Aftenposten
- What now —?
- The capital's heavy weight in the scales.
- In Bergen a majority of 13,297 against prohibition.
After Norway's prohibition referendum, Aftenposten celebrated the defeat of prohibition. Its lead editorial argued that repeal now had to pass through the Storting, because the ban rested on a statute, and it warned the Lykke government not to replace prohibition with rules so strict that buying a bottle of spirits legally would again be nearly impossible. The editorial mocked the Christian People's Temperance Council and the clergy, and it insisted that town and country had voted together. A second piece hailed Oslo's lopsided result of 103,311 against and 15,419 for as proof that the capital had been right to stand alone in 1919. A Bergen report gave 26,000 against and 12,703 for, compared with 17,136 and 14,198 in 1919.
Translation
What now —?
What now —? [?] Prohibition is defeated. Overwhelming [?] is the defeat it has suffered — equally great the victory the opponents of prohibition have won. The consequence is clear. Prohibition must be repealed, the sooner the better. On that point there can be no difference of opinion. Nor is there likely to be any. Even the prohibitionists are clear that this is the step that must now be taken. Chief Physician Scharffenberg said so to "Aftenposten" last night, and similar statements have been made earlier in the Storting. By a large majority, possibly unanimously, the Storting will have to approve a government bill for the repeal of prohibition. But the road must go through the Storting. Things would have been different in 1919 if prohibition had then had the majority against it. At that time prohibition rested only on a royal resolution, and the Government would have had it in its own hands to repeal it. Now, on the other hand, prohibition is founded in law, and only the Storting can make and repeal laws. So the prohibition law will not be touched before the New Year, but then it should also happen as soon as possible. We assume that the Government will have its proposal ready by the time the Storting convenes.
That there will be differences of opinion about the arrangement that is to replace prohibition we consider likely. That question has, after all, received no answer, either directly or indirectly, in the referendum. It was different in 1919, when the opponents of prohibition set rationing and individual control against prohibition. This time the voters faced no alternative choice. And as regards rationing in particular, Prime Minister Lykke spoke rather against it when, some time ago, he gave an interview on the subject. But naturally both the Government and the Storting will seek to give the new arrangement such a content that the abuse of spirits is avoided as far as possible. Various alternatives may come into question here. But in discussing them there is one thing that must of course not be lost sight of: that the great majority of the people has clearly, plainly and deliberately declared itself against prohibition. So: no restrictions that give us prohibition back, even if in new garb. We repeat what we wrote on this on the 21st of September this year: "Once one has made clear to oneself that prohibition is harmful and therefore ought to be repealed, one must also come to terms with, and allow, people being able to buy a bottle of spirits. The harm is not removed by repealing the prohibition law if, the next moment, one proceeds to so many and such strict regulatory and control provisions that it becomes well-nigh impossible to obtain a bottle of spirits lawfully." Both the Government and the Storting must of course keep this in view. Otherwise they completely disregard the premises on which the result of the referendum rests. With their ballots the voters have, quite simply, made known that they consider themselves grown-up enough to govern themselves in this area.
- - - -
And this — that our people want to be their own masters, that they want to get away from the coercive measures of the war and crisis years and back to normal conditions — has evidently come as a great surprise and a bitter disappointment to those who take their pleasure chiefly in managing other people's affairs. Neither the prohibitionists nor the "Christian People's Temperance Council" had expected the result the referendum has produced. And when Mr. Halgjem told us yesterday that he was disappointed, he at any rate did not say too much. The prohibitionists — and the "Christian people" with them — have made wholly mistaken calculations. Yet it is not only they themselves who are disappointed; their disappointment is shared in full measure by their like-minded friends in the other Nordic countries. A prohibitionist editor from Sweden, who in these days — the struggle this time offered so many new factors that it was not easy for anyone to predict the result. The prohibitionists surely regarded the "Christian People's Temperance Council" as a reinforcement of their battle front. Everyone now knows that the "council" weakened the cause it went into battle for. The sanctimony that oozed from the "Christian People's Temperance Council" pushed a great many people away. We are convinced that the many bishops and the even more numerous priests and pastors would have done prohibition a better service had they devoted their abilities and energies entirely to their proper calling.
