... n’est employée ni par les Agents de l’État ni par la Société, et il est à supposer qu’elle constitue une ancienne marque, soit de fabrication, soit de magasin. Quant à l’armement des capitas, le Consul ne doit pas ignorer que ce point--qui n’est pas sans difficulté, puisqu’il faut à la fois tenir compte de la nécessité de la défense personnelle du capita et de l’écueil d’un usage abusif de l’arme qui lui est confiée--n’a cessé d’être l’objet de l’attention de l’autorité supérieure. Il n’y a pas que la seule Circulaire du 20 Octobre, 1900, reproduite par le Consul, qui ait traité la question; il en est tout un ensemble, datant notamment des 12 Mars, 1897, 31 Mai et 28 Novembre, 1900, et 30 Avril, 1901. Nous les reproduisons en Annexes, comme témoignant de l’absolue volonté du pouvoir de faire appliquer strictement les dispositions légales en la matière (Annexe V). Nonobstant les précautions incessantes, le Consul a constaté que plusieurs capitas n’étaient pas porteurs de permis--ces permis ne se trouvait-ils pas au siège de la Direction?--et que deux d’entre eux étaient armés d’armes de précision.[81] Ces quelques infractions ne suffiraient évidemment pas pour conclure à une sorte de vaste organisation armée, destinée à terroriser les indigènes. Cette autre Circulaire du 7 Septembre, 1903, reproduite à l’Annexe VII du Rapport du Consul, montre, au contraire, le soin que met le Gouvernement à ce que les soldats noirs réguliers eux-mêmes soient en tout temps sous le contrôle des officiers Européens.[82]

Telles sont les premières remarques que suggère le Rapport de M. Casement, et nous nous réservons de le raconter plus en détail, lorsque seront en possession du Gouvernement les résultats de l’enquête à laquelle les autorités locales vont procéder. Il sera remarqué que le Gouvernement, ne voulant pas paraître faire dévier le débat, n’a pas soulevé la question préjudicielle au sujet des formes, à coup sûr insolites, en lesquelles le Consul de Sa Majesté Britannique a agi en territoire étranger. Il n’échappera pas combien le rôle que s’est attribué le Consul en instituant des sortes d’enquêtes, en faisant comparaître des indigènes, en les interrogeant comme par voie d’autorité, en émettant même des espèces de jugements sur la culpabilité d’accusés, est en dehors des limites des attributions d’un Consul. Les réserves qu’appelle ce mode de procéder doivent être d’autant plus formelles que le Consul intervenait de la sorte en des affaires où n’étaient intéressés que des ressortissants de l’État du Congo et relevant exclusivement de l’autorité territoriale. M. Casement s’est chargé de se désavouer lui-même lorsque, le 4 Septembre, 1903, il écrivait au Gouverneur-Général: “I have no right of representation to your Excellency save where the persons or interests of British subjects dwelling in this country are affected.” Il était donc conscient de ce qu’il outrepassait les devoirs de sa charge, lorsqu’il investiguait sur des faits d’administration purement intérieure et empiétait ainsi sur les attributions des autorités territoriales, à l’encontre des règles du droit Consulaire.

“The grievances of the natives have been made known in this country
by ..., who brought over a Petition addressed to the King, praying
for relief from the excessive taxation and oppressive legislation
of which they complain.”

Ces lignes sont extraites du “Report for 1903 de la British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society,” et les natifs dont il est question sont les indigènes des Iles Fiji. Ce Rapport continue:--

“The case has been brought before the House of Commons. The
grievances include forced labour on the roads, and restrictions
which practically amount to slavery; natives have been flogged
without trial by Magistrate’s orders and are constantly subject to
imprisonment for frivolous causes. Petitions lodged with the local
Colonial Secretary have been disregarded. Mr. Chamberlain, in reply
to the questions asked in Parliament, threw doubt upon the
information received, but stated that the recently appointed
Governor is conducting an inquiry into the whole situation in the
Fiji Islands, in the course of which the matter will be fully
investigated.”

