Iver F. Iverson, Dr. Hans Volckmar, and several other figures in the Norwegian-American community in Brooklyn were involved in helping Georg Oiens, a young man who was injured while working aboard the steamship "Antonio Zambrana." It is quite a tale, with a fascinating cast of characters, as dramatic as any fictional story. I have been able to piece together the events by translating several articles from the "Nordisk Tidende." They appear below in sequential order.
December 25th, 1896:
"When the steamship 'Antonio Zambrana' was about to leave its pier in New York 14 days ago, it happened that sailor Georg Öien, a brother of Captain Öien on the 'Möringen,' had his arm torn from his body by the tow line twisting around his arm. He was taken to the 'House Of Relief' at 67 Hudson Street, N.Y., where he lies. His captain, Mr. Jens Fagerlie, visited him on Wednesday, and there is every hope that he will recover from it comfortably. The captain referred to Oien as an overbearing and stubborn man, who took his misfortune in a particularly cold-blooded way. Captain Fagerlie took command of the ship for the second time in September this year, and is in every way a fit and skilled seaman, who does his position creditably. The shipping company has probably found in him a competent person." |
February 19th, 1897:
"The Norwegian Steamer 'Antonio Zambrana' of Kristiansund is a Ship Full of Accidents. The ship seized in New York Harbor as security for a reimposed compensation process. Georg Oien is demanding 50,000 dollars for his right arm, which he lost on board the vessel in December last year. He is a brother of Captain Oien, leader of the steamship 'Moringent," which is owned by the same company in Kristiansund. A third brother was crippled last summer in Rockaway.
Not so soon has the so hard-tested Captain Krogh, co-owner and pilot of the steamship 'Antonio Zambrana,' come back here after his unsuccessful trip to his native country to seek redress for the shameful affair that happened to the same ship in Columbia, South America in 1893, about which this paper today and then has already written, he finds himself exposed to other fatal things of a very serious kind. Strangely enough, this unfortunate disaster was also to occur at a time when he was again removed from his ship on a voyage which affected its fortunes and fortunes. The case is as follows:
In the middle of December last year, the ship docked in New York, finished and ready for departure. The vessel's temporary pilotage was entrusted to the first mate, Mr. Jens Fagerli, a good sailor of decent and sober character. The tug was ordered to 'pull' it out at 9 in the evening. All men were on deck, and Captain Fagerli had taken command. For some reason the first engineer had not yet come on board, so Mr. Fagerli gave a signal with the steam pipe, calling all men to their posts. They waited for a while, but the machinist did not come. The captain, unable to wait any longer, called the second engineer on deck. 'Can you,' he said, 'take the ship without a first engineer present on this trip?' The answer was, as expected, in the affirmative. 'Let everything go ahead,' was the next command. The people busy with the cables began to slacken the lines, the tug's engine was set in motion, just as the steamer's own propeller also began to whip the water. It was rather dark in the evening and the rough weather had made the cables wet and slippery. For an as-yet unexplained reason, one cable could not be thrown free of the pier around which it was slung. The 23-year-old Georg Oien, sailor on board, had to order this cable. The rope work coiled around his right arm, and before he could free himself from the noose, it was too late. A heart-rending scream was heard; the cable snapped, but not before the unfortunate youngster's right arm was torn off just above the shoulder. There was an instant backlash. The boat docked again and an ambulance was sent. The man so badly injured retained his consciousness the whole time and was able to disembark and take his place in the ambulance, which brought him at a rapid trot to Hudson Street hospital, New York, where the last trace of so important a limb was obliterated and the wounded man was put to rest. Here he lay for several weeks and received the best care. He was visited by his captain, Mr. Fagerli, as often as he had occasion, just as he also received visits and proof of participation from other teams. A few weeks ago, he was then transferred to the Norwegian hospital in Brooklyn, until he was finally discharged from there on Thursday last week, although still very much suffering.
*
During the time that has passed since the accident took place, it is claimed that Oiens' and Capt. Fagerli's and Krogh's many friends had set themselves in motion to do something like getting the young cripple compensation for the injury that had befallen him, and thereby prevent a dubious process, all the more so as Oien belonged in the place where the shipping company, who are all wealthy people, live. We were thus told that upwards of 1,000 dollars had been collected on various lists, of which, after his return here, Captain Krogh himself had given 200 dollars. Furthermore, we were told, judging from what we believe to be a reliable source, that the young man had been given a good place in view when he first came home to his native town. We thought that this course of action was exceedingly beautiful and warm-hearted, especially when you take into account the many harrassments, delays, and uncertainties that a compensation process in this country entails. We were therefore very surprised when we learned last Saturday that Oien had not wanted to enter into the mentioned conditions, and even more surprised when we were directly accused of having influenced the young man to sue the shipping company. We dismissed this with indignation, and here too we must prove the truth of our words, although we do not feel greatly hurt by the accusation.
*
That there are always two sides, a light and a dark, in a case, we also have proof of this here. We sought out a respected countryman before the colony, Mr. I. F. Iverson, with business at 283 Columbia St., Brooklyn. He told us bluntly that Oien had obtained his advice and assistance, and as Iverson had the greatest sympathy for the poor fellow, he gave him the most benevolent hints in his father's place. However, one day it turned out that it was not as it had been announced from the beginning with the much-vaunted lot of money and permanent employment at home. Thus had, for example, Captain Krogh, on his own behalf, first offered him not $200 but $10 for his arm. This $10 was to be the first subscription to a begging list, which was then to be sent from Pontius to Pilate and perhaps the entire colony beyond. Finally, an attempt was to be made to set up a bazaar for the two crippled brothers together, and of course everyone had to help pay, thus saving the millionaire shareholders at home. It was this shame that Iverson wanted to save and tried so hard for, which is why he and he alone recommended Oien to go the way of the law. It was then that Captain Krogh increased his handsome offer to $200, but even this Oien did not want to accept, as he thought that if each of his important limbs was not worth more, then he had to make do with the money besides, it had to go to him as the wild.
And then came the seizure of the steamer last Saturday.
*
We regret that the accident happened, as much for Oien as for the generally-respected Captain Krogh, all the more so as Krogh has invested his savings in the said vessel and the accident happened at a time when he was not in command of the steamer; but we also apologize that the gossip is so loose here on the square, that people without further ado put completely uninterested people in connection with what happened, especially since we have never actually known the injured person, which he also asks us to testify in his own name. We must add one thing, however, and that is that if it is the case as stated last, and we had been asked to give our opinion on the matter, then we would have acted without fear just like our esteemed countryman, I. F. Iverson, who in this case deserves the respect of all fellow human beings."
"The Norwegian Steamer 'Antonio Zambrana' of Kristiansund is a Ship Full of Accidents. The ship seized in New York Harbor as security for a reimposed compensation process. Georg Oien is demanding 50,000 dollars for his right arm, which he lost on board the vessel in December last year. He is a brother of Captain Oien, leader of the steamship 'Moringent," which is owned by the same company in Kristiansund. A third brother was crippled last summer in Rockaway.
Not so soon has the so hard-tested Captain Krogh, co-owner and pilot of the steamship 'Antonio Zambrana,' come back here after his unsuccessful trip to his native country to seek redress for the shameful affair that happened to the same ship in Columbia, South America in 1893, about which this paper today and then has already written, he finds himself exposed to other fatal things of a very serious kind. Strangely enough, this unfortunate disaster was also to occur at a time when he was again removed from his ship on a voyage which affected its fortunes and fortunes. The case is as follows:
In the middle of December last year, the ship docked in New York, finished and ready for departure. The vessel's temporary pilotage was entrusted to the first mate, Mr. Jens Fagerli, a good sailor of decent and sober character. The tug was ordered to 'pull' it out at 9 in the evening. All men were on deck, and Captain Fagerli had taken command. For some reason the first engineer had not yet come on board, so Mr. Fagerli gave a signal with the steam pipe, calling all men to their posts. They waited for a while, but the machinist did not come. The captain, unable to wait any longer, called the second engineer on deck. 'Can you,' he said, 'take the ship without a first engineer present on this trip?' The answer was, as expected, in the affirmative. 'Let everything go ahead,' was the next command. The people busy with the cables began to slacken the lines, the tug's engine was set in motion, just as the steamer's own propeller also began to whip the water. It was rather dark in the evening and the rough weather had made the cables wet and slippery. For an as-yet unexplained reason, one cable could not be thrown free of the pier around which it was slung. The 23-year-old Georg Oien, sailor on board, had to order this cable. The rope work coiled around his right arm, and before he could free himself from the noose, it was too late. A heart-rending scream was heard; the cable snapped, but not before the unfortunate youngster's right arm was torn off just above the shoulder. There was an instant backlash. The boat docked again and an ambulance was sent. The man so badly injured retained his consciousness the whole time and was able to disembark and take his place in the ambulance, which brought him at a rapid trot to Hudson Street hospital, New York, where the last trace of so important a limb was obliterated and the wounded man was put to rest. Here he lay for several weeks and received the best care. He was visited by his captain, Mr. Fagerli, as often as he had occasion, just as he also received visits and proof of participation from other teams. A few weeks ago, he was then transferred to the Norwegian hospital in Brooklyn, until he was finally discharged from there on Thursday last week, although still very much suffering.
*
During the time that has passed since the accident took place, it is claimed that Oiens' and Capt. Fagerli's and Krogh's many friends had set themselves in motion to do something like getting the young cripple compensation for the injury that had befallen him, and thereby prevent a dubious process, all the more so as Oien belonged in the place where the shipping company, who are all wealthy people, live. We were thus told that upwards of 1,000 dollars had been collected on various lists, of which, after his return here, Captain Krogh himself had given 200 dollars. Furthermore, we were told, judging from what we believe to be a reliable source, that the young man had been given a good place in view when he first came home to his native town. We thought that this course of action was exceedingly beautiful and warm-hearted, especially when you take into account the many harrassments, delays, and uncertainties that a compensation process in this country entails. We were therefore very surprised when we learned last Saturday that Oien had not wanted to enter into the mentioned conditions, and even more surprised when we were directly accused of having influenced the young man to sue the shipping company. We dismissed this with indignation, and here too we must prove the truth of our words, although we do not feel greatly hurt by the accusation.
*
That there are always two sides, a light and a dark, in a case, we also have proof of this here. We sought out a respected countryman before the colony, Mr. I. F. Iverson, with business at 283 Columbia St., Brooklyn. He told us bluntly that Oien had obtained his advice and assistance, and as Iverson had the greatest sympathy for the poor fellow, he gave him the most benevolent hints in his father's place. However, one day it turned out that it was not as it had been announced from the beginning with the much-vaunted lot of money and permanent employment at home. Thus had, for example, Captain Krogh, on his own behalf, first offered him not $200 but $10 for his arm. This $10 was to be the first subscription to a begging list, which was then to be sent from Pontius to Pilate and perhaps the entire colony beyond. Finally, an attempt was to be made to set up a bazaar for the two crippled brothers together, and of course everyone had to help pay, thus saving the millionaire shareholders at home. It was this shame that Iverson wanted to save and tried so hard for, which is why he and he alone recommended Oien to go the way of the law. It was then that Captain Krogh increased his handsome offer to $200, but even this Oien did not want to accept, as he thought that if each of his important limbs was not worth more, then he had to make do with the money besides, it had to go to him as the wild.
And then came the seizure of the steamer last Saturday.
*
We regret that the accident happened, as much for Oien as for the generally-respected Captain Krogh, all the more so as Krogh has invested his savings in the said vessel and the accident happened at a time when he was not in command of the steamer; but we also apologize that the gossip is so loose here on the square, that people without further ado put completely uninterested people in connection with what happened, especially since we have never actually known the injured person, which he also asks us to testify in his own name. We must add one thing, however, and that is that if it is the case as stated last, and we had been asked to give our opinion on the matter, then we would have acted without fear just like our esteemed countryman, I. F. Iverson, who in this case deserves the respect of all fellow human beings."
