Aftenposten
- The shipowners’ general meeting.
- “The royal spirits trade.”
- Western Norwegian police chiefs on the effects of prohibition.
Aftenposten’s 28 September 1926 issue presents a shipping industry regaining confidence as coal transport and the grain season lift demand for ships, while Norwegian shipyards face dwindling work. An editorial challenges the claim that royal licensing would preserve spirits sales indefinitely after repeal, arguing that local opposition strong enough to close every outlet would bring renewed national prohibition. A Bergen police report describes quieter professional smuggling but continuing small sales by merchant sailors to regular customers.
Translation
The shipowners’ general meeting.
[?] Today the country’s shipowners gather in Oslo for their annual general meeting. They do so under less gloomy, clearer circumstances than a year ago. We were then still in the midst of all the uncertainty caused by the appreciation of the krone, and did not know how the situation it had created would turn out. Conditions abroad, too, offered little encouragement. Freight rates, already low, seemed likely to fall further, and the spectre of laying up ships appeared even to the greatest optimists. The situation could indeed seem bewildering to the most level-headed and cautious shipowner. According to The Economist’s index, freight rates in June last year were down to 91.74 percent of the average for 1913. They rose a little during the autumn, as they usually do, but in November, when the association’s general meeting was held, the available index figure had reached no higher than 99.49. Gross freight earnings in pounds and dollars were thus no higher than before the war, while appreciation of the krone had reduced the value of the same amount in kroner by 25 percent compared with the previous year. The new year—1926—also brought fresh disappointments over freight rates. It emerged that the “bottom” had still not been reached. Rates were to fall all the way to 83 percent of the pre-war level, which was where they stood when the coal strike in England broke out in May. But then they began to rise. The coal strike created an exceptional demand for additional shipping tonnage to carry coal from America. This also affected freight rates in other trades. The entire level of freight rates was pulled upwards. In August The Economist recorded 105.53 percent of the 1913 level, or a full 25 percent rise since May. At the same time, the grain-shipping season arrived with growing demands for tonnage. As regards grain transport, the situation is considerably more favourable for shipping than last year. There was more activity, and confidence began to grow again.
Those are the conditions offered by the world market. Then there are conditions at home. These, too, look better. We have regained control of our currency. Although we have not reached our goal, we have gained a breathing space. In other respects, too, conditions are calmer, more normal. This applies to the discount rate, no insignificant factor in shipping companies’ operating budgets, and to crewing conditions. In the rebuilding of our fleet, too, 1926 may mark a turning point. We have finished the great wave of ordering and entered a quieter period, in which the pace and the figures are less conspicuous. On 1 January, a total of 180,000 gross tons was on order; by 1 July the figure had fallen to 138,000, and by 1 September to 135,000, where it remains today. Some of this tonnage is tanker tonnage, and the overwhelming majority is motor-ship tonnage. We are keeping pace with developments. Our fleet is now of a standard never previously attained. Our merchant fleet has been called our economy’s sheet anchor. If it can now enjoy favourable external conditions, it will surely demonstrate what a valuable asset the country possesses in its modern merchant fleet, led by alert and experienced shipowners. The fleet’s competitiveness in technical matters, seamanship and business is sound. This was demonstrated, among other things, during the latest depression in the freight market, when our ships managed to keep operating despite the heavy additional burden imposed by the appreciation of the krone.
But there is another area in which, unfortunately, no improvement is yet in sight. That is our shipbuilding industry. We shall let the figures speak. On 1 January, 25 ships totalling 15,000 gross tons were under construction at Norwegian yards; on 1 July, 18 ships and 6,700 tons; and today, 13 ships totalling 4,500 tons. In other words, our slipways today are practically empty. What is being built consists mainly of whale-catching vessels. [?]
“The royal spirits trade.”
Spirits trade.” Folket states that we shall always have a spirits trade in Norway—at least in one town—under royal licence, if spirits prohibition is repealed and the Berge government’s bill takes its place.
Yet this “royal spirits trade” is—as Folket above all ought to know—of purely theoretical interest.