Ces conclusions sont les nôtres au sujet du Rapport de M. Casement.

_Bruxelles, le 12 Mars, 1904._

(Translation.)

During the sitting of the House of Commons of the 11th March, 1903, Lord Cranborne observed:--

“We have no reason to think that slavery is recognized by the
authorities of the Congo Free State, but reports of acts of cruelty
and oppression have reached us. Such reports have been received
from our Consular Officers.”

The Government of the Congo State addressed a letter on the 14th March, 1903, to Sir C. Phipps, requesting him to be good enough to communicate the facts which had formed the subject of any reports from British Consuls.

No reply was received to this application.

Lord Lansdowne’s despatch of the 8th August, 1903, contained the following passage:--

“Representations to this effect (alleged cases of ill-treatment of
natives and existence of trade monopolies) are to be found ... in
despatches from His Majesty’s Consuls.”

The impression was thus created that at that date His Majesty’s Government were in possession of conclusive evidence furnished by their Consuls: but none the less it seemed clearly necessary that Consul Casement should undertake a journey in the Upper Congo. It would appear, therefore, as if the conclusions contained in the note of the 8th August were at least premature; it equally follows that, contrary to what was said in that note, the British Consul was at liberty to undertake any journey in the interior that he thought fit. In any case, it is to be observed that, in spite of the repeated applications of the Congo State, the White Paper (“Africa No. 1 (1904)”) recently presented to Parliament does not contain any of these former Consular Reports, which nevertheless would have been the more interesting as dating from a time when the present campaign had not yet been initiated.

The present Report draws attention to the fact that in certain places visited by the Consul the population is decreasing. Mr. Casement does not give the facts on which he bases his comparative figures for 1887 and 1903. The question arises how, during the course of his rapid and hasty visits, he was able to get his figures for this latter year. On what facts, for instance, does he found his assertion that the riverain population of Lake Mantumba _seems_ to have diminished from 60 to 70 per cent. in the course of the last ten years. He states that at a certain place designated as F* the population of all the villages together does not at present amount to more than 500 souls; a few lines further on these same villages are spoken of as only containing 240 inhabitants altogether. These are only details, but they show at once what a lack of precision there is in certain of the deductions made by the Consul. It is, no doubt, unfortunately only too true that the population has diminished; but the diminution is due to other causes than to the exercise on the native population of a too exacting or oppressive Administration. It is owing chiefly to the sleeping-sickness, which is decimating the population throughout Equatorial Africa. The Report itself observes that “a prominent place must be assigned to this malady,”[83] and that this malady is “probably one of the principal factors” in the diminution of the population.[84] It is only necessary to read the Rev. John Whitehead’s letter, quoted by the Consul (Annex II to the Report) to obtain an idea of the ravages of the malady, to which this missionary attributes half of the deaths which take place in the riverain parts of the district. In a recent interview Mgr. Van Ronslé, Vicar Apostolic of the Belgian Congo, who speaks with the authority of one who has had a large experience of African matters, and has resided for long periods in many different localities in the Congo, explained the development of this scourge and the inevitable decay of the populations it attacks, whatever the conditions of their social existence; mentioning among other cases the terrible loss of life caused by this disease in Uganda. If to this principal cause of the depopulation of the Congo are added small-pox epidemics, the inability of the tribes at the present moment to keep up their numbers by the purchase of slaves, and the ease with which the natives can migrate, it can be explained how the Consul and the missionaries may have been struck with the diminution of the number of inhabitants in certain centres without that diminution necessarily being the result of a system of oppression. Annex I contains the declarations on the subject made by Mgr. Van Ronslé. His remarks as to the effect of the suppression of slavery on the numbers of the population are printed elsewhere:--

“The people (slave) are for the most part originally prisoners of
war. Since the Decree of emancipation they have simply returned to
their own distant homes, knowing their owners have no power to
recapture them. This is one reason why some think the population is
decreasing, and another reason is the vast exodus up and down
river.”[85]