The article above mentions another brother. On November 20th, 1896, "Nordisk Tidende" had reported on the tragic shipping accident that had crushed the leg of Jacob:
"Jacob Oien from Kristianssund, 24 years old and unmarried, lies in the next bed with a leg broken in two different places, which presumably cripples him for life. This summer he was employed as a 'chut-shooter' [translation unknown] on Rockaway Beach, along with 6 other countrymen. One day when he was to pass over the body of the chute itself, a boat suddenly came down towards him from a height of at least 150 feet and with quick furiousness he was quickly dragged into the water. The boat backed up against him with said follower. He was then admitted to the Rockaway Beach German Hospital, but unfortunately the leg is set in such a pitiful way that he will probably never be able to use it again. The crutch will presumably be his lifelong companion." |
Several articles (not all of which are reproduced here) refer to the seizure of the ship by U. S. Marshalls, and a suit by crew members against the shipping agency for unpaid wages. Here is one example from March 5th, 1897:
"'Antonio Zambrana' On Wednesday, the damages case against the mentioned boat was before the court but was postponed for a week. Doubts have been raised as to whether the seizure is valid or not, as a treaty between Norway and the United States of 1827 contains a provision which states that all disputes on board Norwegian vessels must be settled between captain and crew or also by a Norwegian court. Whether this provision can be made applicable here will be decided by the decision of the American court." |
March 12th, 1897:
Dr. Volckmar. Capt. Krogh. The "Zambrana" Case. A look behind the scenes. [Written by Doctor Hans Volckmar, Brooklyn, March 6th, 1897.]
“All captains who come in here agree to condemn your behavior in the ‘Zambrana’ case; nobody wants anything more to do with you." That was the greeting I received today when I came into a friend's office over in New York.
This applies to the compensation claim that George Oien has filed against 'Antonio Zambrana' for the loss of his right arm under circumstances which are more than doubtful where the responsibility lies. The case is allegedly planned by me, and the captain exhibits here a perseverent tenacity, when there could have been a far better case worthy and more useful of his interests. The boy himself has repeatedly told that captain that I was outside of it; and Iverson himself has abundantly documented that he was Oien’s advisor: but all to no utility. The Doctor is the traitor, who stands behind and cunningly controls the stage machinery.
My dealings with the matter before it came into the hands of the lawyer, and thus outside of mine or anyone else's effect, is this:
On my first visit to the boy out at the hospital I advised him most determinedly not to go to court, as I believed and stated that Captain Krogh, who was then at home on holiday and notified of the accident, quite surely would come up with an offer satisfactory to both parties. Upon my second and list visit to him there, I repeated in two other gentlemen's hearing that I considered the lawsuit stupid, and advised him again to calmly await the captain's return. However, he is transferred to the Deaconess Home, and during his stay here I meet him 10-12 days after I last saw him, and he tells me then that he has been advised from several quarters to seek redress through the courts, and asks for my advice; he receives in reply my answer that I, due to my friendly relationship with the captain and several of the officers, under no circumstances will have anything to do with the matter, neither out nor in, and I advise that he go down to bookseller Iverson, and tell him the matter; what Mr. Iverson wanted to do, what he advised him to, and what steps were to be taken were completely unknown to me at that time: I referred the boy there because I thought he would get the best guidance, and because Mr. Iverson was unfamiliar with both parties and could most easily judge impartially. I admit, it was extremely unfortunate for the captain that I would come to show the boy to a man who in his councils did not primarily have the captain’s and the shipping company’s interest for the island [?], and which were infamous enough not to able to see the vast difference between King Solomon and George the Hat-maker. [I presume this refers to the title of a play by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, but unfortunately I do not understand the reference.]
Then Captain Krogh comes over here, and was immediately informed by me upon request that there are reports of disorder and drunkenness on board immediately before the accident, and that in my eyes the case is dangerous.
The following day, a list of names [a donations list] are opened in favor of the boy; I spoke immediately to Mr. Pedro Christensen, the captain’s trusted advisor and co-actor, and personally asked Mr. Krogh to delete his name from the list, as it could appear detrimental to the captain and the shipping company in the event of a case; what took place the following week I know only from hearing the case like everyone else. I absolutely saw the boy. So today Iverson tells me the various offers the captain had made to Oien, that he had opposed all these, and that he saw that the case would go to trial and the ship should be seized. After a prolonged fight I got Iverson to promise me to renounce from such drastic measures, to make the captain an offer of settlement, and to wait with the seizure and thus give the company time to think about the matter. After this Oien comes and enters and tells that earlier on that day he had met the captain, who promised him $200 on behalf of the company, $200 from donations of others, and and a letter to State Councilor Astrup about a post for him and free journey home. He asked me for advice, and I said that after due deliberation he was satisfied with the offer, he should unconditionally accept it. With these concessions from Mr. Iverson in my pocket, and in the naïve belief that I had worked in the best interest of both parties, I go out to meet and speak with Mr. Christensen and Captain Krogh. How this meeting came to be only water, and how the captain himself in the most violent and brutal way severed all ties of friendship and removed any invitation on my part to take some consideration, all the gentlemen present (four in number) can attest. The immediately following seizure of 'Zambrana' was an equally big surprise for me as for Krogh. Iverson came up to me that day after the mentioned meeting and asked me to apologize; that, despite his promise, he himself saw the need to stop the ship. I then also expressed my opinion that it was unfortunate for Oien if that happened, and that he should give the other party time; but, moreover, he had to do what he found best without regard for me.
Then there is finally a violent accusation against me regarding a letter I wrote to Oien's sister-in-law, in which I promise to take up the boy’s case and to the utmost ability help him to his right; but this has nthing to do with the merits of the case today; the letter was written during one of the lsat days in December during the first impression of the consequences for the boy’s terrible misfortune and in strong sympathy with his terrible position. After more careful consideration, however, I found that I could take no part in it, and, as explained above, the feelings interpreted from the first letter have no bearing on the present case. Yes, this is my relationship with The Zambrana affair; and then I ask of any honest man if I could have acted more honestly and more open, whether a friendship can commit me to more than passivity in a case, where active behavior in favor of the friend entails an action, which my conscience declares as meanness; that it is treason and ambush that I show the boy to another man for advice, when I myself could not help him? – I am anxiously awaiting the answer.
Then there is finally a violent accusation against me regarding a letter I wrote to Oien's sister-in-law, in which I promise to take up the boy’s cause and to the utmost ability help him to his right; but this has nothing to do with the merits of the case today; the letter was written during one of the last days in December during the first impression of the boy’s terrible misfortune and in strong sympathy with his terrible position. After more careful consideration, however, I found that I could take no part in it, and, as explained above, the feelings interpreted from the first letter have no bearing on the present case. Yes, this is my relationship with The Zambrana affair; and then I ask of any honest man if I could have acted more honestly and more open, whether a friendship can commit me to more than passivity in a case, where active behavior on behalf of friend entails an action which my conscience declares as mean; that it is treason and ambush that I show the boy to another man for advice when I myself could not help him? – I await a comforting answer.
No, Sir Captain! It’s probably neither the boy’s fault, nor Iverson’s fault, nor mine, that the ‘Zambrana’ case has come to this unfavorable state.
The captain and his many advisors, who put their wise heads together, should have known, and knew, that if $500 was given in good faith for the boy in good American money, no living force could have prevented him from receiving the money, dropping the complaint, and leaving home. But to start work with a begging list [charity donations], where the captain, large part owner in the ‘Antonio Zambrana’ and strongly interested in the settlement of the case, signs up for $10 on the recoking that it will draw the sympthy of many outsiders to bring the amount to a couple hundred, is intolerably foolish.
From day to day the boy is offered nothing more until after 10-12 days of constant pressure the company promises to contribute the enormous sum of $200, and the holding of a bazaar which could bring it up to $500. The shouts of sympathy for him are so great, that people want to provide him with a carefree livelihood, and illustrate this great compassion, and create confidence in the boy in the will of the donors. The captain paid at his own expense $10, and at the expense of the company, $200. The rest was then to be taxed to the colony [the Norwegian-American donors in New York].
The captain and his friends find it strange that Iverson and the boy doubt the ability of the interested party's sympathy to provide him with a livelihood?
I think we can all agree that when these few hundred dollars were exhausted and Oien then had to draw bills from the sympathy of the company, he would hardly get them honored. Shall the boy live on the goodwill of others it will not be theirs whose compassion is creation when the knife is on their throat; his real friends at home will then give him the necessary handshake and he will have their sympathy in double measure if the case goes against him here; I have had enough evidence these days that if he loses, the $200 can be replaced.
And something is said about a post which Councilor Astrup is to get him. He can not fill a post of any art; the captain and I know this; and that Councilor Astrup was to require the company to pay a compensation sum (whether they want to or not) to the boy of 50-60 kroner per month, as long as he lives, seems unbelievable. The public is already taxed to a great extent by the needs and misery of his fellow men on the edges.
To make reconciliation attempts and base them on promises of gold and green forests, speculations of records, sympathy and pity and benevolence, cheap goods, which so quickly turns into gaseous form and becomes mere air, but that is not wise man's behavior. No, $500, Captain, in banknotes, gold or silver, presented on the table, would have satisfied the whole city. They probably would have saved their pennies and let the whole thing go!
They must not misunderstand me and believe that I think the sum was large enough to compensate the boy for his loss. 10,000 kroner, you know, was what I thought was due the boy, before the case came to the lawyer’s hands. But $500 dollars would have, however, arranged it simply, for neither Iverson nor any other living power on earth could at that time have prevented the boy from accepting settlement.
With regard to the persecutions of me, it makes me wiser to set them aside, firstly because such things pays off so poorly in the long run, but mostly becacuse in the surroundings there are plenty of benevolent souls who whisper in my ear, and it could easily bring them into even more difficulties.
- H. Volckmar, M.D.
“All captains who come in here agree to condemn your behavior in the ‘Zambrana’ case; nobody wants anything more to do with you." That was the greeting I received today when I came into a friend's office over in New York.
This applies to the compensation claim that George Oien has filed against 'Antonio Zambrana' for the loss of his right arm under circumstances which are more than doubtful where the responsibility lies. The case is allegedly planned by me, and the captain exhibits here a perseverent tenacity, when there could have been a far better case worthy and more useful of his interests. The boy himself has repeatedly told that captain that I was outside of it; and Iverson himself has abundantly documented that he was Oien’s advisor: but all to no utility. The Doctor is the traitor, who stands behind and cunningly controls the stage machinery.
My dealings with the matter before it came into the hands of the lawyer, and thus outside of mine or anyone else's effect, is this:
On my first visit to the boy out at the hospital I advised him most determinedly not to go to court, as I believed and stated that Captain Krogh, who was then at home on holiday and notified of the accident, quite surely would come up with an offer satisfactory to both parties. Upon my second and list visit to him there, I repeated in two other gentlemen's hearing that I considered the lawsuit stupid, and advised him again to calmly await the captain's return. However, he is transferred to the Deaconess Home, and during his stay here I meet him 10-12 days after I last saw him, and he tells me then that he has been advised from several quarters to seek redress through the courts, and asks for my advice; he receives in reply my answer that I, due to my friendly relationship with the captain and several of the officers, under no circumstances will have anything to do with the matter, neither out nor in, and I advise that he go down to bookseller Iverson, and tell him the matter; what Mr. Iverson wanted to do, what he advised him to, and what steps were to be taken were completely unknown to me at that time: I referred the boy there because I thought he would get the best guidance, and because Mr. Iverson was unfamiliar with both parties and could most easily judge impartially. I admit, it was extremely unfortunate for the captain that I would come to show the boy to a man who in his councils did not primarily have the captain’s and the shipping company’s interest for the island [?], and which were infamous enough not to able to see the vast difference between King Solomon and George the Hat-maker. [I presume this refers to the title of a play by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, but unfortunately I do not understand the reference.]
