Further Correspondence respecting the Administration of the Independent State of the Congo. (continued 4)

Exports from Congo State. Imports to Congo State.

Fr. Fr.

1895 10,943,019 10,685,847

1896 12,389,599 15,227,776

1897 15,146,976 21,181,462

1898 22,163,481 23,084,446

1899 36,067,959 22,325,846

1900 47,377,401 24,724,108

1901 50,488,894 23,102,064

1902 50,069,514 18,080,909

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With regard to the arming of the sentries or “forest guards” in the employ of the trading Companies on the Upper Congo, the “Notes” throw doubt on the estimate Mr. Casement formed of the number of these guns, and the use to which they are put, and it cites Circulars of the Governor-General of the Congo State, dating from the 12th March, 1897, to the 30th April, 1901, as evidence that the Executive authority had been careful to guard against a possible misuse of the arms.

But the issue of successive Circulars, which, by their own terms, show clearly that the law had been ignored or evaded, cannot be claimed as an effective fulfilment of a weighty obligation of the Executive.

It must further be borne in mind that the Congo Executive were themselves the direct agency for placing all the arms these Circulars refer to in the hands of those who are there shown to have ignored the law.

Every gun misused on the Upper Congo, with its accompanying ammunition, was carried to its destination by the vessels of the Government flotilla, which charged a considerable sum for their transport. They were housed in Government stores en route, for which a charge of “magasinage” is levied, and were distributed to the “factories” from Government steamers by Government Agents, who, having made a profit from their agency in the matter, subsequently issued circular instructions to those into whose hands they knowingly gave the weapons.

“Les capitas qui, dans le Haut-Congo, parcourent le pays pour compte de commerçants, et qui sont pourvus d’un fusil, doivent également être munis d’un permis de port d’armes.” (Circular of the 12th March, 1897. Annexe V. “Notes,” p. 34.)

“On a voulu y voir l’attribution aux Directeurs de ces Sociétés, et même à des agents subalternes, du droit de diriger des opérations militaires offensives, ‘de faire la guerre’ aux populations indigènes; d’autres, sans même s’inquiéter d’examiner quelles pourraient être les limites de ce droit de police, se sont servis de moyens que cette délégation avait mis entre leurs mains, pour commettre les abus les plus graves.

“Les armes perfectionnées que les Sociétés posséderaient dans leurs diverses factoreries ou établissements, et qui doivent faire l’objet comme les armes d’autres Sociétés n’ayant pas le droit de police, d’un permis Modèle B, ne peuvent en aucun cas sortir des établissements pour lesquels elles ont été délivrées. Quant aux fusils à piston, ils ne peuvent être mis en dehors des factoreries qu’entre les mains des capitas et à condition que ceux-ci aient un permis suivant Modèle C.”

(Circular of the 20th October, 1900; see p. 78, Mr. Casement’s Report.)

If the native sentries or capitas of these factories ranged the country with unlicensed arms, if these “Commercial” Companies made war on the natives, it was the Congo Government which carried those arms to their destinations and placed them in the hands of those who used them illegally.

“Nonobstant les précautions incessantes, le Consul a constaté que plusieurs capitas n’étaient pas porteurs de permis.”

(“Notes” of the Congo Government, the 12th March, 1904.)

The law prescribes clearly that no weapon can be issued for individual use save on the authority and personal licence of the Government.

That this law can be effectively observed was evidenced in Mr. Casement’s own case. A Winchester rifle for his use arrived on the Congo while he was in the interior. It could not be dispatched to him from Boma to Stanley Pool (where he found it on coming down river) until a licence had been granted. This rifle was branded and numbered according to law and the tax of 20 fr. levied.

A law thus rightly obligatory in the case of a foreign official, who could not be suspected of misuse of the weapon he had imported, should have had at least as stringent application to the capitas, and forest guards and sentries of the numerous Companies, which are shown by the Government Circulars quoted to have been recognized for years as seeking to evade the law.

That the Congo Government have intimate cognizance of the exact number of guns in use by the commercial Companies on the Upper Congo is evident, since every case of rifles and “ballot de fusils” imported into the Congo State has to enter the custom-house of Boma or Matadi, where it can only be withdrawn by authority.

Its subsequent transport to the interior is effected often by direct Government carriage, and always under Government control and supervision.

The Government of the Congo State, in concluding these preliminary “Notes” on Mr. Casement’s Report, formulate a complaint as to the manner in which he proceeded in investigating native statements brought to his notice.