“So long as the Slave Trade flourished the Bobangi flourished, but
with its abolition they are tending to disappear, for their towns
were replenished by slaves.”[86]

The Consul mentions cases, the causes of which, however, are unknown to him, of an exodus of natives of the Congo to the French bank. It is not quite clear on what grounds he attaches blame to the State on their account, to judge at least from the motives by which some of them have been determined--for instance, the examples of such emigration which are given and explained by the Rev. W. H. Bentley, an English missionary. One relates to the station at Lukolela:--

“The main difficulty has been the shifting of the population. It
appears that the population, when the station was founded in 1886,
was between 5,000 and 6,000 in the riverain Colonies. About two
years later the Chief Mpuki did not agree with his neighbours or
they with him. When the tension became acute, Mpuki crossed over
with his people to the opposite (French) side of the river. This
exodus took away a large number of people. In 1890 or 1891 a Chief
from one of the lower towns was compelled by the majority of his
people to leave the State side, and several went with him. About
1893 the rest of the people at the lower towns either went across
to the same place as the deposed Chief or took up their residence
inland. Towards the end of 1894 a soldier, who had been sent to cut
firewood for the State steamers on an island off the towns, left
his work to make an evil request in one of the towns. He shot the
man who refused him. The rascal of a soldier was properly dealt
with by the State officer in charge; but this outrage combined with
other smaller difficulties to produce a panic, and nearly all the
people left for the French side, or hid away inland. So the fine
township has broken up.”[87]

The other refers to the station at Bolobo:--

“It is rare indeed for Bolobo, with its 30,000 or 40,000 people,
divided into some dozen clans, to be at peace for any length of
time together. The loss of life from these petty wars, the number
of those killed for witchcraft, and of those who are buried alive
with the dead, involve, even within our narrow limits here at
Bolobo, an almost daily drain upon the vitality of the country, and
an incalculable amount of sorrow and suffering.... The Government
was not indifferent to these murderous ways.... In 1890, the
District Commissioner called the people together, and warned them
against the burying of slaves alive in the graves of free people,
and the reckless killing of slaves which then obtained. The natives
did not like the rising power of the State.... Our own settlement
among them was not unattended with difficulty.... There was a
feeling against white men generally, and especially so against the
State. The people became insolent and haughty.... Just at this time
... as a force of soldiers steamed past the Moye towns, the
steamers were fired upon. The soldiers landed and burnt and looted
the towns. The natives ran away into the grass, and great numbers
crossed to the French side of the river. They awoke to the fact
that Bula Matadi, the State, was not the helpless thing they had so
long thought. This happened early in 1891.”[88]

It will be seen that these examples do not attribute the emigration of the natives to any such causes as:--

“The methods employed to obtain labour from them by local officials
and the exactions levied on them.”[89]

The Report dwells at length on the existence of native taxes. It shows how the natives are subject to forced labour of various kinds, in one district having to furnish the Government posts with “chikwangues,” or fresh provisions, in another being obliged to assist in works of public utility, such as the construction of a jetty at Bololo, or the up-keep of the telegraph line at F*; elsewhere being obliged to collect the produce of the domain lands. We maintain that such imposts on the natives are legitimate, in agreement on this point with His Majesty’s Government, who, in the Memorandum of the 11th February last, declare that the industry and development of the British Colonies and Protectorates in Africa show that His Majesty’s Government have always admitted the necessity of making the natives contribute to the public charges and of inducing them to work. We also agree with His Majesty’s Government that, if abuses occur in this connection--and undoubtedly some have occurred in all Colonies--such abuses call for reform, and that it is the duty of the authorities to put an end to them, and to reconcile as far as may be the requirements of the Government with the real interests of the natives.

But in this matter the Congo State intends to exercise freely its rights of sovereignty--as, for instance, His Majesty’s Government explain in their last Memorandum that they themselves did at Sierra Leone--without regard to external pressure or foreign interference, which would be an encroachment upon its essential rights.

