Aftenposten
- The Shipowners’ Association’s ship-mortgage institute to start with 8 million in capital.
- Not even that!
- The question.
Aftenposten’s 29 September 1926 page reported shipowners’ debates over disputed funds, their association’s activities and organization, and a new ship-mortgage institute, alongside possible assistance for seamen’s widows. An editorial attacked labour-party leaders over access to Aker’s schools and responsibility for building premises, housing and employment. Parish pastor Marcus Gjessing approached the coming prohibition referendum from another direction, arguing that supporters and opponents could share the goal of a temperate people while disagreeing over the means.
Translation
The Shipowners’ Association’s ship-mortgage institute to start with 8 million in capital.
[?] The Shipowners’ Association’s ship-mortgage institute is to start with 8 million in capital.
It will begin operating around the turn of the year.
Lively debate on internal affairs at the Shipowners’ Association’s general meeting.
The Norwegian Shipowners’ Association continued its general meeting yesterday afternoon with consideration of the accounts and report. This brought about quite a heated discussion of internal affairs. The accounts were approved by 66 votes to 34. The 34 voted against them to indicate that they disagreed with the disposal of the so-called “million pounds”. They maintain that it should be distributed to the companies. Legal proceedings have been brought over the matter. There was also an hour-long debate concerning the Association’s activities and organization, and the inquiry undertaken in response to criticism raised at the previous general meeting by shipowner Kristofer Olsen. Mr Kristofer Olsen repeated his criticism, strongly criticizing participation in international maritime conferences and especially the bureau in Geneva. Shipowner Gunnar Knudsen proposed that Kristofer Olsen’s criticism should occasion no action by the general meeting. After some debate over the appropriateness of such a proposal, with the argument being made that the question should be circulated among the districts for their views, it was put to a vote. There were 59 votes in favour, the opposition abstaining. The 59 represented 914,000 gross tons. The opposition emphasized that it had not intended to bring about a motion of no confidence in the central board.
The Seamen’s Fund—grants to widows?
During consideration of the report on the Seamen’s Fund, Gunnar Knudsen raised the question of whether grants might also be made available to seamen’s widows, particularly those left with children. It was stated that 1,500 applications for assistance had been received last year, as well as 70 petitions from widows. Minister Lehmkuhl and the president stated that the matter had been considered by the central board, and that the intention had been to meet this wish by drawing on the money set aside for a seamen’s home in Buenos Aires. That money, however, was not yet available, since it was held in blocked deposits.
The ship-mortgage institute.
As will be remembered, consideration of how to dispose of the war-insurance scheme’s remaining surplus ended with the adoption of a compromise proposal. Under it, a ship-mortgage institute is to be established, with its share capital distributed among the shipping companies in proportion to the premiums they paid into the war-insurance scheme. Preparatory work on the matter has been entrusted to a committee consisting of the shipowners Paust, Odfjell, Holta, Dahl-Hansen and Wrangell. This co— (Continued on page 2.) [?]
Not even that!
41 Karl Johans gate 41
Not even that!
The Communists—both Tranmæl’s and Moscow’s—are furious that Aker’s municipal council has decided that elementary-school premises may not be rented out to political associations or clubs. Naturally, this applies to associations of every party.
Anyone who understands the work and purpose of schools will approve of this.
The leaderships of the “workers’ parties” say that they have a particular need for premises, including for evening schools and courses.
One must therefore ask:
Why on earth have they not built premises to meet this need?
The Communist parties’ leaderships rage against Oslo municipality because it now finds itself obliged to reduce expenditure on housing construction, after allocating 184.6 million kroner for this purpose over the past 14 years.
The municipality and its taxpayers cannot bear to go on like this.
The Communist parties’ leaderships have been asked:
Why do you not use a substantial part of the enormous sums flowing into your party coffers for building projects, as workers’ associations do on such a large scale in Denmark, for example?
This would also be a considerable help against unemployment in the building trades.
How carefully the Communist parties’ leaderships ensure that none of the enormous funds they administer is used for practical measures against unemployment is amply demonstrated by their unwillingness even to set aside what is needed to build premises for their own organizations in a large municipality such as Aker, for the meetings, evening schools and courses they say are so urgently needed.
So, not even that.
Instead, they want to force their way into elementary-school premises as tenants.
In the face of unemployment, the Communist parties’ leaderships, administering millions, will do nothing but declaim and agitate, making demands on financially overburdened municipalities and taxpayers.
The enormous sums the leaderships collect from their parties are to be used exclusively to sustain strikes that promote unemployment on a scale unparalleled in any other country, and to support the party organization’s officials—for travel, daily allowances, and so on and so forth.
Even such a relatively small and straightforward undertaking as building a meeting hall of their own in Aker for the parties’ members, which would at the same time have provided employment for some unemployed building workers—even that has been rejected.
Not even that. [?]
The question.
[?] The question.
By parish pastor Marcus Gjessing.
I.