Then Captain Krogh comes over here, and was immediately informed by me upon request that there are reports of disorder and drunkenness on board immediately before the accident, and that in my eyes the case is dangerous.
The following day, a list of names [a donations list] are opened in favor of the boy; I spoke immediately to Mr. Pedro Christensen, the captain’s trusted advisor and co-actor, and personally asked Mr. Krogh to delete his name from the list, as it could appear detrimental to the captain and the shipping company in the event of a case; what took place the following week I know only from hearing the case like everyone else. I absolutely saw the boy. So today Iverson tells me the various offers the captain had made to Oien, that he had opposed all these, and that he saw that the case would go to trial and the ship should be seized. After a prolonged fight I got Iverson to promise me to renounce from such drastic measures, to make the captain an offer of settlement, and to wait with the seizure and thus give the company time to think about the matter. After this Oien comes and enters and tells that earlier on that day he had met the captain, who promised him $200 on behalf of the company, $200 from donations of others, and and a letter to State Councilor Astrup about a post for him and free journey home. He asked me for advice, and I said that after due deliberation he was satisfied with the offer, he should unconditionally accept it. With these concessions from Mr. Iverson in my pocket, and in the naïve belief that I had worked in the best interest of both parties, I go out to meet and speak with Mr. Christensen and Captain Krogh. How this meeting came to be only water, and how the captain himself in the most violent and brutal way severed all ties of friendship and removed any invitation on my part to take some consideration, all the gentlemen present (four in number) can attest. The immediately following seizure of 'Zambrana' was an equally big surprise for me as for Krogh. Iverson came up to me that day after the mentioned meeting and asked me to apologize; that, despite his promise, he himself saw the need to stop the ship. I then also expressed my opinion that it was unfortunate for Oien if that happened, and that he should give the other party time; but, moreover, he had to do what he found best without regard for me.
Then there is finally a violent accusation against me regarding a letter I wrote to Oien's sister-in-law, in which I promise to take up the boy’s case and to the utmost ability help him to his right; but this has nthing to do with the merits of the case today; the letter was written during one of the lsat days in December during the first impression of the consequences for the boy’s terrible misfortune and in strong sympathy with his terrible position. After more careful consideration, however, I found that I could take no part in it, and, as explained above, the feelings interpreted from the first letter have no bearing on the present case. Yes, this is my relationship with The Zambrana affair; and then I ask of any honest man if I could have acted more honestly and more open, whether a friendship can commit me to more than passivity in a case, where active behavior in favor of the friend entails an action, which my conscience declares as meanness; that it is treason and ambush that I show the boy to another man for advice, when I myself could not help him? – I am anxiously awaiting the answer.
Then there is finally a violent accusation against me regarding a letter I wrote to Oien's sister-in-law, in which I promise to take up the boy’s cause and to the utmost ability help him to his right; but this has nothing to do with the merits of the case today; the letter was written during one of the last days in December during the first impression of the boy’s terrible misfortune and in strong sympathy with his terrible position. After more careful consideration, however, I found that I could take no part in it, and, as explained above, the feelings interpreted from the first letter have no bearing on the present case. Yes, this is my relationship with The Zambrana affair; and then I ask of any honest man if I could have acted more honestly and more open, whether a friendship can commit me to more than passivity in a case, where active behavior on behalf of friend entails an action which my conscience declares as mean; that it is treason and ambush that I show the boy to another man for advice when I myself could not help him? – I await a comforting answer.
No, Sir Captain! It’s probably neither the boy’s fault, nor Iverson’s fault, nor mine, that the ‘Zambrana’ case has come to this unfavorable state.
The captain and his many advisors, who put their wise heads together, should have known, and knew, that if $500 was given in good faith for the boy in good American money, no living force could have prevented him from receiving the money, dropping the complaint, and leaving home. But to start work with a begging list [charity donations], where the captain, large part owner in the ‘Antonio Zambrana’ and strongly interested in the settlement of the case, signs up for $10 on the recoking that it will draw the sympthy of many outsiders to bring the amount to a couple hundred, is intolerably foolish.
From day to day the boy is offered nothing more until after 10-12 days of constant pressure the company promises to contribute the enormous sum of $200, and the holding of a bazaar which could bring it up to $500. The shouts of sympathy for him are so great, that people want to provide him with a carefree livelihood, and illustrate this great compassion, and create confidence in the boy in the will of the donors. The captain paid at his own expense $10, and at the expense of the company, $200. The rest was then to be taxed to the colony [the Norwegian-American donors in New York].
The captain and his friends find it strange that Iverson and the boy doubt the ability of the interested party's sympathy to provide him with a livelihood?
I think we can all agree that when these few hundred dollars were exhausted and Oien then had to draw bills from the sympathy of the company, he would hardly get them honored. Shall the boy live on the goodwill of others it will not be theirs whose compassion is creation when the knife is on their throat; his real friends at home will then give him the necessary handshake and he will have their sympathy in double measure if the case goes against him here; I have had enough evidence these days that if he loses, the $200 can be replaced.
And something is said about a post which Councilor Astrup is to get him. He can not fill a post of any art; the captain and I know this; and that Councilor Astrup was to require the company to pay a compensation sum (whether they want to or not) to the boy of 50-60 kroner per month, as long as he lives, seems unbelievable. The public is already taxed to a great extent by the needs and misery of his fellow men on the edges.
To make reconciliation attempts and base them on promises of gold and green forests, speculations of records, sympathy and pity and benevolence, cheap goods, which so quickly turns into gaseous form and becomes mere air, but that is not wise man's behavior. No, $500, Captain, in banknotes, gold or silver, presented on the table, would have satisfied the whole city. They probably would have saved their pennies and let the whole thing go!
They must not misunderstand me and believe that I think the sum was large enough to compensate the boy for his loss. 10,000 kroner, you know, was what I thought was due the boy, before the case came to the lawyer’s hands. But $500 dollars would have, however, arranged it simply, for neither Iverson nor any other living power on earth could at that time have prevented the boy from accepting settlement.
With regard to the persecutions of me, it makes me wiser to set them aside, firstly because such things pays off so poorly in the long run, but mostly becacuse in the surroundings there are plenty of benevolent souls who whisper in my ear, and it could easily bring them into even more difficulties.
- H. Volckmar, M.D.
Two articles appeared in the March 19th, 1897 edition-- one with an update regarding the jurisdiction question, and the second regarding Captain Krohg:
"The 'Zambrana' Case. The ship sold tor $6,500. Purchased by Captain Krohg. Yesterday, Thursday, March 18th, the Norwegian steamer 'Antonio Zambrana' was sold at public auction to cover the crew's outstanding wages. At the auction, Captain Krohg, one of the ship's co-owners, was the highest bidder with the incredibly low sum of $6,500. We shall also return to this matter later." |
On March 26th, 1897, "Nordisk Tidende" reported a plot twist:
"'Zambrana' must be sold once more. First Auction known to be invalid. When the Norwegian accident ship 'Antonio Zambrana' was auctioned on Thursday last week, to the former co-owner and the ship's driver, Captain Krohg, for the incredibly low sum of $6,500, there must have been many who found this whole auction setup a bit odd; for here, however, the relationship between tender and real, real value was far too glaring, even to be during an auction. First of all, the ship in and of itself is now worth many times the winning sum of the famous auction, and secondly, this sale would have been a bloody injustice to the men who have legitimate claims on the ship. The crew's receivables were between 3 and 400 dollars, then the factory owner Olsen came with a claim of 3 to 4000, and when you add to this the considerable expenses that auctions and seizures entail under such conditions, it is easy to calculate that the the unluckily injured sailor, Oien, would have received nothing, at least not much, even if his order had been approved over that of factory owner Olsen. For these reasons, and perhaps not least because of the nature of the auction, the authorities have also declared this 'Zambrana' sale invalid, and a new auction will be held to better safeguard the interests of the claimants." |
On April 2nd, 1897, "Nordisk Tidnede" reported on the second auction:
"'Antonio Zambrana.' Sold for the second time. Now for $13,550. Last Saturday, two auctions were held for the ship 'Antonio Zambrana,' which, as is known, is located at 27th Street in Brooklyn, seized for several claims, including for compensation claims from it unhappy sailor, Oien, who on board the same lost one of his arms. The first time the ship was under the [auction] hammer, as you will remember, it was struck by one of the owners, Captain Krohg, for $6,500, but the relevant authorities for some reason disallowed this auction, and therefore the new one this Saturday, with the result that the 'Zambrana' went to Mr. Hageman, clerk at Funch Edye & Co., for $13,550, presumably on behalf of Philadelphia firms. What the ship will be used for is so far unknown, but it is rumored that it will go into the same trade as before. The debt resting on the vessel is as follows: - Credit Bank in Kristiansund $3,800 - Factory owner Olsen in Union Street, Brooklyn $3,600 - Assurance premium $1,000 - The captain's and crew's receivables $900 - Bennett, Walsh & Co., New York $850 Another Norwegian steamer, the 'Cuba,' has thus already put into the sea to make a trip to 'Zambrana,' so this will have time to be cleaned and properly repaired." |
On April 9th, 1897, "Nordisk Tidende" wrote:
"The 'Zambrana' Case. A Letter to Dr. Volckmar, etc.
In the 'Nordsik Tidende' for Friday, March 12th, 1897, our widely-respected and celebrated Dr. Volckmar delivered an entry in the now well-known 'Zambrana' case prompted by accusations that Dr. Volckmar had conspired against 'Zambrana's' shipping company and its interests regarding the mutilated sailor, Oien, and his initiated compensation claim against the ship.
The doctor openly and manfully presented his account of the case from first to last, and certainly this account has found approval with all right-thinking people, but not so before many of his old circle of friends, who, either from a lack of goodwill to understand or from a momentary frenzy of thought, have allowed themselves to be seduced into dragging him down below the low level of treatment any honorable man can demand.
It has literally rained reproaches on the doctor from near and far, and the following letter he just received from his own hometown, Kristiansund, should be a worthy capstone for the whole persecution:
'Christiansund, March 22nd, 1897:
Sir Dr. Volckmar,
It is a deep-felt urge for Christiansund, and especially 'Zambrana's' shipowners, to thank the doctor for his noble behavior right in front of us.
First of all, let it be said that you are going to rob Christiansund for the good tax 'Zambrana' pays to our commune, then to all those it has provided bread for, such as Captain, mate, bookkeeper, etc.
Worst of all, this hits Captain Krohg (he's your friend, they say here) who, in addition to his fortune, loses his livelihood, and finally all those who have invested their money in it and now lose everything.
That is why we want to say frankly, Mr. Dr. has caused an accident to over half the city and out-of-towners as well; but surely it is only thanks to the fact that you have been supported by H. M. Lossius's grant? and of Councilor Astrup as the second largest shareholder in 'A. Zambrana.' So thank you very much! 'They are beyond the reach of the Christiansunds and must not be reached,' then we will only add that we at least have the same God in Norway as in America and we wish from the bottom of our hearts that He may and must reach you.
If you hadn't thought of making money yourself from the poor cripple, you wouldn't have proceeded in this violent and thuggish way!
- Several shareholders in Antonio Zambrana.'
*
The editors of this magazine can testify that the above is an absolutely reliable copy of the original letter, and we do not have much to add on top of this. The letter truly speaks for itself. We are immediately struck with astonishment that several of the ship's shareholders could have dared to ascribe such, let us, to use a mild expression, call it, odious honour, to a storyless man, all the while in Kristiansund itself there is evidence of, that the doctor did what he could to arrange the unhappy case without all the inconveniences that have now followed.
We are not called to be Mr. Volckmar's defensor either in this or in other cases concerning him, but right should be right, and when a man acts so humanely, so devoid of all selfishness, as the doctor, in our eyes at least, has done in this play, then he should be free from all further prosecution.
It is said openly that Mr. Volckmar has given Norwegian shipping here on the square a blow that it cannot recover from, by giving Oien the advice to inquire whether there was nothing to be done with regard to compensation for his sad fate.
