Chapter I: I: “The sentry there.” (6)

Whereas there are reasons for granting extenuating circumstances to the accused, not only on account of the considerations submitted on the first, second, and fourth counts, but also on account of his good previous character during his long stay in Africa, and the great difficulties under which he must have laboured, as he had to do his duty in the midst of a population entirely hostile to all idea of work, and which only respects the law of force, and knows no other argument than terror;

Whereas it must be recognized that it must be very difficult to act within the law in a country still absolutely barbarous and savage, more especially when the laws to be obeyed in that country are the same as those which govern the most civilized peoples;

Whereas, to conclude, it is just to bear in mind that, although the acts are in themselves very grave, they lose a part of their gravity when they are considered in connection with the surroundings, in which, according to immemorial custom, human life has no value, and pillage, murder, and cannibalism were, until the other day, of ordinary occurrence.

As regards the accused Silvanus Jones:

Whereas it is duly established by the consistent testimony of the witnesses, and even by the contradictory evidence of the accused himself, that, during the month of October 1902, when he was Chief of the post of the Société Anversoise du Commerce au Congo at Bussa-Baya, he ordered the men placed under his orders to proceed to the neighbourhood of the factory, and to kill the natives that they met, to punish them for not having furnished a sufficient quantity of rubber, an order which his servant Bongi executed by killing a woman;

Whereas the accused maintains, as a subsidiary plea, that in any case he acted, as in other circumstances, in accordance with the orders of his superiors, especially with those of the District Chief M. Caudron;

Whereas--although these orders are not well established--the methods adopted by the District Chief Caudron to obtain rubber from the natives, and the fact that the accused had been placed at Bussa-Baya secretly, and that that post had been armed with eight Albini rifles without permission, give colour to the supposition, in favour of the accused, that in point of fact, he did but follow the instructions of his Chiefs;

And whereas, however, for the reasons already given, these orders could in no way justify or exculpate the accused;

And whereas he could not even be regarded as a passive and unconscious instrument in the hands of his Chiefs, because, although a black, he possesses some mental culture and belongs to a country already partly civilized;

And whereas he must have known perfectly well that to kill is a crime;

And whereas he, moreover, acted in his personal interest because he was paid in proportion to the rubber he collected;

Whereas, however, it is just to concede to him extenuating circumstances to the greatest possible extent, taking into account his surroundings and the example set by his Chief; and whereas it must be admitted that it would have been very difficult for a black man to withstand the influence of example;

And whereas, therefore, the Court of Appeal expresses the hope that the rigour of the penalty, which, according to law, it is compelled to confirm, may, in the case of this prisoner, be modified as soon as possible, by his conditional release;

For these reasons and those, cited by the First Judge, which do not conflict with them;

INDD The Court of Appeal:

Taking into consideration Articles 78 of the Decree of the 27th April, 1889; 3, 4, 11, 98, 101 (_bis_) and 101 (4) of the Penal Code; 2 and 9 of the Decree of the 10th March, 1892, and the Order of the 30th April, 1901;

Declares the appeal of the accused Caudron to be inadmissible;

And, on the appeal of the Public Prosecutor--

Amends the Judgment appealed against with respect to the accused Caudron, in regard to the penalty pronounced, and condemns him on the count of murders with premeditation, of blows and wounds, of arbitrary detention, and contraventions of the Regulations as to fire-arms, with extenuating circumstances, to five years’ penal servitude;

Confirms in other respects the Judgment which was the subject of appeal, also as regards the accused Silvanus Jones;

Ordains that the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the State.

Thus judged and pronounced in public sitting by the Tribunal, composed of M. Giacomo Nisco, President; MM. Albert Sweerts and Michel Cuciniello, Judges; M. Fernand Waleffe, Public Prosecutor; M. Paul Hodüm, Clerk.

The President, (Signed) G. NISCO.

The Judges,
(Signed) SWEERTS.
M. CUCINIELLO.

The Clerk,
P. HODÜM.

Inclosure 2 in No. 3.

_Acting Consul Nightingale’s Interview with Silvanus Jones, a
Native of Lagos, under Sentence of Ten Years’ Penal Servitude, in
the Prison at Boma, for certain Atrocities committed whilst in the
Employ of the S.C.A. (Société Congolaise Anversoise)._

_Q._ HOW long have you been in the employ of the S.C.A.?--_A._ I served five years, and then went home to Lagos, and after staying at home some time I returned to the Congo, and was re-engaged by the same Company. I am now completing the second year of my new contract.

_Q._ In what capacity were you engaged by the S.C.A.?--_A._ As a carpenter.

_Q._ How is it that, being engaged as a carpenter, you were buying rubber?--_A._ There was no more carpentering to be done, and as I had not completed my contract, I was ordered to buy rubber. Formerly I used to buy rubber at the same time as I was doing the carpentering.

_Q._ Have you ever killed, ill-treated the natives, or burnt down their houses?--_A._ On my oath, I never have.

_Q._ Do you understand the nature of an oath?--_A._ Yes; and if there were a Bible here I would swear on it.

_Q._ Can you read and write?--_A._ Only a very little--just my name.

_Q._ Were you aware that people were being shot or otherwise ill-treated, and that their villages were burnt?--_A._ Yes; I heard of such things going on, but I never witnessed anything of the sort except on one occasion at my own station. It was one day (the 9th December, 1902) when I was lying down, and suddenly I heard firing from outside, and a shot came through my house and nearly hit me. When I went outside I found a white agent of the Company, who had ordered his men (soldiers) to fire on a man and woman from about 120 yards’ distance. They were both killed. The woman was pregnant. When I asked the white agent (whose name I cannot remember) why he came and upset the people of my station, he replied, “How dare you speak to me, you black man; don’t you see that I am a white man, and can give what orders I like!”

_Q._ Were you ever ordered to go and punish the natives?--_A._ Yes. On one occasion, especially, I was ordered to send and punish some people who had fled into the bush. So I thought for a time as to what I should do, and at last resolved to send four soldiers into the bush to try and catch the people and bring them to me to see if I could make friends with them. I ordered the soldiers not to shoot any one, and sent my boy (a Bangala) with them to see that no shooting was done. They caught a man and a woman in the bush and took them to Little Basango (about three hours from my station), instead of coming back to me. It was my Bangala boy who shot the woman whilst she was stooping down at the side of the river, and she fell into the water and was carried away. I never saw the woman or her corpse, as it was carried away by the stream. I went down the river (about two and a-half hours’ journey in a canoe going there, and about six hours to come back) to report the affair to the white agent at the post there. It is for this affair, I am given to understand, that I am punished. But really I am not to blame, as I gave strict orders to the soldiers not to shoot any one.

_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.”

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.