Aftenposten
- When the Mowinckel government decided to let Handelsbanken continue.
- Two doctors have demanded that Chief Physician Johan Scharffenberg be expelled from the medical association.
- The banner of total prohibition.
Aftenposten's page of 22 October 1926 was dominated by the impeachment court. It printed in full the record of a Finance Ministry conference on 30 September 1924, read out in court the day before, at which the new Mowinckel government's finance minister, Arnold Holmboe, recommended that the struggling Den norske Handelsbank keep operating, even though the bank's own representatives, Bratlie and Throne Holst, were sceptical. According to the paper, the bank suspended operations two weeks later. The page also reported that two doctors had asked the Medical Association to expel the temperance campaigner Johan Scharffenberg. During the prohibition referendum campaign, Scharffenberg had said at a meeting in Levanger that doctors carried on a trade in prescriptions. An editorial mocked the prohibitionist paper Folket for raising "the banner of total prohibition" after the defeat, arguing that total prohibition would again threaten fisheries and shipping.
Translation
When the Mowinckel government decided to let Handelsbanken continue.
A sensational record of the conference in the Finance Ministry on 30 September 1924. The Finance Minister, Cabinet Minister Arnold Holmboe, recommended continuation and won the government's support for it despite quite sceptical statements from Bratlie and Throne Holst. Fourteen days later the bank had to suspend operations.
In the impeachment court yesterday, during the examination of Commissary General Bratlie, as briefly mentioned in our evening edition yesterday, documentary evidence was presented of what took place in connection with the question of whether Handelsbanken should continue in the autumn of 1924, when the Mowinckel government had taken office. We print below in its entirety the documented record of the conference in the Finance Ministry on 30 September 1924. Present at the conference were the Finance Minister, Cabinet Minister Arnold Holmboe (bank director), Director-General Smitt, Bank Director Rygg and, for Den norske Handelsbank, Throne Holst, Bratlie, Sunde and Rinde.
The record reads as follows:
Cabinet Minister Holmboe asked Handelsbanken's representatives to speak first.
Bratlie: Since the last negotiations took place with the government and Norges Bank in June, Handelsbanken's operations have continued in accordance with the decision made at that time. At the same time, Handelsbanken's board of directors has turned its attention to trying to find new means and ways that could help toward a safer and quicker rebuilding of the bank. We believed we had found such a means in the proposal recently put forward for a complete reorganization of the bank, but this proposal was not approved by the government and Norges Bank. Now that this proposal has been rejected, Handelsbanken's position, if no new circumstances arose, should in itself be the same as it was before the proposal was submitted, and what we would have to do would simply be to continue the work along the line laid down in June. But now the new and, for us, wholly unexpected factor has arisen that Director Rygg has explained that he, that is, Norges Bank, did not agree with but advised against the de- […] he wanted Handelsbanken to have stopped. And from a letter to us from Norges Bank a few days ago I have gained the impression that this is his opinion now as well. This is naturally a factor of the greatest importance to us in Handelsbanken. Just as in June of this year it would have been decisive for our position on the question of whether Handelsbanken ought to continue if Norges Bank and the government had found that it should not, so now too it must be reason for us to consider the same question most seriously if the government and Norges Bank find that we ought to stop. The result of the negotiations we had with the government and Norges Bank in June was that it was decided that Handelsbanken should continue its operations and begin to draw on the credit promised through the state guarantee, to the extent that this proved necessary; but the question is whether the government and Norges Bank are now of a different opinion than they were then and therefore wish to change the decision made at that time. It did not occur to any member of Handelsbanken's board, before we heard it now, that there could have been a difference of opinion between the government and Norges Bank about the decision in June; none of us who took part in […] are of course aware that he had a conference with the government before we arrived, and what was said then we can of course have no opinion about. For my own part, during the conference itself I noted down on paper the various statements that were made, first and foremost Director Rygg's introductory address. Right after the conference ended, Handelsbanken gave me the task of writing up a record of the proceedings for safekeeping, and I immediately carried out part of this work — it was not completed because I was given new tasks that were to take priority, first a proposal for a lottery loan and then the recently considered proposal for Handelsbanken's reorganization. But the record was carried far enough that I have Director Rygg's entire introductory address written down just after the conference — and this record ends with the note that the director's statements contained no definite conclusion, which is why, when the director had spoken, I was in doubt as to whether he meant that Handelsbanken should continue or stop. Handelsbanken's entire board understood the matter to mean that, all circumstances considered, it was the opinion of both the government and Norges Bank that we should continue, and on the basis of that understanding we have since continued Handelsbanken's operations and used part of the state guarantee as needed. The statements made at the conference held a few days ago have, however, put us in a very difficult position. On the one hand we have Director Rygg's remarks, which as far as we can see must be understood to mean that he thinks Handelsbanken should now stop, and, from what I have been told, several members of the government have expressed themselves in the same direction. This applies especially to Cabinet Minister Five (in whose case we must, however, be op-
Two doctors have demanded that Chief Physician Johan Scharffenberg be expelled from the medical association.