This complaint has application to the one case of the boy Epondo, and to that case alone.

In no other instance did he attempt to interrogate, “comme par voie d’autorité,” any of the many natives whose homes he visited during his journey. In that one case it may be urged that, however unusual were the proceedings, it was clearly his duty not to turn a deaf ear to the appeal the people of Bosunguma addressed to him.

Whether they spoke truly or falsely in accusing the sentry of the act of mutilation, he had no option but to seek to arrive at the truth if he wished his intervention with the local authorities to have any effect.

Had he contented himself with merely listening to and reporting the accusation the natives of Bosunguma brought to him at Bonginda, the officials at Coquilhatville would have said he had formulated a grave charge against an individual on mere native report, without having taken the trouble to satisfy himself of its truth.

He could not, clearly, leave the mutilated boy in the town, where his assailant was represented as terrorizing the inhabitants.

It was his obvious duty to go to the spot, to see with his own eyes what truth lay in the report brought to him at Bonginda.

Once in Bosunguma, the only way to arrive at anything like the truth was to see the accusers and the accused face to face and to hear what each said.

He distinctly disclaimed any right of intervention or power to help; but if he was going to report the charge made against the sentry, and to ask for investigation, it was clearly necessary that he should first find out whether there was good ground for addressing the local authorities.

With regard to the question of mutilation, His Majesty’s Government note with interest that the Congo Government are aware that Mr. Casement is not alone in his opinion that such atrocities occur (§ 5, p. 5, of “Notes”) (§ 5, p. 4, supra).

The accusation as to “forced labour on the roads and restrictions which practically amount to slavery in Fiji” are due to an imperfect understanding of the communal system under which land is held there.

Individual land ownership does not exist, and the members of each commune have to perform their share of the necessary work, whatever it may be.

There is also the custom of “lala,” under which the local Chiefs are entitled to extract a certain number of days’ work from their commoners for the purpose of planting their gardens, building their houses, &c.

The Chiefs are bound to feed the workers so employed, and it is nothing more than a contribution towards their maintenance, paid by the commoners in work instead of taxes.

Instances have, no doubt, occurred in which these rights have been abused, but every effort is made to prevent them.

The whole system has been in force for centuries, and when His Majesty’s Government took over the islands it was thought expedient to continue it. It is understood by the natives, and is eminently suited to the needs of a primitive and half savage race.

The allegation as to the flogging of natives is, doubtless, an allusion to a case which occurred in 1902, of which the facts are briefly as follows:—

A native was arrested for two cases of indecent assault upon European women. He was tried according to native custom by the Commissioner and Chiefs of the island to which he belonged, having first been given his choice of being tried in this way or being referred to the Supreme Court. He pleaded guilty to one assault, and there was strong evidence against him in the other case. He was, accordingly, sentenced to be flogged.

Although for various reasons this summary procedure was advantageous, the case should properly have been referred to the Supreme Court. The Commissioner was, therefore, severely censured for his action.

The statement that the natives are constantly subject to imprisonment for frivolous causes is not borne out by any evidence in the possession of His Majesty’s Government.

AFRICA. No. 7 (1904). Further Correspondence respecting the Administration of the Independent State of the Congo. [In continuation of “Africa No. 1 (1904).”]

Presented to both Houses of Parliament by His Majesty’s Command. March 1904.

LONDON: PRINTED BY HARRISON AND SONS

AFRICA. No. 14 (1903). DESPATCH TO CERTAIN OF HIS MAJESTY’S REPRESENTATIVES ABROAD IN REGARD TO ALLEGED CASES OF ILL-TREATMENT OF NATIVES AND TO THE EXISTENCE OF TRADE MONOPOLIES IN THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF THE CONGO.

Presented to both Houses of Parliament by His Majesty’s Command. October 1903.

LONDON: PRINTED FOR HIS MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE, BY HARRISON AND SONS, ST. MARTIN’S LANE, PRINTERS IN ORDINARY TO HIS MAJESTY. ——— And to be purchased, either directly or through any Bookseller, from EYRE and SPOTTISWOODE, East Harding Street, Fleet Street, E.C., and 32, Abingdon Street, Westminster, S.W.; or OLIVER and BOYD, Edinburgh; or E. PONSONBY, 116, Grafton Street, Dublin.

[Cd. 1809.] Price 1d.