- - -
It has rightly been pointed out already that it is the whole country that has voted prohibition down. Towns and countryside deserve equal credit for what has happened. Oslo — the nation's capital — came last; true, it then laid a very heavy weight in the scales. But the fate of prohibition was already sealed beforehand. The whole country had passed judgment on it. To note this is not without significance, in view of the discussion that will surely now be let loose in the prohibitionist press, and with regard to the assessment of the result of the vote. It is not the capital against the country, but the capital and the country united, that have straightened their backs and shaken off the yoke.
- - -
We are certain that the victory that has been won will be to the benefit of our people. Prohibition has set us far back in sobriety. A great and purposeful effort will be needed to get back to where we once stood: to where it was considered a disgrace to abuse alcohol. But with united forces we shall surely get there, and further still. So far that no one in this country any longer thinks of prohibition. Prohibition will very soon belong to history!
"Aftenposten" is Norway's largest and most widely circulated paper. It bri [?] Lawyer M. Hustad's successor, Lawyer Birger Eriksrud.
The capital's heavy weight in the scales.
The capital's heavy weight in the scales. When the result of the voting in Oslo became available late last night, it had long been clear that the rest of the country had voted prohibition down. The broom that is to sweep prohibition away and clean up had already been bound from country materials. Oslo's heavy weight in the scales — 103,311 votes against and only 15,419 for prohibition — comes as a seal. And the capital can lay its weight in the scales with a particular satisfaction. In the 1919 referendum Oslo stood rather isolated among the country's municipalities with its full-throated protest against the nation's straying onto the fateful road of prohibition. The capital was roundly abused from many quarters on that account — it stood, so it was said, "outside the nation's emotional life." Now, 7 years later, the country as a whole, taught by bitter experience, has come to recognize that the capital after all saw most clearly and most sensibly. And surely also most nationally. For it is not "the Norseman's way" to let his personal freedom be needlessly tied and bound by the bonds of coercion. The nation is, on the whole, too cultivated for that, too filled with a craving for independence. The capital has once again shown that it is in tune with the Norwegian popular temperament when that temperament has become clear — has at last found itself. And the capital has shown that it can, without hesitation, see straight through what otherwise makes the view ahead unclear and foggy. That honor the capital deserves after the 7 years. • Both communist parties here in the city went into the fire for prohibition as a matter of program. And the parties' organs impressed upon their members every day that — what "Aften The count in Oslo.
In Bergen a majority of 13,297 against prohibition.
In Bergen a majority of 13,297 against prohibition. The prohibitionists down by approx. 1500 votes. The opponents of prohibition up by 8864 votes. It is telegraphed from Bergen: For prohibition 12,703, against prohibition 26,000. In 1919 the figures were 14,198 and 17,136 respectively. Of the absentee votes, 673 were cast against and 8 for. From Svalbard came 3 votes against. And of absentee votes 637 were cast against and 137 for. The final result at first showed 25,999 against. At the last moment, however, a single additional absentee vote came in, about which there had been doubt, but which was approved and brought the figure up to the round sum. "Aftenposten"'s
Context
How the 1926 vote led to repeal and a state monopoly
The editorial insists that repeal must pass through the Storting, because the ban on spirits now rested on a statute rather than, as in 1919, on a royal resolution. It also expects the Lykke government to have a bill ready when parliament met after the New Year. Ivar Lykke of the Conservative Party (Høyre) had been prime minister since 5 March 1926, leading a minority government of Høyre and the Free-minded Liberals. Store norske leksikon's biography of Lykke records that the spirits ban was lifted in 1927 after the 1926 referendum, which fits the timetable the paper expected. The same article adds that repeal paradoxically harmed Høyre most, even though it was the only party with a consistently anti-prohibition line. Free trade did not replace the ban. Vinmonopolet, the state wine monopoly, had been set up in 1922 to handle the sale of ordinary wine. As prohibition was dismantled step by step, it took over fortified wine and finally spirits, a last step that SNL's survey dates 'from 1926', a year before the repeal date given in the Lykke article. Aftenposten's warning against restrictions that would bring back prohibition 'in new garb' was therefore written just as sale through a state monopoly was becoming the new norm.