Scharffenberg is accused of having insulted the medical profession in a lecture at Levanger. The matter will be dealt with next week at a board meeting of the Oslo Medical Association.
Two doctors have sent requests to the Norwegian Medical Association to expel Dr. Johan Scharffenberg for his disloyal conduct toward the Norwegian medical profession during the campaign ahead of the referendum. He is accused of having spoken disparagingly of the medical profession and thereby weakened doctors' standing. The request has been sent to the Oslo Medical Association for comment.
Secretary-General Berner of the Norwegian Medical Association states that the request arrived while he was on holiday and was forwarded to the Oslo Medical Association. Asked who had filed the complaint, the secretary-general did not wish to answer. Nor could he say with certainty what the attack concerned, but he had the impression that it was based on reports from a meeting in Levanger.
Aftenposten then spoke with the chairman of the Oslo Medical Association, Dr. Werner, who did not wish to make any statement on the matter. He did, however, say that the request had not yet been considered by the board, but that as soon as this had been done it would be sent to Dr. Scharffenberg for comment.
Aftenposten has gone through the newspapers' reports of Dr. Scharffenberg's lecture in Levanger. The report in the non-socialist newspaper N. Trondhjems Amtstidende says: "The doctor also saw fit to abuse several gentlemen, indeed even the entire medical and veterinary profession, commercial travellers, industry, etc." The labour paper Folkets Ret reports as follows: "The doctor further mentioned the scandalous traffic the doctors have carried on in the sale of prescriptions." In the report of the debate in the same paper it says, among other things: "Dr. Heimbeck: Here stands Scharffenberg abusing people. That won't do. Scharffenberg: I don't talk about people behind their backs; I know the doctors' violations well. These are people who side with the wets. I know there are doctors who have written 50,000 prescriptions.
The banner of total prohibition.
Had the question concerned total prohibition, the prohibitionists' astonishment at the result would not have been nearly so great. This is shown with all clarity by Folket, which in its dismay at the result wrote yesterday: "The fortified-wine ban was gone and [?] real threats to fisheries and shipping." But why, then, does the paper now hoist "the banner of total prohibition" together with Chief Physician Scharffenberg? Was the defeat not great enough — does it want an even harder snub? Under the banner of total prohibition — with real threats to fisheries and shipping — there will surely be occasion to get one. The whole of Western Norway, too, will then raise its fist against prohibition. That is basically what Folket itself admits.
We will be told that first the relationship with the wine countries must be settled, so that fisheries and shipping have nothing to fear from that quarter. But how? It would have to be the quota line again. But against that Mr. Scharffenberg at the same moment lays his veto. The quota line, he says, would necessarily soon have led to a rationed distribution of fortified wine that would have hollowed out the whole prohibition. However one twists and turns total prohibition, it remains just as impossible. And to hoist "the banner of total prohibition" is therefore nonsense — an expression of the wildest desperation.