The Consul, in his Report, obviously endeavours to create the impression that taxes in the Congo are collected in a violent, inhuman, and cruel manner, and we are anxious before all to rebut the accusation which has so often been brought against the State that such collection gives rise to odious acts of mutilation. On this point a superficial perusal of the Report is calculated to impress by its easy accumulation not of facts, simple, precise, and verified, but of the declarations and affirmations of natives.

There is a preliminary remark to be made in regard to the conditions in which the Consul made his journey.

Whether such was his intention or not, the British Consul appeared to the inhabitants as the redresser of the wrongs, real or imaginary, of the natives, and his presence at La Lulonga, coinciding with the campaign which was being directed against the Congo State, in a region where the influence of the Protestant missionaries has long been exercised, necessarily had for the natives a significance which did not escape them. The Consul made his investigations quite independently of the Government officials, quite independently of any action and of any co-operation on the part of the regular authorities; he was assisted in his proceedings by English Protestant missionaries; he made his inspection on a steamer belonging to a Protestant Mission; he was entertained for the most part in the Protestant Missions; and, in these circumstances, it was inevitable that he should be considered by the native as the antagonist of the established authorities.

Other proof is not required than the characteristic fact that while the Consul was at Bonginda, the natives crowded down to the bank, as some agents of the La Lulonga Company were going by in a canoe, and cried out: “Your violence is over, it is passing away; only the English remain; may you others die!” There is also this significant admission on the part of a Protestant missionary, who, in alluding to this incident, remarked:--

“The Consul was here at the time, and the people were much excited
and evidently thought themselves on top.... The people have got
this idea (that the rubber work was finished) into their heads of
themselves, consequent, I suppose, upon the Consul’s visit.”

In these circumstances, in view of the state of mind which they show to exist among the natives, in view of their impressionable character and of their natural desire to escape taxation, it could not be doubted but that the conclusions at which the Consul would arrive would not be other than those set forth in his Report.

To bring out this point, and to show how little value is to be attached to his investigations, it will be sufficient to examine one case, that on which Mr. Casement principally relies; we allude to the Epondo case. It is that of the child I I, mentioned on pp. 56, 58, and 78 of the Report.

It is indispensable to enter somewhat at length into the details of this case, which are significant.

On the 4th September, 1903, the Consul was at the Bonginda station of the Congo Bololo Mission, having returned from a journey on the Lopori, during the course of which he had not come across any of those acts of mutilation which it is the custom to attribute to officials in the Congo.

At Bonginda, the natives of a neighbouring village (Bossunguma) came to him and informed him, amongst other things, that a “sentry” of the La Lulonga Company, named Kelengo,[90] had, at Bossunguma, cut off the hand of a native called Epondo, whose wounds were still scarcely healed. The Consul proceeded to Bossunguma, accompanied by the Rev. W. D. Armstrong and the Rev. D. J. Danielson, and had the mutilated native brought before him, who, “in answer to Consul’s question, charges a sentry named ‘Kelengo’ (placed in the town by the local agent of the La Lulonga Society to see that the people work rubber)” with having done it. Such are the Consul’s own words: it was necessary to establish a relation of cause and effect between the collection of india-rubber and this alleged case of cruelty.

The Consul proceeded to question the Chief and some of the natives of the village. They replied by accusing Kelengo; most of them asserted that they were _eye-witnesses_ of the deed. The Consul inquired through his interpreters if there were other witnesses who saw the crime committed, and accused Kelengo of it. “Nearly all those present, about forty persons, shouted out with one voice that it was ‘Kelengo’ who did it.”

