Aftenposten
- Private-capitalist?
- Vote prohibition down on 18 October!
- State operation has in places increased the telephone fee in Fredrikshald 7-fold.
Ahead of Norway's 18 October 1926 referendum on the spirits ban, this Aftenposten page campaigned openly for a 'no' vote. An editorial accused the leaders of the labour parties of keeping up pro-prohibition agitation against their own members' indifference, and mocked their claim that defending the ban was a fight against private capitalism; it also pointed to unemployment and a 9 million kroner shortfall in State Railways revenue. An appeal signed by nationally known figures, among them Roald Amundsen, argued that ten years of prohibition had brought smuggling, illicit distilling and contempt for the law without reducing drinking. A report from Fredrikshald described local business groups protesting that telephone fees had risen more than sevenfold in the top class since the State took over from a private company.
Translation
Private-capitalist?
The prohibition agitation that the leaderships of the labour parties keep going bears the mark of this. They know that most of the workers shrug their shoulders. Nevertheless they have to go through with it. Having said A, one must say B. But it shows through that they themselves feel weighed down by the humbug. For want of anything else, this forced agitation has hit upon saying that the fight for "prohibition" means a fight against private capitalism — that, after all, is supposed to fit somehow into the party jargon. But to that the tens of thousands of rank-and-file party comrades among the workers will not merely shrug [?], relieve unemployment and pay in a reasonable way. That may well be needed. That the State Railways' revenues in the last term have fallen short by 9 million kroner gives, alongside so much else, food for thought. • Oh no — the truth is exactly the opposite of what the forced agitation has found it must say — in order to keep up appearances toward the party's small circle of prohibition fanatics. And the workers are not so simple-minded that that sort of excess of sham goes down with them. Nor is that the leadership's intention. The intention is to fulfil pro-
Vote prohibition down on 18 October!
Vote prohibition down on 18 October! An appeal to the voters from a number of nationally known men and women. Ten years of experience have taught us that prohibition does not achieve its aim. Strict control and heavy expenditure have not been able to stop illicit distilling, surrogate drinking and smuggling. If the illegal traffic is stopped in one quarter, it increases at the same time by other routes. People drink just as much as before. Drinking has taken on more dangerous and more scandalous forms. Alcohol consumption and drunkenness offences have not even fallen in step with the economic decline. Prohibition has created thousands of new lawbreakers in this country. Respect for law and justice is being broken down. When we hereby address an appeal to all adult Norwegian women and men to vote prohibition down, we therefore do so in the firm conviction that the work for the sobriety of the people must be rebuilt along new lines. No party-political boundaries apply here. Prominent women and men within all political parties agree that prohibition must go. Vote prohibition down on 18 October! Ivar Aavatsmark. Roald Amundsen. Kristen Andersen.
State operation has in places increased the telephone fee in Fredrikshald 7-fold.
…fee in Fredrikshald. Protest meeting in Fredrikshald. Fredrikshald, 11 October. A number of institutions and associations in Fredrikshald representing the town's commerce, crafts and industry recently held a mass meeting to protest against the increased telephone rates. A committee was unanimously appointed, which today has sent the Telegraph Board a lengthy, reasoned protest. It says, among other things: A few years ago Fredrikshald had a well-run private company with a low annual fee. Since the State took over the telephone it has become considerably more expensive. Even in the lowest class one now gets, under the new rate calculation, a fee more than twice as high as before, while the fee in the highest class becomes more than 7 times as large as before. It further says that there will certainly be mass cancellations if the rates are not revised. If the State cannot operate without constant increases, the only right thing would be to hand the operation over to private hands once again.
Context
How the 18 October 1926 referendum ended
The editorial and the appeal on this page were both aimed at a vote held six days later. The referendum of 18 October 1926 was consultative: it asked voters whether prohibition should continue. The side this page campaigned for won. According to Store norske leksikon, 531,084 voters (55.7 per cent) voted against prohibition and 423,031 for it, and the spirits ban was formally lifted in 1927. The national result was a clear but not crushing defeat for prohibition: more than four in ten voters still backed the ban that the appeal's signatories described as a failure.
A wartime measure entangled in trade policy
The 'ten years of experience' cited by the appeal refer to a policy that began as a wartime emergency measure. Store norske leksikon dates a temporary ban on selling and serving spirits to August 1914, at the outbreak of the First World War, and notes that it was originally justified by the supply situation, with temperance arguments growing stronger as wartime restrictions were eased. A consultative referendum followed in 1919, and the Storting adopted a permanent prohibition law in autumn 1921 by a narrow majority. The ban soon proved to be more a question of trade policy than of social policy; the trade problems kept growing, with rising unrest in the fishing industry, and the ban on fortified wine was lifted in 1923. Foreign pressure also lay behind the 1926 vote itself: the referendum was organised partly because of pressure from France, whose exports of alcoholic beverages had fallen. By the time this page went to print, the prohibition the appeal attacked had already been partly dismantled for commercial reasons.