It might seem that the forthcoming prohibition referendum really concerns one question, and one question alone: are we to have spirits, or are they to be denied us? For those of us who oppose prohibition, at any rate, that is not the question at all. And probably not for the prohibitionists either. The situation is presumably that those whose concern is spirits are divided between the two camps. Some stand with the supporters of prohibition: they want their liquor (spirits) at any price, and they personally benefit from prohibition. Others stand with the opponents of prohibition: they want to obtain their spirits legally.
But for those of us who oppose prohibition in deep earnest, spirits or no spirits is, in itself, of no importance whatsoever. Entirely different and far greater things are at stake.
What do the prohibitionists want? A temperate people.
What do the rest of us want? A temperate people.
What divides us? Not the goal, but the means.
We all want a temperate people because we want our Norwegian people to be a strong people—a healthy people—a people with clear bodily senses and an unclouded spiritual eye—a hardworking people—a people of peace—a spiritually free people, who are not slaves to appetite and desire, but who in freedom are [?] — — —
Context
Turning insurance surpluses into collective shipping finance
The proposed institute offered a way to preserve money for collective shipping finance while recognizing individual companies’ contributions: the reported compromise allocated shares according to war-insurance premiums paid. The insurance association’s historical account records an eventual distribution of 13.3 million kroner from a remaining surplus of 16.5 million through shares and bearer bonds in Norges Skibshypotek AS. This helps explain the institutional stakes of the proposal. The newspaper also reports a dispute over the “million pounds”, with opponents demanding distribution to companies and legal proceedings already under way; the excerpt does not identify that sum as identical to the institute’s capital. Its voting figures reveal different forms of dissent: 34 voted against the accounts, whereas opponents abstained on the motion taking no action over Olsen’s criticism. Their express rejection of a no-confidence initiative shows an effort to challenge financial and organizational decisions without formally withdrawing confidence from the central board.
School premises, housing costs and the divided labour movement
The editorial joins two municipal disputes into an argument about who should pay: Aker’s reported restriction on political use of schools and Oslo’s reported reduction of housing expenditure. Municipal housing investment already had substantial precedents; Oslo’s city archive records allocations of 75 million kroner for municipal and municipally supported construction in 1911–1920. The editorial’s 184.6 million over 14 years covers a different period and supports its argument that taxpayers were overburdened. Its party terminology also carries an argument. Labour had broken with the Communist International in 1923, prompting the formation of Norway’s Communist Party, although Labour still regarded itself as revolutionary. Calling both Tranmæl’s and Moscow’s followers “Communists” therefore groups separate political organizations together. The demand that they build their own halls turns access to educational and meeting space into a test of party self-financing and responsibility for unemployment.
A pastor’s distinction between temperance and prohibition
The parliamentary record defines the 1926 referendum’s question as whether the existing spirits prohibition should be maintained. Gjessing’s intervention separates that legal choice from the moral goal of temperance. In this passage, he claims the same goal as prohibitionists, while presenting sobriety as part of bodily health, work, peace and spiritual freedom. His distinction between ends and means allows him to oppose the law without endorsing drunkenness; his suggestion that some drinkers profit from prohibition also challenges the identification of support for prohibition with the pursuit of temperance. Clerical opinion was divided: later in the campaign, an October appeal supporting prohibition gathered 177 clergy signatures in response to an opposing appeal signed by 61. Those rival appeals establish a broader clerical dispute, while the particular argument about shared aims and spiritual freedom belongs here to Gjessing.
Original
Rederforbundets skibshypotekinstitut startes med 8 millioner i kapital.
[?] Rederforbundets skibshypotekinstitut startes med 8 millioner i kapital. Det vil træ i virksomhet omkring aarsskiftet. Livlig debat om indre anliggender paa rederforbundets generalmøte. Norges Rederforbund fortsatte sit generalmøte igaar eftermiddag med behandling av regnskap og beretning. Det kom herunder til en ganske varm diskussion om indre anliggender. Regnskapet blev vedtat med 66 mot 34 stemmer. De 34 stemte imot for at tilkjendegi, at de ikke var enig i disponeringen av den saakaldte» pund-million «. De hævder, at den skal utdeles til selskapene. Der er anlagt proces i den anledning. Videre knyttet der sig en timelang debat til spørsmaalet om Rederforbundets virksomhet og organisation, og den utredning, som var foretat i anledning av en kritik, som blev reist paa forrige generalmøte av skibsreder Kristofer Olsen. Hr. Kristofer Olsen gjentok sin kritik og kritiserte herunder sterkt deltagelsen i de internationale sjøfartskonferanser og særlig byraaet i Genf. Skibsreder Gunnar Knudsen fremsatte forslag om, at Kristofer Olsens kritik ikke gir anledning til nogen forføining fra generalmøtets side. Efter endel debat om betimeligheten av et saadant forslag, idet det blev hævdet, at spørsmaalet burde sendes rundt til uttalelse i kredsene, blev det sat under avstemning. 59 stemte for, idet oppositionen avholdt sig fra at stemme. De 59 repræsenterte 914, 000 ton brutto. Det blev fremholdt fra oppositionens side, at det ikke var meningen at foranledige noget mistillidsforslag overfor centralstyret. Sjømandsfondet - utdeling til enker? Under behandling av beretningen om sjømandsfondet optok Gunnar Knudsen spørsmaalet om man ikke kunde aapne adgang til at yde bidrag ogsaa til sjømandsenker, særlig da de, som sitter igjen med barn. Det blev oplyst, at der ifjor var kommet ind 1500 ansøkninger om bidrag og desuten 70 andragender fra enker. Statsraad Lehmkuhl og præsidenten oplyste, at saken hadde været oppe i centralstyret og at man hadde tænkt at imøtekomme ønsket ved at ta midlene fra de penger, som var avsat til sjømandshjem i Buenos Aires, penger, som imidlertid ikke var disponible endnu, da de eksisterte i form av sperrede indskud. Skibshypotekinstituttet. Som man vil huske endte behandlingen av spørsmaalet om disponering av krigsforsikringens restoverskud med vedtagelse av et kompromisforslag, hvorefter der oprettes et skibshypotekinstitut, hvis aktiekapital fordeles paa rederiene efter indbetalt præmie til krigsforsikringen. Sakens forberedelse har været overlatt en komité, bestaaende av skibsrederne Paust, Odfjell, Holta, DahlHansen og Wrangell. Denne ko - (Forts. 2den side). [?]