Why voters turned against prohibition between 1919 and 1926
Norwegian prohibition came in stages: partial prohibition from 1917, then a ban on spirits and dessert wine after the 1919 referendum. SNL's survey of Norwegian alcohol policy describes a gradual shift in opinion during the ban years, as many people wanted access to legal alcohol and illicit trade and home distilling became a problem. Foreign trade also mattered. SNL says the ban was in a sense ended by trade difficulties with the wine-producing countries of southern Europe, and the English Wikipedia account says the referendum itself was partly caused by pressure from France, whose exports of alcoholic drinks had fallen. Support for prohibition fell in every county, and the ban was rejected overwhelmingly in and around Oslo and in other towns such as Bergen. The paper's own figures show this: Oslo voted 103,311 against and 15,419 for, and Bergen 26,000 against and 12,703 for, compared with 17,136 against and 14,198 for in 1919. Aftenposten explains the change by 'bitter experience' and the Norwegian love of personal freedom, and insists that town and country voted as one. That framing is the paper's own argument. The independent record emphasises that the urban vote was especially one-sided.
The Christian temperance council and the labour parties in the campaign
Aftenposten singles out 'Kristenfolkets Ædruelighetsraad' for blame. The Christian People's Temperance Council (Kristenfolkets Edruskapsråd) had been founded only in 1925, as a cooperative body for evangelical denominations and organisations working on a Christian basis for a society free of intoxicants, so the 1926 referendum came barely a year after its creation. It drew on a broad temperance tradition. By 1913 ten per cent of Norway's inhabitants belonged to a temperance organisation, and Christian groups were a strong force in that mobilisation together with the labour movement, which also placed temperance high on its programme. That background helps explain why the paper's Oslo report notes that 'both communist parties' in the city campaigned for prohibition as a matter of programme. The claims that the council's 'sanctimony' drove voters away, and that bishops and pastors should have kept to their proper calling, are Aftenposten's polemical judgments as the results came in, written by a paper that had itself argued against prohibition.
Why Scharffenberg's concession carried weight
The editorial's evidence that even prohibitionists accepted repeal is a remark by 'Chief Physician Scharffenberg'. Johan Scharffenberg was a psychiatrist who served as chief physician at Oslo Hospital from 1922 to late 1945. He had long argued for less use of alcohol in society, and the Alcohol Commission of 1910 was established on his initiative, with Scharffenberg among its members. When a figure of this standing in the temperance cause told Aftenposten on the evening after the vote that repeal was the step to take, the paper could present the end of the ban as uncontested. It then moved the argument on to what should replace prohibition, which is where the editorial turns next.
Original
Hvad nu —?
