Aftenposten
- Sir Karl Knudsen's full explanation of why he finds it quite fabulous that the Norwegian state has escaped the crisis with a minimum of liability and outlay.
- The cattle disease in Søgne is believed with certainty to be foot-and-mouth disease.
- Lars Oftedal's position — Gunnar Knudsen's premises.
Aftenposten's page of 29 October 1926 printed in full the testimony that Sir Karl Knudsen gave before the Court of Impeachment. He said the Norwegian state had come through the banking crisis in a "fabulously easy" way thanks to a conditional guarantee of 5 May and a declaration of 28 May. From Sørlandet the paper reported that veterinarians had examined the sick animals at the Traane farm in Søgne for three hours and confirmed foot-and-mouth disease, causing a great stir across the region. An editorial criticized the former social minister Lars Oftedal for refusing any part in the new spirits law after prohibition had been voted down, summing up his stance as "all or nothing."
Translation
Sir Karl Knudsen's full explanation of why he finds it quite fabulous that the Norwegian state has escaped the crisis with a minimum of liability and outlay.
As briefly reported in our evening edition yesterday, Sir Karl Knudsen, as a witness before the Court of Impeachment, stated that it seemed to him quite fabulous that the State had come through the crisis with so minimal a liability. We print here [?]'s full explanation of this statement: Sir Karl Knudsen: I must say that the Norwegian state, through the conditional guarantee that it gave on 5 May and through the declaration of 28 May, has come through the crisis in a quite fabulously easy way.
The cattle disease in Søgne is believed with certainty to be foot-and-mouth disease.
…together with the veterinarians Nordstrand, Mandal, and Johnsrud, Kristianssand, arrived at Traane this evening at about 8 o'clock and immediately began examining the sick animals. The examinations lasted three hours. When they left the farm, veterinarian Nordstrand stated in reply to an inquiry that it was quite certainly foot-and-mouth disease. The event has caused a great stir throughout Sørlandet, and the case is being discussed everywhere.
Lars Oftedal's position — Gunnar Knudsen's premises.
The former Minister of Social Affairs, editor Lars Oftedal, wants nothing to do with the new spirits law. In a couple of articles in "Stavanger Aftenblad" he has expressed the idea that just as the victory belongs to the Conservatives, so must the responsibility also belong to the Conservatives. It is "respect for popular government and for clear positions" that leads Mr. Oftedal to disclaim in advance any influence on the new law. Mr. Oftedal's clear position is well enough known. It is prohibition. When popular government has denied him that, he bows out. All or nothing.
Context
What the impeachment case against the Berge government concerned
The Court of Impeachment before which Sir Karl Knudsen testified was trying Prime Minister Abraham Berge and six ministers from Frisinnede Venstre and Høyre for having acted against the Constitution during the banking crisis. In 1923 the government lent Den Norske Handelsbanken in Trondheim 25 million kroner, and it did so in secret, without putting the decision before the King in Council or the Storting. In 1924 the Storting granted the bank a state guarantee of 15 million kroner without being told of the first loan, and the bank failed despite the support. The charges were that the support had been granted without a decision of the Storting and that the duty to inform the Storting had been breached. Knudsen's claim that the state escaped "with a minimum of liability and outlay" therefore went to the core of the dispute over what the secret rescue had cost the public. The "conditional guarantee of 5 May" and "declaration of 28 May" are dates from his testimony as the paper printed it.
How the trial ended and what it changed
The trial ended in acquittal, on the ground that under the legislation then in force the charges had become time-barred. The case nevertheless mattered far beyond its verdict. It occupied a large place in public life for the nearly eight months it lasted, and it reflected the political conflict between the political elite and the rapidly growing labour movement. Publicity was an important principle of the impeachment rules: the proceedings were printed in Rigsretstidende, their 2,146 pages cover every word spoken, and the reports were printed daily and sold for one krone. Aftenposten's choice to reprint Knudsen's "full explanation" the day after a brief mention belongs to this intense coverage. The lasting consequence came later, when a Storting committee's review led to a new Responsibility Act in 1932 that laid down the government's duty to inform the Storting.
Why Oftedal refused a hand in the new spirits law
Oftedal's withdrawal followed from the consultative referendum on continuing prohibition held on 18 October 1926, eleven days before this page. Partial prohibition had been in force since 1917, and after a 1919 referendum spirits and dessert wine had also been banned; pressure from France, which saw its alcohol exports fall, helped bring about the new vote. Prohibition was rejected overwhelmingly in and around Oslo and in other cities such as Bergen, and as a result the law was abolished, which is why a new spirits law now had to be drafted. Oftedal, whose clear position the editorial identifies as prohibition, stood on the losing side. He had edited Stavanger Aftenblad from 1900 to 1921, the paper in which he now published his articles, and had served as Minister of Social Affairs in 1921–1922 and 1924–1926. The editorial's claim that the victory belonged to the Conservatives, and its portrait of Oftedal as a man of "all or nothing," came from a paper that had itself come out against continuing prohibition before the vote.
Why the Søgne diagnosis caused such a stir
The veterinarians' verdict at Traane came early in Norway's first outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, which came in Sørlandet in the autumn of 1926; it was effectively fought and ended in the spring of 1928. The alarm the paper describes across Sørlandet follows from the nature of the disease: it is extremely contagious and can spread across whole regions within a short time, attacking entire populations of cattle, sheep and pigs. Today, in a country long free of the disease, such as Norway, the method used is slaughter of the affected herds combined with disinfection and cordons. The three-hour examination reported in the article was thus the first step in a fight against the disease that lasted about a year and a half.
Original
Sir Karl Knudsens fuldstændige forklaring paa hvorfor han finder det rent eventyrlig, at den norske stat har sluppet fra krisen med et minimum av ansvar og utlæg.
Som kortelig omtalt i vort aftennummer igaar uttalte sir Karl Knudsen, som vidne i riksretten, at det forekom ham rent eventyrlig, at Staten hadde sluppet igjennem krisen med et saa minimalt ansvar. Vi hitsætter her [?] ns fuldstændige forklaring paa denne uttalelse: Sir Karl Knudsen: Jeg maa si, at den norske stat gjennem den betingede gararti som den gav 5te mai og ved erklæringen av 28de mai er sluppet igjennem krisen paa en rent eventyrlig let maate.
Kvægsygdommen i Søgne menes med sikkerhet at være mund- og klovsyke.
sammen med dyrlægene Nordstrand, Mandal, og Johnsrud, Kristianssand, kom iaften ved 8-tiden til Traane og paabegyndte straks undersøkelsene av de syke dyr. Undersøkelsene varte i tre timer. Da de forlot gaarden oplyste dyrlæge Nordstrand paa henvendelse, at der ganske sikkert forelaa mund - og klovesyke. Begivenheten har vakt stor opsikt over hele Sørlandet og tilfældet blir diskutert overalt.
Lars Oftedals standpunkt — Gunnar Knudsens præmisser.
Den tidligere socialminister, redaktør Lars Oftedal ønsker ingen befatning at ha med den nye brændevinslov. I etpar artikler i» Stavanger Aftenblad «har han git uttryk for den tanke, at likesaavel som seieren er høires maa ogsaa ansvaret være høires. Det er» respekten for folkestyret og for klare standpunkter «, som bringer hr. Oftedal til paa forhaand at fraskrive sig enhver indflydelse paa den nye lov. Hr. Oftedals klare standpunkt er kjendt nok. Det er forbud. Naar folkestyret har nektet ham det, melder han pas. Alt eller intet.