In order to understand the violence with which the natives accused Kelengo, and the unanimous manner in which the denials of the accused were rejected by his accusers, it is necessary to read the whole of the report of this inquiry, as drawn up by the Consul himself in a kind of _procès-verbaux_, dated the 7th, 8th, and 9th September (Annex II). From all quarters accusers appeared, and the excited crowd gave vent to all sorts of accusations: he had cut off Epondo’s hand, chained up women, stolen ducks and a dog! The Consul did not allow his suspicions to be aroused by the passionate character of these accusations; without any further guarantee of their sincerity or further examination into their truth, he looked upon his inquiry as conclusive, and as he had taken upon himself the duties of the Public Prosecutor in making preliminary inquiries into the matter, so he anticipated the decision of the responsible authorities by declaring to the assembled people that “Kelengo deserved severe punishment for his illegal and cruel acts.” He proceeded to dramatize the incident by carrying off the pretended victim, and exhibiting him on the 10th September to the official in command of the station at Coquilhatville, to whom he handed a copy of the record of his inquiry, and on the 12th September he addressed a letter to the Governor-General which he marked as “personal and private,” and in which he makes the incident in question among others a text for an attack on “the system of general exploitation of an entire population which can only be rendered successful by the employment of arbitrary and illegal force.” His inquiry terminated, he immediately started on his return journey to the Lower Congo.

Even if the circumstances had been correctly reported, the disproportion would still have been striking between them and the conclusions which the Consul draws when emphasizing his general criticisms of the Congo State. But the facts themselves are incorrectly represented.

As a matter of fact, no sooner did the Consul’s denunciation reach the Public Prosecutor’s Department than M. Gennaro Bosco, Acting Public Prosecutor, proceeded to the spot and held a judicial inquiry under the usual conditions free from all outside influences. This inquiry showed that His Britannic Majesty’s Consul had been the object of a plot contrived by the natives, who, in the hope of no longer being obliged to work, had agreed among themselves to represent Epondo as the victim of the inhuman conduct of one of the capitas of a commercial Company. In reality, Epondo had been the victim of an accident while out hunting, and had been bitten in the hand by a wild boar; gangrene had set in and caused the loss of the member, and this fact had been cleverly turned to account by the natives when before the Consul. We annex (Annex No. 3) extracts from the inquiry conducted by the Acting Public Prosecutor into the Epondo case. The evidence is typical, uniform, and without discrepancies. It leaves no doubt as to the cause of the accident, makes it clear that the natives lied to the Consul, and reveals the object which actuated them, namely, the hope that the Consul’s intervention would relieve them from the necessity of paying taxes. The inquiry shows how Epondo, at last brought to account, retracted what he had in the first instance said to the Consul, and confessed that he had been influenced by the people of his village. He was questioned as follows:--

_Q._ Do you persist in accusing Kelengo of having cut off your left
hand?

_A._ No. I told a lie.

_Q._ State, then, how and when you lost your hand.

_A._ I was a slave of Monkekola’s at Malele, in the Bangala
district. One day I went out boar-hunting with him. He wounded one
with a spear, and thereupon the animal, enraged, turned on me. I
tried to run off with the others, but falling down, the boar was on
me in a moment and tore off my left hand and (wounded me) in the
stomach and left thigh.

The witness exhibits the scars he carries at the places mentioned,
and lying down of his own accord shows the position he was in when
the boar attacked and wounded him.

_Q._ How long ago did this accident happen?

_A._ I don’t remember. It was a long time ago.

_Q._ Why did you accuse Kelengo?

_A._ Because Momaketa, one of the Bossunguma Chiefs, told me to,
and afterwards all the inhabitants of my village did so too.

* * * * *

_Q._ Did the English photograph you?

_A._ Yes, at Bonginda and Lulanga. They told me to put the stump
well forward. There were Nenele, Mongongolo, Torongo, and other
whites whose names I don’t know. They were whites from Lulanga.
Mongongolo took away six photographs.[91]

Epondo of his own accord repeated his declarations and retractations to a Protestant missionary, Mr. Faris, who lives at Bolengi. This gentleman has sent the Commissary-General at Coquilhatville the following written declaration:--

“I, E. E. Faris, missionary, residing at Bolengi, Upper Congo,
declare that I questioned the boy Epondo, of the village of
Bosongoma, who was at my house on the 10th September, 1903, with
Mr. Casement, the British Consul, and whom, in accordance with the
request made to me by Commandant Stevens, of Coquilhatville, I took
to the mission station at Bolengi on the 16th October, 1903; and
that the said boy has this day, the 17th October, 1903, told me
that he lost his hand through the bite of a wild boar.