Context
Why a 1924 bank conference came before the impeachment court
The impeachment court that examined Bratlie was trying Prime Minister Abraham Berge and six members of his government. In 1923 Berge's government had secretly supported Den Norske Handelsbanken in Trondheim with a loan of 25 million kroner in treasury bills. In 1924 the Storting granted the bank a state guarantee of 15 million kroner, but it was not told about the first loan. The charges were that granting support to the bank without the Storting's approval was unconstitutional, and that the government had failed in its duty to inform the Storting. Berge's government had left office in July 1924. The conference of 30 September 1924, which Aftenposten printed in full, was therefore held under Finance Minister Holmboe of the succeeding Mowinckel government. In that record, Bratlie says the bank had been drawing on the guaranteed credit since the June decision, and that its board believed both the government and Norges Bank wanted it to continue. Aftenposten says the bank had to suspend operations fourteen days after the conference. The Storting's own historical account records that Handelsbanken fell despite the support.
Acquittal on limitation and the 1932 responsibility act
Openness was an important principle of the impeachment rules. Aftenposten printed a document presented in court only a day earlier, and the court's own record was published too. The proceedings were printed in Rigsretstidende, whose 2,146 pages cover every word spoken in the case. The verdict, delivered on 25 March 1927, was acquittal: the charges had become time-barred under the legislation then in force. The case still had constitutional consequences. The judgment prompted the Storting to appoint a special committee to consider revising the Constitution, the Responsibility Act and the impeachment rules. That work led to a new Responsibility Act in 1932, which, according to the encyclopedia, still applies.
Why the editorial ties prohibition to fisheries and shipping
Norway's prohibition soon turned out to be more a question of trade policy than of social policy. The trade problems kept growing, unrest in the fishing industry rose, and in 1923 the ban on fortified wine was lifted. That is why Folket, quoted in the editorial, could write that the fortified-wine ban "was gone": by October 1926 only the ban on spirits remained to be voted on. The encyclopedia dates the new referendum to 18 October 1926. In it, 531,084 voters (55.7 per cent) voted against prohibition and 423,031 for it, and the spirits ban was formally repealed in 1927. Aftenposten argues that a campaign for total prohibition, which would cover wine again, would bring back the conflict with fisheries and shipping that had ended the fortified-wine ban. It adds that Scharffenberg's rejection of a quota arrangement leaves the prohibitionists no way to avoid that conflict.
Scharffenberg, the temperance cause and doctors' prescriptions
Johan Scharffenberg, the chief physician whom two colleagues wanted expelled, was a leading figure in the temperance movement. From 1902 to 1933 temperance work was his most important public arena, and the great alcohol commission appointed in 1910 was set up on his initiative. The encyclopedia describes him as combative by nature and unwilling to back down when he believed he was right, a trait visible in the exchange with Dr. Heimbeck reported from Levanger. His charge that doctors carried on a scandalous trade in prescriptions concerned a recognized side effect of prohibition. Prescription abuse is listed among the ban's harmful consequences, and one doctor was convicted of writing 48,657 spirits prescriptions in a single calendar year. That figure is close to the 50,000 prescriptions Scharffenberg said some doctors had written, although the encyclopedia neither names the doctor nor links the case to the Levanger meeting.
Original
Da regjeringen Mowinckel besluttet at la Handelsbanken fortsætte.