It presupposes that local votes result in no municipality granting a licence to sell spirits, not even Oslo. If we reach that point, then, and only then, may a royal licence be granted to conduct a spirits trade in a single town.
But how long would such a royal blessing last?
For ever, Folket answers without blinking, thereby showing an astonishing lack of faith in itself and its own followers. — —
In Oslo, the last referendum produced 70,728 votes against prohibition and only 18,835 in favour. Hopefully the margin against prohibition will be even greater this time. —
But follow the thought through: suppose prohibition is now repealed, yet a later local vote in Oslo for or against a spirits sales company produces a majority against such a company. In other words, a majority for prohibition. What an extraordinary change of opinion would then have taken place in this city, and what an enormous majority for prohibition one could expect across the country as a whole! A majority against spirits sales companies in every town in the country—even Oslo!
Then, and only then, would the time have come for spirits trading under royal licence. But does anyone—does Folket above all—believe that under those circumstances such trading would amount to anything more than a provision on paper?
We would have to know Folket very poorly to imagine that it would not, in that event, demand statutory prohibition, and we would utterly underestimate the Storting’s responsiveness in this area to suppose that it would not enact a new prohibition law. The law we have now was certainly enacted on a far flimsier foundation than would have been laid by a majority for prohibition in the city of Oslo. [?]
Western Norwegian police chiefs on the effects of prohibition.
[?] Bergen, 27 September.
The Bergen police chief’s reply to the Ministry of Justice’s circular on sobriety states, among other things:
One has the impression that the illegal importation of intoxicating liquor by professional smugglers has declined considerably, and that things have been quiet particularly in 1926. On the other hand, by all appearances, there is a considerable trade in spirits brought home in small quantities at a time by merchant-fleet crews. It is said that they sell their goods to regular customers. That is presumably why prosecution occurs only very exceptionally. [?]
Context
Why recovering freight earnings did not fill Norwegian shipyards
The article distinguishes demand for operating ships from demand for building them. It attributes the freight recovery to American coal shipments during the British coal strike and to seasonal grain traffic; it also says the large ordering wave had ended. These mechanisms explain how existing ships could find more profitable employment while domestic slipways emptied. Currency appreciation added a separate pressure: unchanged earnings in pounds or dollars converted into fewer kroner. A currency consortium bought foreign exchange and sold kroner to restrain appreciation, initially helping stabilize the exchange rate. Norges Bank’s history explains that renewed pressure during autumn 1926 subsequently brought a sharp strengthening through the winter. This places the paper’s September claim of a breathing space within a temporary respite. Modernization was also part of a wider technological shift: a parliamentary answer on 30 November 1926, citing Lloyd’s Register, reported worldwide motor-ship tonnage, including auxiliary screw vessels, rising from 752,606 gross tons in July 1919 to 3,493,284 in July 1926, mainly through new construction. Fleet modernization and domestic shipyard employment were therefore different measures of maritime recovery: the article praises the technical and commercial strength of Norwegian shipping while documenting the contraction of construction at Norwegian yards.
Local vetoes, royal permission and Parliament’s legislative power
In the editorial’s account of the Berge proposal, local voting came first: royal permission to sell spirits in one town became possible only if every municipality refused ordinary licensing. The paper treats this as a reserve power and argues that the political conditions needed to activate it would themselves produce a new prohibition law in the Storting. Its argument depends on Parliament responding to a transformed electorate; local votes would not themselves enact national prohibition. Local voting already had an established institutional role: the 1894 law made referendums determine which towns could have spirits sales companies, and the number of towns with such companies fell from 51 in 1894 to 13 in 1913, according to NOU 1995:24. National repeal, meanwhile, remained a parliamentary issue: Berge had made it a confidence question in 1924 and lost. As Store norske leksikon records, after this article appeared, the October 1926 referendum favoured repeal, which followed formally in 1927. The editorial thus addresses the interaction of local licensing, national public opinion and Parliament’s legislative authority at a moment when the future of prohibition was again being contested.