On the contrary, we should believe that Mr. Volckmar in this piece has done Norwegian shipping in New York a great service; for if the fat aboard 'Antonio Zambrana' is in accordance with what has come to our attention at various times, especially in the last, then it is high time that it comes to the knowledge of the public, as it is said in ancient law books, to the horror and warning for like-minded people!"
"The 'Zambrana' Case. A Letter to Dr. Volckmar, etc.
In the 'Nordsik Tidende' for Friday, March 12th, 1897, our widely-respected and celebrated Dr. Volckmar delivered an entry in the now well-known 'Zambrana' case prompted by accusations that Dr. Volckmar had conspired against 'Zambrana's' shipping company and its interests regarding the mutilated sailor, Oien, and his initiated compensation claim against the ship.
The doctor openly and manfully presented his account of the case from first to last, and certainly this account has found approval with all right-thinking people, but not so before many of his old circle of friends, who, either from a lack of goodwill to understand or from a momentary frenzy of thought, have allowed themselves to be seduced into dragging him down below the low level of treatment any honorable man can demand.
It has literally rained reproaches on the doctor from near and far, and the following letter he just received from his own hometown, Kristiansund, should be a worthy capstone for the whole persecution:
'Christiansund, March 22nd, 1897:
Sir Dr. Volckmar,
It is a deep-felt urge for Christiansund, and especially 'Zambrana's' shipowners, to thank the doctor for his noble behavior right in front of us.
First of all, let it be said that you are going to rob Christiansund for the good tax 'Zambrana' pays to our commune, then to all those it has provided bread for, such as Captain, mate, bookkeeper, etc.
Worst of all, this hits Captain Krohg (he's your friend, they say here) who, in addition to his fortune, loses his livelihood, and finally all those who have invested their money in it and now lose everything.
That is why we want to say frankly, Mr. Dr. has caused an accident to over half the city and out-of-towners as well; but surely it is only thanks to the fact that you have been supported by H. M. Lossius's grant? and of Councilor Astrup as the second largest shareholder in 'A. Zambrana.' So thank you very much! 'They are beyond the reach of the Christiansunds and must not be reached,' then we will only add that we at least have the same God in Norway as in America and we wish from the bottom of our hearts that He may and must reach you.
If you hadn't thought of making money yourself from the poor cripple, you wouldn't have proceeded in this violent and thuggish way!
- Several shareholders in Antonio Zambrana.'
*
The editors of this magazine can testify that the above is an absolutely reliable copy of the original letter, and we do not have much to add on top of this. The letter truly speaks for itself. We are immediately struck with astonishment that several of the ship's shareholders could have dared to ascribe such, let us, to use a mild expression, call it, odious honour, to a storyless man, all the while in Kristiansund itself there is evidence of, that the doctor did what he could to arrange the unhappy case without all the inconveniences that have now followed.
We are not called to be Mr. Volckmar's defensor either in this or in other cases concerning him, but right should be right, and when a man acts so humanely, so devoid of all selfishness, as the doctor, in our eyes at least, has done in this play, then he should be free from all further prosecution.
It is said openly that Mr. Volckmar has given Norwegian shipping here on the square a blow that it cannot recover from, by giving Oien the advice to inquire whether there was nothing to be done with regard to compensation for his sad fate.
On the contrary, we should believe that Mr. Volckmar in this piece has done Norwegian shipping in New York a great service; for if the fat aboard 'Antonio Zambrana' is in accordance with what has come to our attention at various times, especially in the last, then it is high time that it comes to the knowledge of the public, as it is said in ancient law books, to the horror and warning for like-minded people!"
On May 14th, 1897, "Nordisk Tidende" continued their reporting of the situation. The story covered the full first page, and two additional columns in a second article on the second page.
Grave Accusations against Doctor Volckmar. "Antonio Zambrana:" the case in a new light. Letter from Captain Krohg.
Our readers probably have fresh memories of an article that this magazine delivered on Friday, February 19th this year, entitled "''Antonio Zambrana' is a shipwreck."
The article dealt with the sad disaster that took place on board in the middle of December last year, in which accident a young sailor, Georg Oien, native of Kristianssund, lost his right arm.
The accident happened at a time when the ship's long-time captain, Captain Krohg, was on his way to the old country, hoping to get the famous Columbia affair sorted out.
During his absence, the ship was under the command of his long-time and trusted mate, Mr. Fagerlie, a good and proper sailor, whom the captain could trust in every way.
Then in the evening, at the time mentioned, when the steamer was to throw loose its moorings, one of the cables broke, with the result that Oien's arm went with it.
The cause of this accident has not yet been fully clarified, as an investigation was started in connection with the case compensation process, which has not yet reached its conclusion.
*
The reason why we come back to the rather sad incident today is that the ship was seized, in order to ensure the badly injured Oien compensation for the fate that befell him.
There was talk between man and man before the relationship more familiar elements, that things were not quite right with this seizure.
The more initiated would know that the ship would never have been seized if Oien himself had heard about the matter, but that other more influential persons, and especially those who had a horn in Captain Krohg's side, had directly encouraged him there. Among those who were specifically mentioned was Dr. Volckmar.
No-one could quite believe this, since the doctor and Captain Krohg are not only townspeople, but the latter is even an intimate friend who was often seen in the doctor's home.
Among those who indignantly returned this accusation directly to Mr. Volckmar was the publisher and editor of this magazine, but unfortunately we could not possibly be believed, when it was loudly and without hesitation claimed that there was conclusive evidence for the doctor's so-called brothers.
What this evidence consisted of, we could not possibly find out at the time, when Captain Krohg stated that he should put the evidence of his accusation before the public when his time came.
In the meantime, the court had its regular course:
The ship was put up for auction to cover the crew's outstanding rent, as well as other claims on the vessel and finally the compensation claim made by Oiens.
Our readers also know that the first auction was canceled by the authorities, with the result that the steamer passed into the hands of an entirely new company, and is now renamed "Phönix," while it still runs its usual route between New York and the West Indies.
*
However, the accusations against the doctor for having participated in this case had become so close that he found himself compelled to come forward with an explanation regarding his account which was to be read in "Nordisk Tidende" on Friday, March 12, this year.
Without taking anyone's side in this now so famous case, we cannot, however, refrain from maintaining the opinion that the doctor's article inspires anything but friendship to his old town friend. It almost tastes like a long-hidden dislike of Captain Krohg has come to light here, and in our opinion it is not a factual statement for the cleansing of the mentioned accusation, but rather a threat to reveal the possibly bad qualities that his former friend was supposed to possess.
But since it has never been our weak point not to let anyone make use of the column space of the public press in the various exchanges of opinion, we did not put any obstacle in the way on this occasion either.
We cannot reproduce the article in its entirety, but we must partly let the doctor's own words speak:
[Here a portion of Dr. Volckmar's article is re-printed. See the above section to read the March 12th article in full.]
*
Without any response to this whatsoever from Capt. Krohg's side, then the time passes until Friday, April 9th, when Doctor Volckmar leaves us for publication an anonymous letter sent to him from Kristianssund, the content of which was very long character.
On that occasion we stated that we were not called to be Mr. Volckmar's defender either in this or in other cases concerning him, but right should be right, and when a man acts so humanely, so devoid of all selfishness, as the doctor, in our eyes at least, had done in this piece, then he should be free from all further charges.
*
There was still a catch to the matter, namely, that the interested parties never got to know the contents of the letter which the doctor acknowledges to have attributed to Oien's sister-in-law, until now, when Captain Krogh has provided us with the below letter which the public has the right to have published.
-----
"SIR EDITOR: Under this heading, Dr. Volckmar in the 'Nordisk Tidende' for March 12th tried to wash himself clean of all complicity in the seizure of the steamship 'Antonio Zambrana,' saying that his dealings with the case consisted of referring the injured Georg Oien to his friend, bookseller Iverson.
How truthful this claim is, I leave it to the readers of this magazine to judge for themselves when I quote part of a letter written by Dr. Volckmar on January 7th, 1897, to Mrs. Oien (Georg Oien's sister-in-law) in Kristiansund:
'Also this terrible thing about Georg! I spoke to him last time yesterday and found him probably depressed and sorrowful, but nevertheless full of hope that 'Zambrana's' leadership will naturally take care of him, so that in the future he will have no needs. Since, however, I am just as obviously sure that from that side no other help than regrets, shrugs and poor guy will come, and so that the same blunder will not be repeated, as in the case with Jacob, I have on my own responsibility contacted one of the best prosecutors in the city, and I dare promise that no stone will be left unturned to pin the responsibility on anyone, no matter what, if it can be done in any possible way. Even if the whole case comes down to the fact that the vessel is Norwegian and thus does not come under American jurisdiction, but we then prove what can be proven! .
For my part, it's exactly the same, I'm outside Kristiansund's range and can't be reached!'
That this is a real copy is confirmed by stock exchange commissioner Carl Bang.
*
Since the above copy of Dr. Volckmar's own handwritten letter will be sufficient to convince the readers of 'Nordisk Tidende' whether Mr. Dr. Volckmar's article is truthful or the opposite, my intention is here achieved, and further newspaper polemics with a man who distorts the truth in such a brazen manner will be beneath my dignity and remain unanswered.
About whether Dr. Volckmar and his friend Iverson have benefited Georg Oien, time will tell. I regret him that he has fallen into such hands, nor do I think that these two gentlemen will reap as great an advantage from the case as they may have intended from the beginning.
-Otto Krogh."
-----
Although we can understand Dr. Volckmar's opinion when he says that the letter was sent in the first moments of excitement and he decided on further reflection to waive all involvement with the case, then it is possible that the wider public may misunderstand the character of the letter, and we therefore leave it to the parties involved in the case to come up with their answers.
*
Only this one, before we end:
Iverson's relationship with the 'Antonio Zambrana' case is no secret. He himself declares himself solely responsible for what has happened, and in no way denies being part of the incident. No-one could ask for better words and more openness.
The motives for his actions are none of our business or anyone else's. It is a matter for which he owes no account.
If he has acted from motives which are not worthy of him, then may he alone bear the responsibility for this.
He has manfully stood in the breach, and whether it was done from wind sickness or not [perhaps alluding to Iver's previous work as a sailor], one thing is certain: for shipmasters will then understand that a sailor on board a vessel is not always just a mute creature.
Dr. Volckmar's Relation to the 'Antonio Zambrana' case.
On the occasion of the letter received from Captain Krohg with a quote from the letter sent to Oien's sister-in-law, we turned to Dr. Volckmar and asked him to acknowledge whether the received letter was genuine and in all respects a correct extract of mentioned letter, in which he stated that he recognized the quote as completely correct, and also answered our question, whether it was Captain Krohg's handwritten signature.
We were therefore not surprised when the doctor approached us the following day with a request for admission:
-----
"Mr. Editor! Just a few words in response to Captain Krohg's post in the 'Zambrana' case.
Firstly, where is the proof of the correctness of the quote provided? That Captian Krohg keeps quiet weeks after a delivered attack, travels home to Kristianssund, where he is served a so-called extract from a private letter, which has been submitted by the addressee under the most severe threats of financial ruin, and then it makes an impression as the equivalent of a two-month-old attack, certified by a Mr. Bang and accompanied by a lot of commonality that the submitter sees, that basically speaks for itself.
It was my most decided opinion, when I first saw the boy and heard the circumstances under which the accident had happened, to help him to his justice, if possible, and the first thing that had to be investigated was whether compensation was possible here. In an American association, of which I am a member, I meet a lawyer, to whom I present the case without mentioning any name and ask for his opinion regarding jurisdiction. I am writing a private letter to Oien's sister-in-law about this. That on further reflection I think that my acquaintance with the captain and several of the rowers compels me to stay out of the affair and so points the boy to a man who can and will help him, it is, however, such an easily understandable thing that all this talk would be redundant. The captain could have found out that the above-mentioned lawyer is not Oiens' laywer, before he left here. I did not know the firm of Grant Jenks, Meyer and Hyde until weeks after the quoted letter was written; it may easily proved. The captain's other duties can be postponed for the time being.