“He told me at the same time that he informed Mr. Casement that his
hand was cut off either by a soldier or, perhaps, by one of those
working for the white men (“travailleurs de blanc”), who have been
making war in his village with a view to the collection of rubber,
but he asserts that the account which he has given me to-day is the
truth.”

(Signed) “E. E. FARIS.”

“_Bolengi, October 17, 1903._”

The inquiry resulted in the discharge of the prisoner, which, so far as it concerned the Epondo question, was in the following terms:--

We, Acting Public Prosecutor of the Court of Coquilhatville:

Having regard to the notes made by His Britannic Majesty’s Consul,
on the occasion of his visit to the villages of Ikandja and
Bossunguma in the territory of the Ngombe, from which it would
appear that a certain Kelengo, a forest guard in the service of the
La Lulonga Company--

(_a._) Cut off the left hand of a certain Epondo;

(_b._) ...;

(_c._) ...;

Having regard to the inquiry instituted by Lieutenant Braeckman,
which partly confirms the result of the inquiry instituted by His
Britannic Majesty’s Consul, but also partly contradicts it, and to
the charges already brought against Kelengo adds that of having
killed a native of the name of Baluwa;

Having regard to the conclusions arrived at by the police employé
in question, which tend to raise grave doubts as to the truth of
all these charges;

In view of the fact that all the natives who brought these charges
against Kelengo, whether before His Britannic Majesty’s Consul or
Lieutenant Braeckman, on being summoned by us, the Acting Public
Prosecutor, took to flight, and all efforts to find them have been
fruitless; that this flight obviously throws doubt on the truth of
their allegations;

That all the witnesses whom we have questioned during the course of
our inquiry declare ... that Epondo lost his left hand from the
bite of a wild boar;

That Epondo confirms these statements, and admits that he told a
lie at the instigation of the natives of Bossunguma and Ikondja,
who hoped to escape collecting rubber through the intervention of
His Britannic Majesty’s Consul, whom they considered to be very
powerful;

That the witnesses, almost all inhabitants of the accusing
villages, admit that such was the object of their lie;

That this version, apart from the unanimous declarations of the
witnesses and the injured parties, is also the most plausible,
seeing that every one knows that the natives dislike work in
general and having to collect rubber, and are, moreover, ready to
lie and accuse people falsely;

That it is confirmed by the clearly stated opinion of the English
missionary Armstrong, who considers the natives to be “capable of
any plot to escape work and especially the labour of collecting
rubber”;

That the innocence of Kelengo having been thoroughly established,
there is no reason for proceeding against him;

On the above-mentioned grounds, we, the Acting Public Prosecutor,
declare that there are no grounds for proceeding against Kelengo, a
forest guard in the service of the La Lulonga Company, for the
offences mentioned in Articles 2, 5, 11, and 19 of the Penal Code.

(Signed) BOSCO, _Acting Public Prosecutor_.

_Mampoko, October 9, 1903._

We have dealt at length with the above case because it is considered by the Consul himself as being one of the utmost importance, and because he relies upon this single case for accepting as accurate all the other declarations made to him by natives.

“In the one case I could alone personally investigate,” he
says,[92] “that of the boy I I, I found this accusation proved on
the spot without seemingly a shadow of doubt existing as to the
guilt of the accused sentry.”