Ikke engang det!
41 Karl Johansgt. 41 Ikke engang det! Kommunistene - baade Tranmæls og Moskvas - er rasende over, at Akers herredsstyre har besluttet, at folkeskolens lokaler ikke maa bortleies til politiske foreninger eller klubber, - selvfølgelig gjælder dette alle partiers foreninger. Enhver med forstaaelse av skolens gjerning og opgave vil billige dette. «Arbeiderpartienes» ledelser sier, at de i særlig grad trænger lokaler, bl. a. til aftenskoler og kurser. Der maa da spørres: Hvorfor ialverden har de ikke bygget for dette sit behov? Kommunistpartiernes ledelser raser mot Oslo kommune, fordi kommunen nu ser sig nødt til at indskrænke utgiftene til boligbygning, efter at ha bevilget til dette formaal 184, 6 millioner kroner i de siste 14 aar. Kommunen og dens skatydere orker ikke at fortsætte saadan. Der er stillet det spørsmaal til kommunistpartiernes ledelser: Hvorfor bruker I ikke en betraktelig del av de svære summer, som indkommer i partikassene, til byggeforetagender, - saadan som arbeidersammenslutninger f. eks. i Danmark gjør i saa stor maalestok. Det vilde bli en god hjælp ogsaa mot arbeidsløsheten i byggefagene. Hvor omhyggelig kommunistpartiernes ledelser passer paa, at ikke noget av de svære pengemidler, de forvalter, brukes til praktiske foranstaltninger mot arbeidsløsheten, - derom vidner noksom, at de ikke engang har villet avse det fornødne til at bygge sine egne organisationer lokaler i en storkommune som Aker, til de møter, aftenskoler og kurser, som de sier er saa paakrævet. Ikke engang det, altsaa. Isteden vil man tvinge sig ind som leieboere i folkeskolens lokaler. Likeoverfor arbeidsløsheten vil kommunistpartienes million-forvaltende ledelser bare deklamere og agitere med krav til økonomisk overbebyrdede kommuner og skatydere. De svære summer, ledelsene indkasserer fra sine partier, skal utelukkende brukes til at underholde streiker til arbeidsløshetens fremme i et overmaal, som der ikke findes sidestykke til i noget andet land, samt til underhold av partiorganisationens funktionærer, - til reiser, diæter osv., osv. Selv en saa forholdsvis liten og nærliggende ting som at bygge eget forsamlingshus i Aker for partienes medlemmer, hvad der samtidig vilde ha skaffet sysselsættelse for endel arbeidsledige bygningsarbeidere, - selv det er avvist. Ikke engang det. [?]
Spørsmaalet.
[?] Spørsmaalet. Av sogneprest Marcus Gjessing. I. Det kunde se ut som om det ved den forestaaende forbudsavstemning egentlig - og alene - gjælder spørsmaalet: skal vi faa brændevin, eller skal det nektes. For os som er imot forbudet er ialfald spørsmaalet slet ikke det. Og neppe for forbudsfolket heller. Stillingen er vel den, at de, for hvem det er brændevin om at gjøre, er fordelt mellem begge leire. De staar dels paa forbudsvennenes side: de vil for enhver pris ha sit brændevin (sprit), og de har sin personlige fordel av forbudet - dels paa forbudsmotstandernes side: de vil ha sit brændevin paa lovlig vis. Men for os, som i dypt alvor staar forbudet imot, spiller brændevin eller ikke brændevin i sig selv ikke nogensomhelst rolle. Det er helt andre og anderledes store ting det gjælder. Hvad vil forbudsfolket? Et ædruelig folk. Hvad vil vi andre? Et ædruelig folk. Hvad skiller os ad? Ikke maalet, men midlene. Vi vil alle et ædruelig folk, fordi vi vil at vort norske folk skal være et sterkt folk - et sundt folk - et folk med klare legemlige sanser og med ufordunklet aandelig øie - - et arbeidsomt folk - et fredens folk - et aandelig frit folk, som ikke er slaver under lyst og begjær, men som i frihet er ert - - - "