Why quieter professional smuggling did not mean the illicit market had vanished
The Bergen police chief describes a change in the apparent channels of supply: professional smuggling seemed much reduced, while merchant sailors reportedly brought home small quantities for established customers. His explanation for rare prosecutions is the regular-customer relationship, and he explicitly presents it as a supposition. The report suggests how reduced visible activity by professional smugglers could coexist with a dispersed trade that seldom reached the courts; prosecution totals alone would consequently give an incomplete picture of the trade he describes. Home distillation belonged to the broader prohibition economy as another source of alcohol. The later official report NOU 1988:17 identifies smuggling, home distillation, substitutes and increased beer and wine consumption as factors that led more people to question prohibition as an instrument of alcohol policy. That retrospective account explains the national stakes of inquiries into sobriety: changing supply routes could undermine confidence in prohibition even when one conspicuous form of illegal trade appeared to be declining.
Original
Redernes generalmøte.
[?] Idag samles landets redere i Oslo til det aarlige generalmøte. Det sker under mindre mørke, mer avklarede forhold end for et aar siden. Vi befandt os da endnu midt oppe i al usikkerheten, som kronestigningen hadde forvoldt, og visste ikke, hvad utgangen paa den derved skapte situation skulde bli. Men ogsaa forholdene ute var lite opmuntrende. Fraktene, som i forveien laa paa et lavnivaa, syntes at skulle svikte yderligere, og oplægningsspøkelset viste sig for de mest optimistiske. Situationen kunde i sandhet forekomme den mest besindige og forsiktige reder broget. Fraktnivaaet var i juni ifjor efter» Economist «s indeks nede paa 91. 74 procent av gjennemsnittet for 1913. Det steg litt utover høsten, som det pleier, men i november, da forbundets generalmøte holdtes, var det foreliggende indekstal ikke naad høiere end 99. 49. Bruttofraktindtækten i pund og dollar var altsaa ikke høiere end før krigen og dertil var det samme beløp i kroner ved kronestigningen redusert med 25 procent fra aaret i forveien. Det nye aar - 1926 - medførte ogsaa nye skuffelser med hensyn til fraktene. Det viste sig, at» bunden «nok endnu ikke var naad. Man skulde helt ned i 83 procent av nivaaet før krigen, som var stillingen, da kulstreiken i England brøt ut i mai. Men saa bar det opover. Kulstreiken skapte et ekstraordinært behov for større tonnage til kultransport fra Amerika. Det virket ogsaa paa fraktene i andre trades. Hele fraktnivaaet blev trukket opover. I august registrerte» Economist «105. 53 procent av 1913-nivaaet, eller hele 25 procents stigning siden mai. Samtidig meldte kornskibningssæsongen sig med økende krav paa tonnage. Situationen ligger, med hensyn til korntransporten, adskillig gunstigere an for skibsfarten end ifjor. Der var mer liv, og motet vokste igjen. Det var de forhold, verdensmarkedet byr. Saa er det forholdene hjemme. De fortoner sig ogsaa bedre. Vi har herredømme over vor valuta igjen. Selv om vi ikke er ved maalet, har vi faat et pust i bakken. Og ogsaa paa andre maater er forholdene roligere, mer normale. Det gjælder diskontoen, en ikke uvæsentlig faktor i rederinæringens driftsbudget, og det gjælder mandskapsforholdene. Ogsaa med hensyn til gjenopbygningen av vor flaate tør 1926 danne skille. Vi er færdig med stor-kontraheringen og er kommet ind i en roligere periode, hvor tempoet og tallene er mindre iøinefaldende. Pr. 1ste januar var der ialt kontrahert 180, 000 ton brutto, pr. 1ste juli var tallet sunket til 138, 000 og pr. 1ste september til 135, 000, hvad det er ogsaa idag. Endel av denne tonnage er tanktonnage og den alt overveiende del motorskibtonnage. Vi følger med i utviklingen. Vor flaate har nu en standard som aldrig før. Vor handelsflaate er blit kaldt vor økonomis nødanker. Faar den ogsaa nu bare gunstige ydre vilkaar, vil den sikkert ogsaa vise, hvilket værdifuldt aktivum landet har i sin moderne handelsflaate, ledet av en vaaken og erfaren rederstand. Flaatens konkurranseevne, hvad det tekniske, sjømandsmæssige og forretningsmæssige angaar, er i orden. Det er blandt andet bevist under den siste depression paa fraktmarkedet, da vore skiber klarte at holde det gaaende trods kronestigningens svære ekstrabyrde. Men det er et andet forhold, hvor der desværre endnu ikke øines nogen lysning. Og det er vor skibsbygningsindustri. Vi skal la tallene tale. Pr. 1ste januar var under bygning ved norske verksteder 25 skiber paa tilsammen 15, 000 ton brutto, pr. 1ste juli 18 skiber og 6700 ton og idag 13 skiber paa tilsammen 4500 ton. Det vil si, at vore beddinger idag praktisk talt staar tomme. Det, som bygges, er væsentlig hvalfangerskiber. [?]