Da regjeringen Mowinckel besluttet at la Handelsbanken fortsætte. Et opsiktvækkende referat fra konferansen i Finansdepartementet 30te september 1924. Finansministeren, statsraad Arnold Holmboe, tilraadet fortsættelse og fik tilslutning hertil fra Regjeringen tiltrods for ganske skeptiske uttalelser av Bratlie og Throne Holst. Fjorten dage efter maatte banken indstille. I riksretten igaar blev der under eksaminationen av generalkrigskommissær Bratlie, som kortelig omtalt i vort aftennummer igaar, foretat en dokumentation av det, som passerte i forbindelse med spørsmaalet om, hvorvidt Handelsbanken skulde fortsætte høsten 1924, da regjeringen Mowinckel var tiltraadt. Vi hitsætter nedenfor i sin helhet det dokumenterte referat av konferansen i Finansdepartementet 30te september 1924. Tilstede i konferansen var finansministeren, statsraad Arnold Holmboe (bankdirektør), ekspeditionschef Smitt, bankdirektør Rygg samt for Den norske Handelsbank Throne Holst, Bratlie, Sunde og Rinde. Referatet er saalydende: Statsraad Holmboe henstillet til Handelsbankens repræsentanter at uttale sig først: Bratlie: Siden de siste forhandlinger fandt sted med Regjeringen og Norges Bank i juni maaned har Handelsbankens virksomhet været fortsat overensstemmende med den beslutning som da blev fattet. Samtidig har Handelsbankens direktion hat sin opmerksomhet henvendt paa at forsøke at finde nye midler og veier, som kunde virke til en sikrere og hurtigere gjenreisning av banken. Et saadant middel mente man at ha fundet i det forslag som nylig blev fremsat om en hel omordning av banken, men dette forslag blev ikke bifaldt av Regjeringen og Norges Bank. Efter at det nævnte forslag er avslaat, skulde stillingen for Handelsbanken, hvis ingen nye omstændigheter kom til, i og for sig være den samme, som den var før forslagets indsendelse, og det man skulde ha at gjøre vilde være uten videre at fortsætte arbeidet efter den linje som blev fastsat i juni. Men nu er det nye og for os helt uventede moment kommet til, at direktør Rygg har forklart, at han, d. v. s. Norges Bank, ikke var enig i, men fraraadet den beFhv. statsraad Arnold Holmboe. han vilde at Handelsbanken skulde ha stanset. Og det samme har jeg av en skrivelse til os fra Norges Bank for nogen dage siden faat indtrykket av er hans mening nu. Dette er selvfølgelig et moment som for os i Handelsbanken er av den største betydning. Likesom det i juni d. a. vilde ha været avgjørende for vor stilling til spørsmaalet om, hvorvidt Handelsbanken burde fortsætte, dersom Norges Bank og Regjeringen hadde fundet, at dette ikke burde ske, saaledes maa det ogsaa nu være grund for os til at ta samme spørsmaal under den alvorligste overveielse, dersom Regjeringen og Norges Bank finder at vi bør stanse. Resultatet av de forhandlinger vi hadde med regjeringen og Norges Bank i juni var, at det blev besluttet, at Handelsbanken skulde fortsætte sin virksomhet og begynde at trække paa den ved statsgarantien tilsagte kredit, i den utstrækning hvori dette maatte vise sig nødvendig; men spørsmaalet er, om regjeringen og Norges Bank nu er av en anden mening end dengang og derfor vil forandre beslutningen fra da. Det har ikke faldt nogen av Handelsbankens direktionsmedlemmer ind, før vi har hørt det nu, at der kunde ha været meningsforskjel mellem regjeringen og Norges Bank om beslutningen i juni; ingen av os som deltok i er jo opmerksomme paa, at han hadde konferanse med regjeringen før vi kom tilstede, og hvad der da blev sagt kan vi jo ikke ha nogen mening om. For mit eget vedkommende er forholdet det, at jeg under selve konferansen noterte ned paa et papir de forskjellige uttalelser som fremkom, først og fremst direktør Ryggs indledende foredrag. Like efter at konferansen var slut fik jeg det opdrag av Handelsbanken at nedskrive et referat av forhandlingene til opbevaring, og dette arbeide utførte jeg da straks for en del, - det blev ikke fuldført fordi jeg fik nye arbeider som skulde gaa foran dette, først forslag til lotterilaan og dernæst det nylig behandlede forslag til Handelsbankens omordning. Men saa langt blev referatet utført, at jeg har hele direktør Ryggs indledningsforedrag notert like efter konferansen, - og dette referat endei med, at direktørens uttalelser ikke indeholdt nogen bestemt konklusion, hvorfor jeg, da direktøren hadde talt, var i tvil om hvorvidt han mente at Handelsbanken burde fortsætte eller stanse. Hele Handelsbankens direktion forstod saken saa, at det, alle omstændigheter tat i betraktning, var baade regjeringens og Norges Banks mening, at vi burde fortsætte, og ut fra denne forstaaelse har vi senere fortsat Handelsbankens virksomhet og anvendt en del av statsgarantien efter behovet. De uttalelser, som er fremkommet under den for nogen dage siden avholdte konferanse, har imidlertid bragt os i en meget vanskelig stilling. Paa den ene side har vi direktør Ryggs bemerkninger, som saavidt vi skjønner maa forstaaes saa, at han mener Handelsbanken nu bør stanse, og i samme retning har, efter hvad der er mig meddelt, flere medlemmer av regjeringen uttalt sig. Specielt gjælder dette statsraad Five (for hvis vedkommende vi dog maa være op -
To læger har krævet overlæge Johan Scharffenberg ekskludert av lægeforeningen.