What the record says about smuggling and drunkenness
The appeal's signatories blamed prohibition for illicit distilling, surrogate drinking, smuggling and thousands of new lawbreakers. Store norske leksikon lists similar consequences. It puts the value of smuggling at an estimated 50–60 million kroner a year, records that one doctor was convicted of writing 48,657 prescriptions for spirits in a single calendar year, and reports that drunkenness offences rose to 18 per 1,000 inhabitants in 1923, against 11–12 in the 1930s and about 9 after the Second World War. These figures bear out the appeal's picture of widespread evasion, while its sweeping claim that people drank 'just as much as before' remains a campaign assertion. The question had already reached the head of government: Prime Minister Abraham Theodor Berge made repeal a matter of confidence in summer 1924 but was voted down in the Storting that July.
Where the 'no' side won
The result split sharply along regional lines. Popular support for prohibition fell in every county, and the ban was overwhelmingly rejected in and around Oslo and in other urban areas such as Bergen. County figures show the vote to continue prohibition at 13.0 per cent in Oslo, 17.1 per cent in Akershus and 42.8 per cent in Østfold, while it reached 71.3 per cent in Sogn og Fjordane and 77.2 per cent in Møre og Romsdal. The appeal insisted that no party lines applied to the question; the returns show that geography, and the gap between the capital region and rural counties, divided voters far more visibly.
Why the editorial speaks of labour parties in the plural
The editorial attacks the 'leaderships of the labour parties', and the plural reflects a divided labour movement. According to Store norske leksikon, Arbeiderpartiet and Norges sosialdemokratiske Arbeiderparti merged only in 1927, reviving the old name Det Forenede norske Arbeiderparti. In October 1926 these were still separate parties, and the editorial treats their leaders together, claiming that they kept up the prohibition campaign reluctantly to satisfy a small circle of 'prohibition fanatics'. That portrait, including the ridicule of the argument that prohibition was a fight against private capitalism, is Aftenposten's polemic against its political opponents in the final week of the campaign.
Original
Privatkapitalistisk?
Den forbuds-agitation, som arbeiderpartienes ledelser holder igang, er præget av dette. De vet, at storparten av arbeiderne trækker paa skuldrene. Allikevel maa de tilpers. Har man sagt A, faar man si B. Men det lyser igjennem, at de selv føler sig trykket av humbugen. I mangel av andet har denne nødtvungne agitation fundet paa at si, at kampen for» forbudet «betyr kamp mot privatkapitalismen, - det skal jo likesom falde ind i partijargonen. Men til det vil de titusener av menige partifæller blandt arbeiderne ikke bare trække paa [?], avhjælpe arbeidsløsheten og lønne paa en rimelig maate. Det kan trænges. At Statsbanenes indtækter i siste termin er sviktet med 9 millioner kroner gir ved siden av saa meget andet stof til eftertanke. • Aanei, - sandheten er akkurat det motsatte av, hvad den nødtvungne agitation har fundet paa at maatte si - for at holde gode miner til partiets lille kreds av forbudsfanatikere. Og arbeiderne er ikke saa indskrænkede, at denslags overmaal av forlorenhet gaar i dem. Det er heller ikke ledelsens hensikt. Hensikten er at opfylde pro -
Stem forbudet ned 18de oktober!
Stem forbudet ned 18de oktober! Et oprop til vælgerne fra en række landskjendte mænd og kvinder. Ti aars erfaring har lært os, at forbudet ikke fører frem. Skarp kontrol og svære utgifter har ikke kunnet stoppe smugbrænding, surrogatdrikning og smugling. Stanser den ulovlige trafik paa en kant, økes den samtidig ad andre veier. Der drikkes likesaa meget som før. Drikkeriet har antat farligere og forargeligere former. Alkoholforbruket og drukkenskapsforseelsene er ikke engang sunket overensstemmende med den økonomiske nedgang. Forbudet har skapt tusener av nye lovovertrædere i dette land. Respekten for lov og ret nedbrytes. Naar vi herved retter en appel til alle voksne norske kvinder og mænd om at stemme forbudet ned, sker det derfor i den faste overbevisning, at arbeidet for folkets ædruelighet maa gjenreises ad nye linjer. Det gjælder her ingen partipolitiske grænser. Fremtrædende kvinder og mænd inden alle politiske partier er enig om, at forbudet maa væk. Stem forbudet ned den 18de oktober! Ivar Aavatsmark. Roald Amundsen. Kristen Andersen.
Statsdriften har tildels 7-doblet telefonavgiften i Fredrikshald.
avgiften i Fredrikshald. Protestmøte i Fredrikshald. Fredrikshald, 11te oktober. En række institutioner og foreninger i Fredrikshald repræsenterende byens handel, haandverk og industri holdt forleden et massemøte for at protestere mot de forhøiede telefontakster. Der blev enstemmig nedsat en komité som idag har sendt telegrafstyret en længere motivert protest. Det heter i denne bl. a.: Fredrikshald hadde for faa aar siden et godt ledet privat selskap med en billig avgift pr. aar. Siden Staten overtok telefonen er den fordyret betydelig. Selv i laveste klasse faar man nu efter den nye takstberegning en avgift som er mere end dobbelt saa høi som før, mens avgiften i høieste klasse blir mere end 7 ganger saa stor som før. Det heter videre at der sikkert vil bli masseopsigelser hvis ikke takstene revideres. Hvis Staten ikke kan drive uten stadige tillæg vilde det eneste rette være paany at overlate driften til private.