Hvad nu -? [?] orbudet er slaat. Overvæl - [?] nde er det nederlag, det har lidt - like stor den seier, forbudets motstandere har vundet. Konsekvensen er klar. Forbudet maa ophæves jo før jo heller. Derom kan der ikke herske meningsforskjel. Gjør det neppe heller. Selv forbudsfolket er paa det rene med, at det er skridtet, som nu maa tas. Overlæge Scharffenberg uttalte det til» Aftenposten «igaar aftes, tidligere er der faldt lignende uttalelser i Stortinget. Med stort flertal, muligens enstemmig, vil Stortinget maatte bifalde en regjeringsproposition om forbudets ophævelse. Men om Stortinget maa veien gaa. Anderledes hadde det stillet sig i 1919, hvis forbudet da hadde faat flertallet mot sig. Da hvilte forbudet bare paa en kgl. resolution, og Regjeringen vilde hat det i sin haand at ophæve det. Nu derimot er forbudet lovhjemlet, og bare Stortinget kan gi og ophæve love. Før over nytaar blir der altsaa ikke rørt ved forbudsloven, men da bør det ogsaa ske snarest mulig. Vi gaar ut fra, at Regjeringen har sit forslag færdig til Stortinget træder sammen. At der kommer til at bli meningsforskjel om den ordning, som skal avløse forbudet, anser vi sandsynlig. Det spørsmaal har jo hverken direkte eller indirekte faat nogen besvarelse ved folkeavstemningen. Anderledes i 1919, da forbudets motstandere satte rationering og individuel kontrol op mot forbudet. Denne gang stod ikke vælgerne foran nogen alternativ avgjørelse. Og hvad rationeringen specielt angaar, uttalte statsminister Lykke sig nærmest mot den, da han for en tid siden lot sig intervjue om det derefter. Men selvsagt vil saavel Regjeringen som Stortinget søke at gi den nye ordning et saadant indhold, at misbruk av spirituosa mest mulig undgaaes. Der kan her bli tale om forskjellige alternativer. Men under drøftelsen av dem er der ett, som selvsagt ikke maa tapes av øiet: At folkets store flertal tydelig og klart og veloverveiet har uttalt sig mot forbudet. Altsaa ingen restriktioner, som gir os forbudet igjen, omend i nye klædebon. Vi gjentar, hvad vi herom skrev den 21de september i aar:» Hvis man først er paa det rene med, at forbudet er skadelig og derfor bør ophæves, saa maa man ogsaa gjøre sig fortrolig med og tillate, at folk faar kjøpt en flaske brændevin. Skadevirkningen fjernes ikke ved, at forbudsloven ophæves, hvis man i næste øieblik gaar til saa mange og strenge regulerings - og kontrolbestemmelser, at det nærsagt blir umulig at skaffe sig en flaske brændevin paa lovlig vis «. Dette maa selvsagt baade Regjeringen og Stortinget ha for øie Ellers tilsidesætter de fuldstændig de præmisser, hvorpaa folkeavstemningens resultat hviler. Vælgerne har ved sin stemmeseddel kort og godt git tilkjende, at de anser sig voksne nok til at styre sig selv paa dette omraade. - - - - Og dette, at vort folk vil raa sig selv, at det vil bort fra krigsog krisetidens tvangsforanstaltninger og tilbake til normale forhold, det er øiensynlig kommet som en stor overraskelse og bitter skuffelse for dem, som ser sin glæde i fortrinsvis at stelle med andres saker. Hverken forbudsfolket eller» Kristenfolkets Ædruelighedsraad «hadde ventet sig det resultat, som folkeavstemningen har git. Og naar hr. Halgjem igaar uttalte til os, at han var skuffet, har han ialfald ikke sagt for meget. Forbudsfolket - og» kristenfolket «med - har gjort helt feilslagne spekulationer. Det er dog ikke bare de selv som er skuffet, deres skuffelse deles i fuldt mon av deres meningsfæller i de øvrige nordiske land. En forbudsredaktør fra Sverige, som i disse dage kampen denne gang bød paa saavidt mange nye faktorer, at det ikke var let for nogen at forutsi resultatet. Forbudsfolket betraktet sikkert» Kristenfolkets Ædruelighetsraad «som en styrkelse av sin kampfront. Alle vet nu, at» raadet «svækket