To læger har krævet overlæge Johan Scharffenberg ekskludert av lægeforeningen. Scharffenberg beskyldes for at ha fornæmet lægestanden i et foredrag paa Levanger. Saken behandles i næste uke paa styremø [?] e i Oslo Læge [?] orening. Fra to læger er der rettet henvendelser til Den norske Lægeforening om at ekskludere dr. Johan Scharffenberg for hans illojale optræden overfor den norske lægestand under valgagitationen foran folkeavstemningen. Han beskyldes for at ha uttalt sig paa en nedsættende maate om lægestanden og herigjennem svækket lægenes anseelse. Henvendelsen er sendt Oslo Lægeforening til uttalelse. Generalsekretær Berner i Den norske Lægeforening oplyser, at henvendelsen var indkommet under hans ferie og oversendt til Oslo Lægeforening. Paa spørsmaal om hvem der har indgit anmeldelsen ønsket generalsekretæren ikke at svare. Hvad angrepet gjaldt kunde han heller ikke med bestemthet oplyse, men han hadde indtryk av at det var bygget paa referater fra et møte i Levanger. «Aftenposten» har derefter talt med Oslo Lægeforenings formand, dr. Werner, som ikke ønsket at avgi nogen uttalelse i saken. Han oplyste dog, at henvendelsen endnu ikke var styrebehandlet, men saa snart dette var gjort, vilde den bli oversendt dr. Scharffenberg til uttalelse. «Aftenposten» har gjennemgaat referatene i avisene av dr. Scharffenbergs foredrag i Levanger. I den borgerlige avis «N. Trondhjems Amtstidende» s referat heter det: «Doktoren fandt det ogsaa paa sin plas at æreskjælde flere herrer, ja til og med hele lægeog dyrlægestanden, handelsreisende, industri osv.» Arbeiderbladet «Folkets Ret» refererer saaledes: «Doktoren nævnte videre den skandaløse trafik lægene har drevet med receptsalget». I referat av ordskiftet i samme blad staar der bl. a.: «Dr. Heimbeck: Her staar Scharffenberg og overskjælder folk. Det gaar ikke an. Scharffenberg: Jeg snakker ikke folk bak ryggen, jeg kjender godt til lægenes overtrædelse. Det er folk som holder paa det vaate. Jeg vet der er læger som har skrevet ut 50, 000 recepter.
Totalforbudets fane.
Totalforbudets fane. Hvis spørsmaalet hadde gjældt totalforbud, vilde forbudsfolkets forbauselse over resultatet paa langt nær været saa stor. Det fremgaar med al tydelighet av» Folket «, som i sin forfærdelse over resultatet igaar skrev:» Hetvinsforbudet var borte og [?] virkelige skræmsler for fiskerier og skibsfart «. Men hvorfor heiser da nu bladet» totalforbudets fane «sammen med overlæge Scharffenberg? Var ikke nederlaget stort nok, vil det ha en endnu kraftigere næsestyver? Under totalforbudets fane - med virkelige skræmsler for fiskerier og skibsfart - vil der sikkert bli anledning til at faa det. Ogsaa hele Vestlandet vil da rette sin næve mot forbudet. Det er igrunden det,» Folket «selv erkjender. Der vil bli svart os, at først maa forholdet til vinlandene ordnes, saa fiskerier og skibsfart intet har at frykte fra den kant. Men hvorledes? Det maatte bli kontingenteringslinjen igjen. Men mot den nedlægger hr. Scharffenberg i samme øieblik veto. Kontingenteringslinjen, sier han, hadde nødvendigvis snart maattet føre til en utrationering av hetvin, som vilde uthulet hele forbudet. Hvorledes man end snur og vender paa totalforbudet, like umulig blir det. Og at heise» totalforbudets fane «er derfor noget tøv - et uttryk for den vildeste desperation.