And further on:--

“I had not time to do more than visit the one village of R**, and
in that village I had only time to investigate the charge brought
by I I.”[93]

And elsewhere:--

“It was obviously impossible that I should ... verify on the spot,
as in the case of the boy, the statements they made. In that one
case the truth of the charges preferred was amply
demonstrated.”[94]

It is also to this case that he alludes in his letter of the 12th September, 1903, to the Governor-General, where he says:--

“When speaking to M. le Commandant Stevens at Colquilhatville on
the 10th instant, when the _mutilated boy Epondo stood before us as
evidence of the deplorable state of affairs_ I reprobated, I said,
‘I do not accuse an individual, I accuse a system.’”

It is only natural to conclude that if the rest of the evidence in the Consul’s Report is of the same value as that furnished to him in this particular case, it cannot possibly be regarded as conclusive. And it is obvious that in those cases in which the Consul, as he himself admits, did not attempt to verify the assertions of the natives, these assertions are worth, if possible, still less.

It is doubtless true that the Consul deliberately incurred the certain risk of being misled owing to the manner in which he interrogated the natives, which he did, as a matter of fact, through two interpreters--“through Vinda, speaking in Bobangi, and Bateko, repeating his utterances ... in the local dialect;[95] so that the Consul was at the mercy not only of the truthfulness of the native who was being questioned, but depended also on the correctness of the translations of two other natives, one of whom was a servant of his own, and the other apparently the missionaries’ interpreter.[96] But any one who has ever been in contact with the native knows how much he is given to lying; the Rev. C. H. Harvey[97] states that--

“The natives of the Congo who surrounded us were contemptible, perfidious and cruel, impudent liars, dishonest, and vile.”

It is also important, if one wishes to get a correct idea of the value of this evidence, to note that while Mr. Casement was questioning the natives, he was accompanied by two local Protestant English missionaries, whose presence must alone have necessarily affected the evidence.[98]

We should ourselves be going too far if from all this we were to conclude that the whole of the native statements reported by the Consul ought to be rejected. But it is clearly shown that his proofs are insufficient as a basis for a deliberate judgment, and that the particulars in question require to be carefully and impartially tested.

On examining the Consul’s voluminous Report for other cases which he _has seen_, and which he sets down as cases of mutilation, it will be observed that he mentions two as having occurred on Lake Mantumba[99] “some years ago.”[100] He mentions several others, in regard to the number of which the particulars given in the Report do not seem to agree,[101] as having taken place in the neighbourhood of Bonginda,[102] precisely in the country of the Epondo inquiry, where, as has been seen, the general feeling was excited and prejudiced. It is these cases which, he says, he had not time to inquire into fully,[103] and which, according to the natives, were due to agents of the La Lulanga Company. Were these instances of victims of the practice of native customs which the natives would have been careful not to admit? Were the injuries which the Consul saw due to some conflict between neighbouring villages or tribes? Or were they really due to the black subordinates of the Company? This cannot be determined by a perusal of the Report, as the natives in this instance, as in every other, were the sole source of the Consul’s information, and he, for his part, confined himself to taking rapid notes of their numerous statements for a few hours in the morning of the 5th September, being pressed for time, in order to reach K* (Bossunguma) at a reasonable hour.[104]

Notwithstanding the weight which he attaches to the “air of frankness” and the “air of conviction and sincerity”[105] on the part of the natives, his own experience shows clearly the necessity for caution, and renders rash his assertion “that it was clear that these men were stating either what they had actually seen with their eyes or firmly believed in their hearts.”[106]

Now, however, that the Consul has drawn attention to these few cases--whether cases of cruelty or not, and they are all that, as a matter of fact, he has inquired into personally, and even so without being able to prove sufficiently their real cause--the authorities will of course look into the matter and cause inquiries to be made. It is to be regretted that, this being so, all mention of date, place, and name has been systematically omitted in the copy of the Report communicated to the Government of the Independent State of the Congo. It is impossible not to see that these suppressions will place great difficulties in the way of the Magistrates who will have to inquire into the facts, and the Government of the Congo trust that, in the interests of truth, they may be placed in possession of the complete text of the Consul’s Report.