-H. Volckmar, M.D"
-----
In this case, we must be allowed to blame the doctor's indecision in the disputed case in the strongest possible terms.
As per a usual newspaper article we seek him out, as one of the parties in the whole dispute. He has been and still is the burning point around which the dispute and the resulting polemic revolve.
After we have proved to him that there is not the slightest obstacle from our side to a free investigation of the relationship to the disputed affair, he seeks to equate us with less than truth-loving people, and will in anything from a gentlemanly manner refute what he has once put his stamp on.
Why not just as easily wave a clean flag and admit the authenticity of the letter directly to the large public, who nowadays has the right to demand such things?
This frenzy about proving and proving again is only a loophole forced by necessity, but which is not big enough for the doctor to enter.
Who this Bang is is completely irrelevant. Captain Krohg must bear the responsibility if the document is forged with a fake name. For the general public, it doesn't matter if he is known around here or not.
We assume that neither Doctor Volckmar nor any of the rest of us were particularly popular or well-known here on the square before we immigrated.
You have acknowledged the authenticity of the letter right in front of us, Mr. doctor, and what we are waiting for is not a creep in hiding, but the maintenance of the claims put forward in the article for March 12th.
By the way, the referred to "masses of commons" may be too many. may well be too taut. In any case, it turns out that fluff can also come from other quarters when the blood boils. We thought until now that it was only us who had a patent on this, as we have always been accused for this, if not precisely from the side of the warring parties.
-Editor
Our readers probably have fresh memories of an article that this magazine delivered on Friday, February 19th this year, entitled "''Antonio Zambrana' is a shipwreck."
The article dealt with the sad disaster that took place on board in the middle of December last year, in which accident a young sailor, Georg Oien, native of Kristianssund, lost his right arm.
The accident happened at a time when the ship's long-time captain, Captain Krohg, was on his way to the old country, hoping to get the famous Columbia affair sorted out.
During his absence, the ship was under the command of his long-time and trusted mate, Mr. Fagerlie, a good and proper sailor, whom the captain could trust in every way.
Then in the evening, at the time mentioned, when the steamer was to throw loose its moorings, one of the cables broke, with the result that Oien's arm went with it.
The cause of this accident has not yet been fully clarified, as an investigation was started in connection with the case compensation process, which has not yet reached its conclusion.
*
The reason why we come back to the rather sad incident today is that the ship was seized, in order to ensure the badly injured Oien compensation for the fate that befell him.
There was talk between man and man before the relationship more familiar elements, that things were not quite right with this seizure.
The more initiated would know that the ship would never have been seized if Oien himself had heard about the matter, but that other more influential persons, and especially those who had a horn in Captain Krohg's side, had directly encouraged him there. Among those who were specifically mentioned was Dr. Volckmar.
No-one could quite believe this, since the doctor and Captain Krohg are not only townspeople, but the latter is even an intimate friend who was often seen in the doctor's home.
Among those who indignantly returned this accusation directly to Mr. Volckmar was the publisher and editor of this magazine, but unfortunately we could not possibly be believed, when it was loudly and without hesitation claimed that there was conclusive evidence for the doctor's so-called brothers.
What this evidence consisted of, we could not possibly find out at the time, when Captain Krohg stated that he should put the evidence of his accusation before the public when his time came.
In the meantime, the court had its regular course:
The ship was put up for auction to cover the crew's outstanding rent, as well as other claims on the vessel and finally the compensation claim made by Oiens.
Our readers also know that the first auction was canceled by the authorities, with the result that the steamer passed into the hands of an entirely new company, and is now renamed "Phönix," while it still runs its usual route between New York and the West Indies.
*
However, the accusations against the doctor for having participated in this case had become so close that he found himself compelled to come forward with an explanation regarding his account which was to be read in "Nordisk Tidende" on Friday, March 12, this year.
Without taking anyone's side in this now so famous case, we cannot, however, refrain from maintaining the opinion that the doctor's article inspires anything but friendship to his old town friend. It almost tastes like a long-hidden dislike of Captain Krohg has come to light here, and in our opinion it is not a factual statement for the cleansing of the mentioned accusation, but rather a threat to reveal the possibly bad qualities that his former friend was supposed to possess.
But since it has never been our weak point not to let anyone make use of the column space of the public press in the various exchanges of opinion, we did not put any obstacle in the way on this occasion either.
We cannot reproduce the article in its entirety, but we must partly let the doctor's own words speak:
[Here a portion of Dr. Volckmar's article is re-printed. See the above section to read the March 12th article in full.]
*
Without any response to this whatsoever from Capt. Krohg's side, then the time passes until Friday, April 9th, when Doctor Volckmar leaves us for publication an anonymous letter sent to him from Kristianssund, the content of which was very long character.
On that occasion we stated that we were not called to be Mr. Volckmar's defender either in this or in other cases concerning him, but right should be right, and when a man acts so humanely, so devoid of all selfishness, as the doctor, in our eyes at least, had done in this piece, then he should be free from all further charges.
*
There was still a catch to the matter, namely, that the interested parties never got to know the contents of the letter which the doctor acknowledges to have attributed to Oien's sister-in-law, until now, when Captain Krogh has provided us with the below letter which the public has the right to have published.
-----
"SIR EDITOR: Under this heading, Dr. Volckmar in the 'Nordisk Tidende' for March 12th tried to wash himself clean of all complicity in the seizure of the steamship 'Antonio Zambrana,' saying that his dealings with the case consisted of referring the injured Georg Oien to his friend, bookseller Iverson.
How truthful this claim is, I leave it to the readers of this magazine to judge for themselves when I quote part of a letter written by Dr. Volckmar on January 7th, 1897, to Mrs. Oien (Georg Oien's sister-in-law) in Kristiansund:
'Also this terrible thing about Georg! I spoke to him last time yesterday and found him probably depressed and sorrowful, but nevertheless full of hope that 'Zambrana's' leadership will naturally take care of him, so that in the future he will have no needs. Since, however, I am just as obviously sure that from that side no other help than regrets, shrugs and poor guy will come, and so that the same blunder will not be repeated, as in the case with Jacob, I have on my own responsibility contacted one of the best prosecutors in the city, and I dare promise that no stone will be left unturned to pin the responsibility on anyone, no matter what, if it can be done in any possible way. Even if the whole case comes down to the fact that the vessel is Norwegian and thus does not come under American jurisdiction, but we then prove what can be proven! .
For my part, it's exactly the same, I'm outside Kristiansund's range and can't be reached!'
That this is a real copy is confirmed by stock exchange commissioner Carl Bang.
*
Since the above copy of Dr. Volckmar's own handwritten letter will be sufficient to convince the readers of 'Nordisk Tidende' whether Mr. Dr. Volckmar's article is truthful or the opposite, my intention is here achieved, and further newspaper polemics with a man who distorts the truth in such a brazen manner will be beneath my dignity and remain unanswered.
About whether Dr. Volckmar and his friend Iverson have benefited Georg Oien, time will tell. I regret him that he has fallen into such hands, nor do I think that these two gentlemen will reap as great an advantage from the case as they may have intended from the beginning.
-Otto Krogh."
-----
Although we can understand Dr. Volckmar's opinion when he says that the letter was sent in the first moments of excitement and he decided on further reflection to waive all involvement with the case, then it is possible that the wider public may misunderstand the character of the letter, and we therefore leave it to the parties involved in the case to come up with their answers.
*
Only this one, before we end:
Iverson's relationship with the 'Antonio Zambrana' case is no secret. He himself declares himself solely responsible for what has happened, and in no way denies being part of the incident. No-one could ask for better words and more openness.
The motives for his actions are none of our business or anyone else's. It is a matter for which he owes no account.
If he has acted from motives which are not worthy of him, then may he alone bear the responsibility for this.
He has manfully stood in the breach, and whether it was done from wind sickness or not [perhaps alluding to Iver's previous work as a sailor], one thing is certain: for shipmasters will then understand that a sailor on board a vessel is not always just a mute creature.
Dr. Volckmar's Relation to the 'Antonio Zambrana' case.
On the occasion of the letter received from Captain Krohg with a quote from the letter sent to Oien's sister-in-law, we turned to Dr. Volckmar and asked him to acknowledge whether the received letter was genuine and in all respects a correct extract of mentioned letter, in which he stated that he recognized the quote as completely correct, and also answered our question, whether it was Captain Krohg's handwritten signature.
We were therefore not surprised when the doctor approached us the following day with a request for admission:
-----
"Mr. Editor! Just a few words in response to Captain Krohg's post in the 'Zambrana' case.
Firstly, where is the proof of the correctness of the quote provided? That Captian Krohg keeps quiet weeks after a delivered attack, travels home to Kristianssund, where he is served a so-called extract from a private letter, which has been submitted by the addressee under the most severe threats of financial ruin, and then it makes an impression as the equivalent of a two-month-old attack, certified by a Mr. Bang and accompanied by a lot of commonality that the submitter sees, that basically speaks for itself.
It was my most decided opinion, when I first saw the boy and heard the circumstances under which the accident had happened, to help him to his justice, if possible, and the first thing that had to be investigated was whether compensation was possible here. In an American association, of which I am a member, I meet a lawyer, to whom I present the case without mentioning any name and ask for his opinion regarding jurisdiction. I am writing a private letter to Oien's sister-in-law about this. That on further reflection I think that my acquaintance with the captain and several of the rowers compels me to stay out of the affair and so points the boy to a man who can and will help him, it is, however, such an easily understandable thing that all this talk would be redundant. The captain could have found out that the above-mentioned lawyer is not Oiens' laywer, before he left here. I did not know the firm of Grant Jenks, Meyer and Hyde until weeks after the quoted letter was written; it may easily proved. The captain's other duties can be postponed for the time being.
-H. Volckmar, M.D"
-----
In this case, we must be allowed to blame the doctor's indecision in the disputed case in the strongest possible terms.
As per a usual newspaper article we seek him out, as one of the parties in the whole dispute. He has been and still is the burning point around which the dispute and the resulting polemic revolve.
After we have proved to him that there is not the slightest obstacle from our side to a free investigation of the relationship to the disputed affair, he seeks to equate us with less than truth-loving people, and will in anything from a gentlemanly manner refute what he has once put his stamp on.
Why not just as easily wave a clean flag and admit the authenticity of the letter directly to the large public, who nowadays has the right to demand such things?
This frenzy about proving and proving again is only a loophole forced by necessity, but which is not big enough for the doctor to enter.
Who this Bang is is completely irrelevant. Captain Krohg must bear the responsibility if the document is forged with a fake name. For the general public, it doesn't matter if he is known around here or not.
We assume that neither Doctor Volckmar nor any of the rest of us were particularly popular or well-known here on the square before we immigrated.
You have acknowledged the authenticity of the letter right in front of us, Mr. doctor, and what we are waiting for is not a creep in hiding, but the maintenance of the claims put forward in the article for March 12th.
By the way, the referred to "masses of commons" may be too many. may well be too taut. In any case, it turns out that fluff can also come from other quarters when the blood boils. We thought until now that it was only us who had a patent on this, as we have always been accused for this, if not precisely from the side of the warring parties.
-Editor
From what I can discern, Iver sent an editorial to both the "Nordisk Tidende" and the "Nordiske Blade" regarding his position in the Zambrana scandal. While the "Blade" printed his letter, the "Tidende" did not immediately do so, and instead published this rejection on May 28th, 1897:
"The 'Zambrana' Case Our friend, the philanthropist, Mr. I. F. Iverson, will surely excuse us for the fact that we can only pick apart his claims made in the next issue, delivered -- sadly enough -- by himself, in another magazine ["Nordiske Blade"] here on the square next week. One thing we must promise in advance, and that is that we will not draw the object of the commended writing [Captain Krogh] through our columns in the same manner as that of conscience-beaten Mr. Iverson has done. His manner of exposing the cripple [?] in said article is more similar to the bear tamer of Coney Islands, when he puts a ring around the nose of the speechless beasts and lets them dance to an open-mouthed crowd’s pleasure. Considerations of humanity and human compassion for the injured should have dictated to him language other than that which was used in his product." |
However, on June 11th, 1897, the "Nordisk Tidende" apparently relented, and DID proceed to publish excerpts from Iver's letter!
