"ORGANISED PIRACY "

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1650, 17 January 1913, Page 6

"ORGANISED PIRACY "

BRITISH DIRECTORS' RESPONSI- ; ~./., BILITY. . Somo evidence bearing on the responßf- '■'. bilitics of the English directors of the v Putumayo Rubber Co. for tho atrocities, committed by their agents was given, by v : Sir' Roger Casement; British Consul- ..; General at Rio do Janeiro, before th* Committeo of Inquiry on' November H. , ,;' The chairman, Mr. Charles Roberts, in' tho. course of his examination, addeH: Tht,-, Foreign'-.Officeview, based on your; re" port.is that tho firm of Arana Brothers ■ was really responsible for tho.organisa-', tion of tho system of rubber' Collection ■ from,which theso crimes flowed? 1 -! pre- V Sumo, (replied Sir ROger) 'that is .the' - ; Foreign Office opinion; it certainly is my.' ■■' ; opinion. ,-'.!■ .. ;.'■• ',■'■■ ■ ■ :-,!. '■; ;'r ■'• That the. partners in the firm of Arana'' Brothers' aro .really' responsible?—l think ', aro oriminally responsible.' v.'... ... Do you suggest criminally : responsible by British,,}aw-,or by/Peruvian.Jaw?—l do notiiknbw.inbout Uritisli'lawi;but by Peruvian law ■ I should eay thoy would, bo responsible. ...... My belief that thoy are criminally to- , sponsdblo (Sir Roger continued)' is found-.' ed on many'circumstances which camo to'', [ my knowlcdgo in the course of. my..in* ':.' quiry. Tho^, system .that'existed at tho ' time. I was in Putumayo I have no,hesitation in saying was. a criminal system.,; ; It did not grow up by chance,, or by, orror,,or by'neglcct; but, I think, it was' deliberately designed. The Peruviandirectors wcro.Jn my opinion, quit© cognisant , of. tho. state of things on'- tho ', " Putumayo, Mr. Arana, tho senior bro-' thor, had visited Putumayo in 1908, after tho formation of the British company, and on previous occasions. l A scries of ■ raids, had been carried out by the agents of tho company upon Colombian estab-'.i lishraehts on ono Of tho tributaries of tho ■'. Putumayo. Two of thoso raids resulted in v tho niasisacro of a large number of Coloni*. bian settlers, many of them quite civilised mon. They wero murdered,. their houses were seized, and their property was.confiscated. . ..■.'■' / .. ,; Do you think that system was known to the Peruvian directors?—lt must have, been. The orders.for tho raids into the , country wore issued by the chief agent. It was not; a; mere-case .of' isolated ' crimes.by nianagers?—lt.was a highlyorganised system to.get rubber, and tho' crimes i wero'part of tho' system, .' You; don't think tho. essence' of the , . system was the paymentof commission on the rubber collected?—l.think tho essence., of ' tho system was-l.forco and. tcrr ( or—to ( •■''. torroriso the wild tribes into doing.anything theso individuals asked from them. Then tho conclusion is that two of tho . directors who habitually sat with tho. London board as a matter of fact knew of: these-criminal methods, knew that, their firm was using, British subjects .for the purposo of murder?—lhavo no doubt about it.'. ;-■■ .■ . '

It by no moans follows from that; that the kuowledgo was communicated to tho, /British directors?— No. '■".,'. But tho knowledge was in tho London office 'when , these two gentlemen wcro there?— Yes. ' Did you find there,was any supervision by the London board?— None; no trace of effective supervision'... The directors in fact did not direct?— No. '.:.-.•'■ ' -.••■. .', , ' '.■.:■'.

T<S Mr. Douglas Hall:, Ho .would not liko to «ay it; wm extraordinary.,that the British: directors did not know of tho atrocities. , The whole' po&itibu was ,eo extraordinary. . :He -fold th* directors frankly that they did not Sit tboro as a board of directors of a commercial, enterprise, but ns directors of an organised piracy. I think they were'very sorry and very much ashamed of what • had taken.place. ... ,