"Den kgl. brændevinshandel."
vinshandel. "» Folket «konstaterer, at vi altid vil faa brændevinshandel i Norge - ialfald i en by - ved kgl. bevilling, hvis brændevinsforbudet blir ophævet og ministeriet Berges proposition blir sat istedet. Denne» Kgl. brændevinshandel «har dog - hvad» Folket «først og fremst burde vite - en blot og bar teoretisk interesse. Den forutsætter nemlig, at der ved de lokale avstemninger ikke gives bevilling til brændevinshandel i nogen kommune, selv ikke i Oslo. Kommer vi dithen da er det, men ogsaa først da, at der kan gives kgl. bevilling til at drive brændevinshandel i en enkelt by. Men hvor længe vilde en slik kgl. herlighet vare? Altid, svarer» Folket «uten at blunke, men underkjender ogsaa da sig selv og sine pappenheimere i en utrolig grad. - - I Oslo blev der ved forrige folkeavstemning avgit 70, 728 stemmer mot forbud og bare 18, 835 for. Forhaabentlig blir differansen i forbudets disfavør denne gang endnu større. - Men tænk saa den tanke tilende, at forbudet nu ophæves, men at der ved en senere lokal avstemning i Oslo for eller imot brændevinssamlag skulde vise sig et flertal mot samlag. Altsaa et flertal for forbud. Hvor maatte da ikke opfatningene ha undergaat en merkværdig forandring i denne by, og hvilket vældig forbudsflertal vi'de man ikke da kunne regne med, landet tat under et? Flertal mot samlag i alle landets byer - ogsaa i Oslo! Da, men ogsaa først da, var altsaa turen kommet til brændevinshandelen git ved kgl. bevilling, men tror nogen - tror» Folket «først og fremst - at en slik handel under de forhold vilde bli andet end en papirbestemmelse? Vi skulde kjende» Folket «meget daarlig om det ikke i det tilfælde vilde forlange lovfæstet forbud, og vi skulde helt undervurdere Stortingets lydhørhet paa dette omraade om det ikke gav en ny forbudslov. Den vi nu har er sandelig git paa et ganske anderledes skrøpelig grundlag end det som vilde være lagt ved et forbudsflertal i Oslo by. [?]
Vestlandspolitimestere om forbudets følger.
[?] Bergen, 27de september. I Bergens politimesters svar paa Justisdepartementets rundskrivelse om ædrueligheten heter det bl. a.: Man har det indtryk, at den ulovlige indførsel av rusdrik, som utøves av professionelle smuglere, er avtat meget og at det specielt i 1926 har været rolig. Derimot foregaar der, efter alt at dømme, ikke liten omsætning av brændevin, som i mindre portioner ad gangen hjemføres av mandskaper ved handelsflaaten. Det fortælles, at disse omsætter sine varer til faste kunder. Det er formodentlig grunden til, at det bare rent undtagelsesvis blir gjenstand for straffeforfølgning. [?]