den sak, det gik i kamp for. Den skinhellighet, som oste ut fra» Kristenfolkets Ædruelighetsraad «, den støtte mangfoldige tilbake. Vi er overbevist om, at de mange biskoper og endnu flere prester og pastorer hadde gjort forbudet en bedre tjeneste, om de helt hadde viet sine evner og kræfter til sit egentlige kald. - - - Det er med rette allerede pekt paa, at det er det samlede land, som har stemt forbudet ned. Byer og bygder har i like grad fortjenesten av det, som er sked. Oslo - landets hovedstad - kom tilslut, riktignok la den da et meget tungt lod i vektskaalen. Men forbudets skjæbne var allerede paa forhaand beseglet. Det ganske land hadde dømt det. At notere dette er ikke uten betydning med henblik paa den diskussion, som nu sikkert vil bli sluppet løs i forbudspressen, og med hensyn til vurderingen av avstemningsresultatet. Det er ikke landets hovedstad mot landet, men hovedstaden og landet i forening, som har rettet ryggen og ryste aaget av sig. - - - Vi er forvisset om, at den seier, som er vundet, vil bli til gavn for vort folk. Forbudet har sat os langt tilbake i ædruelighet. Der skal et stort og maalbevisst arbeide til for atter at naa dithen, hvor vi engang stod: at det var anset som en skam at misbruke alkohol. Men med forenede kræfter vil vi nok naa dit og endnu længer. Saalangt, at ingen længer tænker paa forbud i dette land. Forbudet vil meget snart tilhøre historien! «Aftenposten» er Norges største og mest ut bredte blad. Det bri [?] Advokat M. Hustads Efterfølger Advokat Birger Eriksrud.
Hovedstadens tunge lod i vektskaalen.
Hovedstadens tunge lod i vektskaalen. Da stemmegivnings-resultatet for Oslo forelaa sent igaaraftes, var det forlængst paa det rene, at landet forøvrig hadde stemt forbudet ned. Den kost, som skal feie forbudet væk og gjøre rent, var alt bundet av landsens materialer. Oslos tunge lod i vektskaalen: 103, 311 stemmer mot og kun 15, 419 for forbud - kommer som en besegling. Og hovedstaden kan lægge sit lod i skaalen med en særegen tilfredshet. Ved folkeavstemningen i 1919 stod Oslo temmelig isolert blandt landets kommuner med sin fuldtonende protest mot, at nationen forvirret sig ind paa den skjæbnesvangre forbudsvei. Hovedstaden fik høre ilde fra mange kanter i den anledning, - den stod, het det sig,» utenfor nationens følelsesliv «. Nu, 7 aar efter, er landet i sin helhet, belært av bitre erfaringer, kommet til erkjendelse av, at hovedstaden dog allikevel saa klarest og forstandigst. Og sikkerlig ogsaa mest nationalt. Ti det er ei» nordmands vis «at la sin personlige frihet unødigen baste og binde av tvangsbaand. Dertil er nationen gjennemgaaende for kultivert, fyldt av selvstændighetstrang. Hovedstaden har atter engang vist, at den er i pakt med norsk folkelynne, naar det er avklaret, - omsider har fundet sig selv. Og hovedstaden har vist, at den uten nølen kan se tvers igjennem det, som ellers gjør utsikten frem over uklar og taaket. Den honnør bør hovedstaden ha efter de 7 aar. • Begge kommunist-partier her i byen gik programmæssig i ilden for forbudet. Og partienes organer indskjærpet hver dag sine partifæller, at - hvad» AftenOptællingen i Oslo.
I Bergen et flertal paa 13,297 mot forbud.
I Bergen et flertal paa 13, 297 mot forbud. Forbudsfolket tilbake med ca. 1500 stemmer. Forbudsmotstanderne frem med 8864 stemmer. Fra Bergen telegraferes: For forbud 12, 703, mot forbud 26, 000. I 1919 var tallene henholdsvis 14, 198 og 17, 136. Av forfaldene var avgit 673 mot, 8 for. Fra Svalbard kom 3 stemmer mot. Og av forfaldsstemmer var avgit 637 mot og 137 for. Slutresultatet viste først 25, 999 mot. I siste øieblik kom imidlertid i tillæg en enkelt forfaldsstemme, som det hadde været tvil om, men som blev godkjendt og bragte tallet op i den runde sum. " Aftenposten " s