The Zambrana Case - Georg Oien's Trial. A four-column article written by Mr. I. F. Iverson, under protest on the part of Doctor Volckmar.
On May 22nd the "Nordiske Blade" contained a four-column letter from Mr. I. F. Iverson on the occasion the now famous 'Zambrana" case.
We do not know the motives that were the basis for the said letter, and we had no mandate whatsoever to accept/publish it, but since we are directly accused of having taken sides in the matter, and even being against those who act as Oien's guardians in the disputed compensation issue, then we must be allowed to make a few moves, even if we thereby end up feeding the interested parties [Iverson].
In advance, we must be honest and inform our readers that the product saw the light of day, under strong protest from Doctor Volckmar.
The doctor has personally asked us to state this, as he has no involvement with the claims made.
We reproduce here part of the statements in "Nordiske Blade" for the aforementioned date:
*
"It is quite funny to read 'Nordisk Tidende’s' statement in this now so much contested case. While I, as a person interested in this case, cannot understand, is the accusations that take place opposing Dr. Volckmar. If this — that the doctor has taken the side of Oien — is a crime, then the is lost for him, and his position as a respectable man has gone down the drain, which is indeed very regrettable. But I think, however, that, excluding those personally-interested such as Captain Krogh and his friends, the public — the general public as a whole — must say that the doctor’s position is the only one tenable and respectable throughout the whole affair.
[...]
The regret, which Captain Krohg raves over in his reply letter to Volckmar, that he [Oien] has fallen into such hands as the doctor's and Iverson's, I think is more likely an outcry of regret for himself, for it was indeed a misfortune for him and his company, that his many wise plans for the boy’s future fell into just such hands; and that we are not going to reap such great benefits of the case, as we had believed from the first, will likely be regretted by him and his consortium. However, I will give Mr. Captain the advice that if this does not happen, he must at least not for my sake lose any night’s sleep in his fearful doubts about this, for whether Oien wins or loses, he will not owe me anything.
[...]
If the law gave him [Oien] so much that he could faithfully accept it, and he instead accepted the captain’s and the company’s overflowing benefactions, not to count those of the outside public, so wild his conscience may one day wake up with the question: 'But have I the right to all this, too?” And should his conscience doubt and torment him thus, then his wild pleasure would be gone. [Iver is paraphrasing Captain Krogh’s assertions that Oien might become so money-hungry that he would feel entitled to the company’s payments, the public’s donations, and the law’s payout.]
[...]
This is an important matter for a person of conscience. I know Oien walks around today and twists himself under this sore point, to such an extent that
if it was undone, he would never now do it again. Now I know that Captain Krogh has completely overlooked this in his love of humanity, but as I now tell him that I am sure in his heart that he thanked God that Oien did what he did, because naturally for the captain, as a right-thinking man, it must of course be of the utmost importance that Oien got just that which was due to him, and not a stiff more.
[...]
The captain's wrath against me, and the rumors spread by him that that I should get to make a long trip to Sing Sing [a prison] with his help, though not on his cost, I have forgiven him, and I forgive him all, if only he does not now try to take away the boy’s happy childlike faith that he has done the only right thing. For that is worth more to the boy than all else under the current circumstances.
[...]
There is one thing, however, that I have forgotten to attach to the captain’s praises, and that is, when it came to a pinch grip, and he saw that Oien might not want to accept the $10, then he allowed himself to be tempted to invite him [Oien] to dinner, where he cut to the chase (which Oien could not well do himself), and allowed himself to be led to increase his offer to $200. I know it sounds incredible, but it’s nonetheless true. Oien came to me almost crazy with joy, and wanted to accept it, but here too I intervened disturbingly.
[...]
Where is there a single human being who would lose his arm in such a horrifying way, for the wealth of the whole world? And allow me here to announce that, whether Dr. Volckmar has written or not, he would have been a hyena in human form, if he had founded his friendship with the captain — like certain others -- for the sake of gain, and had tried to persuade the boy to settle the case on the terms that were proposed. The Norwegian seamen — I myself have been one -- every Norweigan sailor, every Norwegian ship's boy, who comes to the port of New York or reads these lines, should in spirit extend for that man's hand for the position he has taken in this case. I know how the doctor vacillated between justice and friendship, for he finally decided to send Oien to me. That he, who was a friend of Krohg, and who knew what might cause him discomfort in taking sides for the boy, yet in a sense of justice chose the latter, is a mark of moral courage to the core. ‘Nordisk Tidende’ and Krogh insist he lied.
[...]
I dare and I will say that if it had not been first and foremost for Dr. Volckmar, then the boy would probably have retired [died] at home.
[...]
There are many other points I could like to touch on, and many other personalities who could get a bit of the whip in this most hideous affair, but this time I will let grace take its course. But there is one thing I shall touch on in the end and that is: is there anyone who doesn’t want the boy to get his due? I know some people who have loudly regretted that they have lost so-and-so many dollars per month because Oien did not accept the wretched offer which was made to him. But do those people dare to gossip with statements about greed for money on the part of others? Assumptions taken out of thin air? I say once again to the Norwegian sailor: 'Hats off to Dr. Volckmar.'
-I. F. Iverson"
*
We don't think there is the slightest trace of anything funny in this case; it is far too serious for that. 'Nordisk Tidende' was the first Scandinavian body here on the square which took up this case, just like we have always taken the lead, even when there have been abuses on one side or the other.
On May 22nd the "Nordiske Blade" contained a four-column letter from Mr. I. F. Iverson on the occasion the now famous 'Zambrana" case.
We do not know the motives that were the basis for the said letter, and we had no mandate whatsoever to accept/publish it, but since we are directly accused of having taken sides in the matter, and even being against those who act as Oien's guardians in the disputed compensation issue, then we must be allowed to make a few moves, even if we thereby end up feeding the interested parties [Iverson].
In advance, we must be honest and inform our readers that the product saw the light of day, under strong protest from Doctor Volckmar.
The doctor has personally asked us to state this, as he has no involvement with the claims made.
We reproduce here part of the statements in "Nordiske Blade" for the aforementioned date:
*
"It is quite funny to read 'Nordisk Tidende’s' statement in this now so much contested case. While I, as a person interested in this case, cannot understand, is the accusations that take place opposing Dr. Volckmar. If this — that the doctor has taken the side of Oien — is a crime, then the is lost for him, and his position as a respectable man has gone down the drain, which is indeed very regrettable. But I think, however, that, excluding those personally-interested such as Captain Krogh and his friends, the public — the general public as a whole — must say that the doctor’s position is the only one tenable and respectable throughout the whole affair.
[...]
The regret, which Captain Krohg raves over in his reply letter to Volckmar, that he [Oien] has fallen into such hands as the doctor's and Iverson's, I think is more likely an outcry of regret for himself, for it was indeed a misfortune for him and his company, that his many wise plans for the boy’s future fell into just such hands; and that we are not going to reap such great benefits of the case, as we had believed from the first, will likely be regretted by him and his consortium. However, I will give Mr. Captain the advice that if this does not happen, he must at least not for my sake lose any night’s sleep in his fearful doubts about this, for whether Oien wins or loses, he will not owe me anything.
[...]
If the law gave him [Oien] so much that he could faithfully accept it, and he instead accepted the captain’s and the company’s overflowing benefactions, not to count those of the outside public, so wild his conscience may one day wake up with the question: 'But have I the right to all this, too?” And should his conscience doubt and torment him thus, then his wild pleasure would be gone. [Iver is paraphrasing Captain Krogh’s assertions that Oien might become so money-hungry that he would feel entitled to the company’s payments, the public’s donations, and the law’s payout.]
[...]
This is an important matter for a person of conscience. I know Oien walks around today and twists himself under this sore point, to such an extent that
if it was undone, he would never now do it again. Now I know that Captain Krogh has completely overlooked this in his love of humanity, but as I now tell him that I am sure in his heart that he thanked God that Oien did what he did, because naturally for the captain, as a right-thinking man, it must of course be of the utmost importance that Oien got just that which was due to him, and not a stiff more.
[...]
The captain's wrath against me, and the rumors spread by him that that I should get to make a long trip to Sing Sing [a prison] with his help, though not on his cost, I have forgiven him, and I forgive him all, if only he does not now try to take away the boy’s happy childlike faith that he has done the only right thing. For that is worth more to the boy than all else under the current circumstances.
[...]
There is one thing, however, that I have forgotten to attach to the captain’s praises, and that is, when it came to a pinch grip, and he saw that Oien might not want to accept the $10, then he allowed himself to be tempted to invite him [Oien] to dinner, where he cut to the chase (which Oien could not well do himself), and allowed himself to be led to increase his offer to $200. I know it sounds incredible, but it’s nonetheless true. Oien came to me almost crazy with joy, and wanted to accept it, but here too I intervened disturbingly.
[...]
Where is there a single human being who would lose his arm in such a horrifying way, for the wealth of the whole world? And allow me here to announce that, whether Dr. Volckmar has written or not, he would have been a hyena in human form, if he had founded his friendship with the captain — like certain others -- for the sake of gain, and had tried to persuade the boy to settle the case on the terms that were proposed. The Norwegian seamen — I myself have been one -- every Norweigan sailor, every Norwegian ship's boy, who comes to the port of New York or reads these lines, should in spirit extend for that man's hand for the position he has taken in this case. I know how the doctor vacillated between justice and friendship, for he finally decided to send Oien to me. That he, who was a friend of Krohg, and who knew what might cause him discomfort in taking sides for the boy, yet in a sense of justice chose the latter, is a mark of moral courage to the core. ‘Nordisk Tidende’ and Krogh insist he lied.
[...]
I dare and I will say that if it had not been first and foremost for Dr. Volckmar, then the boy would probably have retired [died] at home.
[...]
There are many other points I could like to touch on, and many other personalities who could get a bit of the whip in this most hideous affair, but this time I will let grace take its course. But there is one thing I shall touch on in the end and that is: is there anyone who doesn’t want the boy to get his due? I know some people who have loudly regretted that they have lost so-and-so many dollars per month because Oien did not accept the wretched offer which was made to him. But do those people dare to gossip with statements about greed for money on the part of others? Assumptions taken out of thin air? I say once again to the Norwegian sailor: 'Hats off to Dr. Volckmar.'
-I. F. Iverson"
*
We don't think there is the slightest trace of anything funny in this case; it is far too serious for that. 'Nordisk Tidende' was the first Scandinavian body here on the square which took up this case, just like we have always taken the lead, even when there have been abuses on one side or the other.
A second edition of the June 11th paper featured nearly a full page of commentary on Page 2:
The 'Zambrana' case continues.
However, it had to remain a completely private matter between the injured party and the responsible parties in which way the case could best be settled.
That the captain, as a partner in the vessel and thus one of the helmsmen, seeks to defend the opinion that the responsibility does not lie with the ship, is just as justified as the fact that Oien seeks to hold others but himself accountable.
It is not, however, with faltering claims that such a thing can be achieved; evidentiary material must first be provided, and before such is submitted, no-one has any right to act as decisively in a case as Mr. Iverson has done with the apartment in question here.
It will be known to our readers that Captain Krohg was in Norway when the accident happened, and through Doctor Volckmar he got the first information about the accident sent to him.
That he absolutely must have known from these notifications that the accident had occurred due to drunkenness and negligence on board is to say a lot. For our part, we find it difficult to believe that this should have been the direct cause of what happened.
Mr. Iverson's bile-spewing remark about the captain's offer of $200 probably needs an additional addendum that sheds a glaring light on the now-staged extraction process. For good reasons nothing is mentioned about this in the Iversonian investigation; it is presumably -- out of sheer modesty, of course -- reserved for us to serve this dish to our readers, and they will get it without the addition of any spices.
Here you go ! Take for yourself:
During the progress of the case, and after it had come within the reach of the plaintiffs, an interested person living here received a telegraphic request from one of the more prominent co-conspirators, purporting that he should try to get the case settled against a compensation offer of 10,000 kroner.
According to his own statement, Oien did not know this until we told him about it, even though he was daily in close proximity to the men who held his fate in his hands.
After receiving this telegram, the person concerned made the utmost efforts to obtain the necessary power of attorney for the element, but in the meantime the others also made good use of the time, and then came the seizure of the vessel.
The most important reason for the last course of action must almost be sought in the fact that the parties interested in Oien considered the amount offered insufficient.
Then we come to the seizure sum.
Neither Oien's lawyers nor others have ever intended the possibility that the vessel could be raised at that price.
No, the matter was simply that when a process was started for the enormous amount of $50,000 or close to 200,000 kroner, they thereby cut off the captain from all opportunity to settle the matter amicably, since they probably anticipated the difficulty of being able to obtain such a guarantee right here and in such a short time.
With this evidence before us, we asked:
1. What was the reason why Oien was not presented with all these details?
2. Did you think that he would be scared back from such drastic measures and thereby thwart the interests of others?
3. Can it be denied that the latter are present when we state that after the seizure the lawyers increased their claims from 15 to 25 percent?
3. [A second "3" is typed in the original article.] Does anyone think that these last gentlemen have any other goal than just money?
4. And finally: Who has acted here so completely arbitrary and self-righteous?
Answer first these questions because there is talk of "lies" and so on; afterwards they must get all the battle in print that is sought after.
Captain Krogh's statement in his letter, that the gentlemen who have stood by Oien have also had the profit in sight, is thus proven.
In the case of Mr. Iverson, however, these statements of the captain fall away.
Mr. Iverson, sir [had written]: "Whether Oien wins or loses, he will owe me nothing."
For this last we take our hats off, and to the fact that one will have to search for a long time among our countrymen to find such unselfishness and generosity, as we know with certainty that Mr. Iverson has already spent several hundred dollars to get Oien the accrual right he possibly deserves.
Certainly no-one wishes to become a cripple, even under less gruesome circumstances, nor do we believe that there is anyone who is not wanting Oien to receive compensation for the misfortune that befell him.
But a lawsuit has nothing to do with sympathy, and no verdict has yet been delivered in this case.
No-one robbed Oien of his arm on purpose, and although Oien insists that the accident was solely attributable to the ship, there may still have been negligence on his part as well.
*
Finally, we have arrived at the doctor's point of view this case.
Mr. Volckmar himself has assured several times that he has had nothing to do with the case, except that he sent the boy to a man (Iverson) whom he knew would and could help him.
We believe this. But what is the general public to believe, when it is claimed by Mr. Iverson that he knew how the doctor wavered before he decided to send Oien to him and thus give him control of the matter.
How can the doctor explain this, that Mr. Iverson insists that his (Volckmar's) position in the whole affair is the only right one, isn't it to forget the predator parable -- when the doctor himself declares that he takes no position whatosever?
For us, this is and remains a mystery that we do not want to solve.
*
We also don't know who Mr. Iverson would like to skin. We have read that the Australian Aborigines can throw a boomerang in such a way that it returns to its starting point, but it would be terrible for Mr. Iverson if he swung his whip so that the sting jumped back on himself. Then the time of grace was over.
*
Connect only this:
When, according to Mr. Iverson's own statement, it is so much, even more valuable than anything else, for Oien to keep his "childish faith;" then, as a fitting end to the whole thing, we suggest that the prosecutors settle with honor; Mr. Iverson with the esteem of his fellow men and Oien with "children's faith," and "Zambrana's" management company will get its due back.
[Followed by a Letter to the Editor]:
(Submitted)
Mr. Editor!
No matter how many letters and proofs you can produce like Capt. Krohg's, Messrs. Volkmar and Iverson will stand in the public evidence as men who have done their duty, and all this subsequent writing was a dirty affair that mostly goes beyond the lady in question and the Captain.
It is most regrettable that a man like Capt. Krohg will try to throw dirt on two well-known compatriots, by attributing profit to their behavior, and poor Oien, should he take mercy bread from people with that mindset, it would be hard crumbs that fell from that table.
When Dr. Volkmar says: "It's probably neither the boy's, Iverson's, nor my fault that the Zambrana case has come to this," he is quite right; it was the Captain's lumpy begging list that brought matters to a head.
With a few thousand dollars, the boy will have a new opportunity to come up in the world, even if he is a cripple, but as a recipient of alms, he would soon join the self-abandoned crowd. The doctor also certainly has his words straight: it is a long leap from talking to a lawyer and engaging one; you first seek the necessary information, and that is the only thing that appears from the letter. Where was Torresten, our familiar Norwegian prosecutor, on this occasion-- he just put his hands in both trouser pockets and preferred to keep the balance?
No, Mr. Editor! It is precisely people like the two gentlemen that we need, who were not born and brought forward with the help of the position they occupy in society, and therefore understand how to value human life, and I can assure you that of a hundred statements I have heard are not one for The Captain. There is a lot of sham about American law, but the tort law is a bright spot, and it is to be hoped that all who become unfortunate enough to need it will meet men who will help them without consideration.
If it had been an American company instead of a Norwegian one, everything would have been so good and right.
Your honor., Wagle, Hoboken, N.J.
-----
[And the editor's response]:
The above letter was sent to us a few weeks ago, and we thought it best for the sender not to let it see the light of day at all; but since he absolutely insists on the publication of what has been submitted, we will grant him the pleasure.
We, for our part, have searched in vain for a bright spot in the letter, but cannot possibly find anything. The only debt be it that neither Mr. Iverson nor Dr. Volckmar "were born and brought forth by someone's help" and that is something that our readers may have never heard before.
As for the gentlemen's ability to judge human life, it is not so completely out of thin air.
Their ability to judge dead carcasses may be less.
We do not know whether there is balance in the trouser pockets of the Norwegian prosecutors. We do not belong to the noble tailor's guild, and thus cannot judge in that matter.
-The editors.
However, it had to remain a completely private matter between the injured party and the responsible parties in which way the case could best be settled.
That the captain, as a partner in the vessel and thus one of the helmsmen, seeks to defend the opinion that the responsibility does not lie with the ship, is just as justified as the fact that Oien seeks to hold others but himself accountable.
It is not, however, with faltering claims that such a thing can be achieved; evidentiary material must first be provided, and before such is submitted, no-one has any right to act as decisively in a case as Mr. Iverson has done with the apartment in question here.
It will be known to our readers that Captain Krohg was in Norway when the accident happened, and through Doctor Volckmar he got the first information about the accident sent to him.
That he absolutely must have known from these notifications that the accident had occurred due to drunkenness and negligence on board is to say a lot. For our part, we find it difficult to believe that this should have been the direct cause of what happened.
Mr. Iverson's bile-spewing remark about the captain's offer of $200 probably needs an additional addendum that sheds a glaring light on the now-staged extraction process. For good reasons nothing is mentioned about this in the Iversonian investigation; it is presumably -- out of sheer modesty, of course -- reserved for us to serve this dish to our readers, and they will get it without the addition of any spices.
Here you go ! Take for yourself:
During the progress of the case, and after it had come within the reach of the plaintiffs, an interested person living here received a telegraphic request from one of the more prominent co-conspirators, purporting that he should try to get the case settled against a compensation offer of 10,000 kroner.
According to his own statement, Oien did not know this until we told him about it, even though he was daily in close proximity to the men who held his fate in his hands.
After receiving this telegram, the person concerned made the utmost efforts to obtain the necessary power of attorney for the element, but in the meantime the others also made good use of the time, and then came the seizure of the vessel.
The most important reason for the last course of action must almost be sought in the fact that the parties interested in Oien considered the amount offered insufficient.
Then we come to the seizure sum.
Neither Oien's lawyers nor others have ever intended the possibility that the vessel could be raised at that price.
No, the matter was simply that when a process was started for the enormous amount of $50,000 or close to 200,000 kroner, they thereby cut off the captain from all opportunity to settle the matter amicably, since they probably anticipated the difficulty of being able to obtain such a guarantee right here and in such a short time.
With this evidence before us, we asked:
1. What was the reason why Oien was not presented with all these details?
2. Did you think that he would be scared back from such drastic measures and thereby thwart the interests of others?
3. Can it be denied that the latter are present when we state that after the seizure the lawyers increased their claims from 15 to 25 percent?
3. [A second "3" is typed in the original article.] Does anyone think that these last gentlemen have any other goal than just money?
4. And finally: Who has acted here so completely arbitrary and self-righteous?
Answer first these questions because there is talk of "lies" and so on; afterwards they must get all the battle in print that is sought after.
Captain Krogh's statement in his letter, that the gentlemen who have stood by Oien have also had the profit in sight, is thus proven.
In the case of Mr. Iverson, however, these statements of the captain fall away.
Mr. Iverson, sir [had written]: "Whether Oien wins or loses, he will owe me nothing."
For this last we take our hats off, and to the fact that one will have to search for a long time among our countrymen to find such unselfishness and generosity, as we know with certainty that Mr. Iverson has already spent several hundred dollars to get Oien the accrual right he possibly deserves.
Certainly no-one wishes to become a cripple, even under less gruesome circumstances, nor do we believe that there is anyone who is not wanting Oien to receive compensation for the misfortune that befell him.
But a lawsuit has nothing to do with sympathy, and no verdict has yet been delivered in this case.
No-one robbed Oien of his arm on purpose, and although Oien insists that the accident was solely attributable to the ship, there may still have been negligence on his part as well.
*
Finally, we have arrived at the doctor's point of view this case.
Mr. Volckmar himself has assured several times that he has had nothing to do with the case, except that he sent the boy to a man (Iverson) whom he knew would and could help him.
We believe this. But what is the general public to believe, when it is claimed by Mr. Iverson that he knew how the doctor wavered before he decided to send Oien to him and thus give him control of the matter.
How can the doctor explain this, that Mr. Iverson insists that his (Volckmar's) position in the whole affair is the only right one, isn't it to forget the predator parable -- when the doctor himself declares that he takes no position whatosever?
For us, this is and remains a mystery that we do not want to solve.
*
We also don't know who Mr. Iverson would like to skin. We have read that the Australian Aborigines can throw a boomerang in such a way that it returns to its starting point, but it would be terrible for Mr. Iverson if he swung his whip so that the sting jumped back on himself. Then the time of grace was over.
*
Connect only this:
When, according to Mr. Iverson's own statement, it is so much, even more valuable than anything else, for Oien to keep his "childish faith;" then, as a fitting end to the whole thing, we suggest that the prosecutors settle with honor; Mr. Iverson with the esteem of his fellow men and Oien with "children's faith," and "Zambrana's" management company will get its due back.
[Followed by a Letter to the Editor]:
(Submitted)
Mr. Editor!
No matter how many letters and proofs you can produce like Capt. Krohg's, Messrs. Volkmar and Iverson will stand in the public evidence as men who have done their duty, and all this subsequent writing was a dirty affair that mostly goes beyond the lady in question and the Captain.
It is most regrettable that a man like Capt. Krohg will try to throw dirt on two well-known compatriots, by attributing profit to their behavior, and poor Oien, should he take mercy bread from people with that mindset, it would be hard crumbs that fell from that table.
When Dr. Volkmar says: "It's probably neither the boy's, Iverson's, nor my fault that the Zambrana case has come to this," he is quite right; it was the Captain's lumpy begging list that brought matters to a head.
With a few thousand dollars, the boy will have a new opportunity to come up in the world, even if he is a cripple, but as a recipient of alms, he would soon join the self-abandoned crowd. The doctor also certainly has his words straight: it is a long leap from talking to a lawyer and engaging one; you first seek the necessary information, and that is the only thing that appears from the letter. Where was Torresten, our familiar Norwegian prosecutor, on this occasion-- he just put his hands in both trouser pockets and preferred to keep the balance?
No, Mr. Editor! It is precisely people like the two gentlemen that we need, who were not born and brought forward with the help of the position they occupy in society, and therefore understand how to value human life, and I can assure you that of a hundred statements I have heard are not one for The Captain. There is a lot of sham about American law, but the tort law is a bright spot, and it is to be hoped that all who become unfortunate enough to need it will meet men who will help them without consideration.
If it had been an American company instead of a Norwegian one, everything would have been so good and right.
Your honor., Wagle, Hoboken, N.J.
-----
[And the editor's response]:
The above letter was sent to us a few weeks ago, and we thought it best for the sender not to let it see the light of day at all; but since he absolutely insists on the publication of what has been submitted, we will grant him the pleasure.
We, for our part, have searched in vain for a bright spot in the letter, but cannot possibly find anything. The only debt be it that neither Mr. Iverson nor Dr. Volckmar "were born and brought forth by someone's help" and that is something that our readers may have never heard before.
As for the gentlemen's ability to judge human life, it is not so completely out of thin air.
Their ability to judge dead carcasses may be less.
We do not know whether there is balance in the trouser pockets of the Norwegian prosecutors. We do not belong to the noble tailor's guild, and thus cannot judge in that matter.
-The editors.
On July 2nd, 1897, "Nordisk Tidende" had some choice words for the other Norwegian newspaper in town, the "Nordiske Blade." This translation is rather rough. What I wouldn't give to see the corresponding "Nordiske Blade" columns from this time!-- but I have not been able to find any.
"'Nordiske Blade’ envies us all the money that we, according to the magazine’s belief, should have received from Captain Krogh, to defend him against excessive attacks in connection with the 'Zambrana' case. We, for our part, have nothing against whether there is anyone who should award us some gifts, either in ringing coins or by any other means. We are pleased that ‘Nordiske Blade’ recognizes that it has not been worthy of the fat goose, but presumably now someone realizes that it is of little use to use the columns of the ‘Blade’ when it applies to something of importance. The magazine's statement has never had much weight, but now probably its last residue has also gone down the drain. But be honest with your language, you scoundrels, and do not hide your oaths under self-manufactured 'letter boxes.'" |
On July 9th, "Nordisk Tidende" comtinued commenting on the Oiens case and on the "Nordiske Blade," devoting an entire page to "Tidende's" offense at being called "irrelevant."
"An 'Irrelevant' Magazine. 'Nordiske Blade' and the Eighth Commandment. A Cheap Certificate.
'Nordiske Blade,' this survival from the olden days, which has long since been incorporated among the ancient collection of curiosities, sometimes takes a step forward to throw off the royal web which has now completely wrapped around the brain of the editors of this bastard.
On Saturday, June 26, the newsletter contains an article entitled 'Gaa Paa and the 'Antonio Zambrana' case,' in which it comes down hard against 'Gaa Paa' [a Norwegian newspaper] who has been led to commit the audacity of quoting the 'Zambrana' case and its details according to 'Nordisk Tidende'.
Nowadays, it is a matter of course that the young and more viable press looks at things with completely different eyes than the field-worn and outdated raven-hook journalist does.
We can well understand that it swelters in the skin of the old hardened and one-sided editors, thus seeing itself at a distance, but it should still control itself so much that the envy was not exposed as openly as is the case, and envy is not enough and intriguing lines, then the magazine simply uses the tactic of lying, and lying even as openly as the magazine's fathers themselves do in their private lives.
When it is claimed plainly that 'Gaa Paa' has quoted an 'irreputable Brooklyn paper,' in the reproduction of the now so-famous affair, and hopes that the said body will look at the matter with gentler eyes when it receives the truth and the right conditions to know through 'Nordiske Blade,' so surely the world must have turned in the last few weeks.
And as if to prove the truth of these words, the magazine tells, to begin with, one of the most insolent lies that has ever been printed.
See here some samples from the said date:
-----
''Gaa Paa' is completely on the wrong track. The only 'looting' that has so far been carried out by 'rogue prosecutors' is that when the captain refused to tell the people (all Norwegian) their debts, the ship was seized, and in this way the crew managed to get their hard-earned money.
If the captain or the shipping company had paid his people's wages when they demanded it, then the expenses connected with the legal recovery could have been saved, and if there had been a fair and decent real offer from the shipping company for compensation to Oien, then it would undoubtedly have been assumed -- without plaintiff intervention. It is the shipping company itself that has called out the 'rascally litigants.' Had this done its duty towards the people, then they would not have had to resort to the 'Yankee bandits' to obtain the right which was denied them by their own countrymen.'
-----
'If we have not previously commented editorially on this matter, it is because we know that it has not been necessary. The public sympathy between countrymen here, right from the moment the accident was announced, has been on the side where the court's verdict will undoubtedly fall, —- in Oien's favor. And when another body here has taken the opposite side, then it is unconditional happened for reasons which we shall not touch upon at the present state of the matter. As I said, we regret that 'Gaa Paa' appears with such unmotivated accusations and swear words, on the basis of some writings in an unreputable Brooklyn newspaper.
*
This is so-called 'reputable' information, which 'Nordiske Blade' wants 'Gaa Paa' to take for good fish.
With the greatest audacity, or perhaps stupidity, it is said that the ship was seized because the captain 'refused to pay his men the wages due to them.'
What pathetic nonsense. The ship was completely loaded for departure, with exactly the same crew on board, when the seizure was made in Oien's favor, and the captain thus did not have a cent at his own or the crew's disposal. Oien's lawyers seized everything. The crew's second seizure was only a proforma case, so that these could be considered first, which Oien's case managers completely ignored.
There is of course no sensible person who would believe that a ship's captain allows his vessel to be stopped in the exercise of his charter, on the basis that he has refused the people their due hire.
Such skippers are only to be found in the empty brain boxes of the Court Street paper.
Likewise, there was actually an attempt to settle the matter with Oien amicably, but a huge sledge got in the way, about which we have already announced.
It is a mean rascal, thus, to make Captain Krohg blacker in this matter than he is. The one who has suffered the most injustice is precisely him.
The young man Oien, about whom the whole dispute revolves, is a brother of Captain Oien, pilot of the steamer 'Möringen,' partly belonging to the same company as 'Zambrana.'
Captain Krohg was one of the captains of the 'Zambrana,' and also a friend of Captain Oien. This friendship was the main reason why he [Krohg] enlisted his brother [Georg] on board his own ship, something he otherwise would never have done, as the injured man is less strong, and not a very suitable youth for sea life.
We, for our part, however, are finished with this story, as we did not prefer to wait with the statement, which is the stereotyped expression in the mossy paper of Court Street. We could probably come up with many other nice things that would shed a strange light on the whole compensation case, but talk is silver, silence is gold. However, this is not to be understood in the way that the Nidingbladet in Court Street takes it, as it imagines to itself and others that we have received compensation for defending Captain Krohg, which latter we have never undertaken to do. No, being silent right now means gold to anyone but ourselves, although we probably need it badly.
*
We for our part, however, are done with this story, as we did not prefer to wait with the statement, which is the stereotyped expression in the mossy magazine in Court street. We could probably come up with many other strange things that would shed a strange light on the whole compensation case, but talk is silver, silence is gold. However, this is not to be understood in the way that the niding-paper ["niding" referring to coward/scoundrel] in Court Street takes it, as it imagines to itself and others that we have received compensation for defending Captain Krohg, which latter we have never undertaken to do. No, being silent right now means gold to anyone but ourselves, although we probably need it badly.
*
Let's now take a look at our 'irrelevance' and the authority of 'Nordiske Blade.'
The ambulatory editorial staff of this paper is more than enough noticed before this colony.
If the adjective 'irrelevent' is to be placed anywhere, then it probably belongs at 293 Court Street, not only in the magazine itself, but also with the people who maintain its vegetarian existence.
For a thieve's price, its editorial help can be bought, even by opponents, as we can fully prove here.
On June 19, 1896, the 'Nordisk Tidende' contained an article regarding an advertised foreclosure sale, which was announced against the 'Nordiske Blade,' the 'reputable' organ at 293 Court Street.
The article concludes as follows:
'What gives this forced sale its distinctive color is not the case itself. There is nothing dishonorable about being in debt. We, for our part, are far from debt-free, but we admit that, and have always acknowledged it openly and honestly. But when a man has gone and boasted that he 'doesn't owe a cent,' and publicly calls a man who claims the opposite a 'liar,' and then at the same time has his possessions as a pledge for debt, -- then honesty is lost -- then he brands himself as an unscrupulous man.'
*
These words were written for 'Nordisk Tidende' by exactly the same editors who now in 'Nordiske Blade' claim we are 'irrelevant'. The reason why this silly 'slap-yourself-in-the-mouth' has been able to take place is that we paid a little more in wages than these kind of scumbags are usually accustomed to get. However, this was paid in ringing coins, but even for a dram and a glass of beer, these despicable creatures can be bought. Here again a proof which we probably do not value very much, but which can nevertheless open the eyes of the readers of 'Nordiske Blade,' and make them understand how pitifully small and miserable its employees are, when they can be bought for such an insignificant compensation for anything:
'I hereby certify that 'Nordisk Tidende' in the term May to November 1896, during which time I was employed by said magazine, increased its subscription number by 300 copies. I do not know how much it has subsequently decreased. Brooklyn, March 27, 1897. - N. C. Andersen'
*
Now, doesn't "Nordiske Blade" think that it can be proud to have such "reputable" men in its editorial staff, and doesn't the magazine think that this is the reason why the readers turn their backs on it with contempt?
If it wasn't to spare individual 'gentlemen' for a while, we should be able to tell about an even more ludicrous move carried out by the same 'gentlemen' who are today 'scraping up' the aforementioned piece of paper. Other persons, about whom one at least thought somewhat dishonestly, would then also be implicated, but this time what has been disclosed may be enough to prove how 'reputable' 'Nordiske Blade and its filth-on-rubbish of an editorial office are."
"An 'Irrelevant' Magazine. 'Nordiske Blade' and the Eighth Commandment. A Cheap Certificate.
'Nordiske Blade,' this survival from the olden days, which has long since been incorporated among the ancient collection of curiosities, sometimes takes a step forward to throw off the royal web which has now completely wrapped around the brain of the editors of this bastard.
On Saturday, June 26, the newsletter contains an article entitled 'Gaa Paa and the 'Antonio Zambrana' case,' in which it comes down hard against 'Gaa Paa' [a Norwegian newspaper] who has been led to commit the audacity of quoting the 'Zambrana' case and its details according to 'Nordisk Tidende'.
Nowadays, it is a matter of course that the young and more viable press looks at things with completely different eyes than the field-worn and outdated raven-hook journalist does.
We can well understand that it swelters in the skin of the old hardened and one-sided editors, thus seeing itself at a distance, but it should still control itself so much that the envy was not exposed as openly as is the case, and envy is not enough and intriguing lines, then the magazine simply uses the tactic of lying, and lying even as openly as the magazine's fathers themselves do in their private lives.
When it is claimed plainly that 'Gaa Paa' has quoted an 'irreputable Brooklyn paper,' in the reproduction of the now so-famous affair, and hopes that the said body will look at the matter with gentler eyes when it receives the truth and the right conditions to know through 'Nordiske Blade,' so surely the world must have turned in the last few weeks.
And as if to prove the truth of these words, the magazine tells, to begin with, one of the most insolent lies that has ever been printed.
See here some samples from the said date:
-----
''Gaa Paa' is completely on the wrong track. The only 'looting' that has so far been carried out by 'rogue prosecutors' is that when the captain refused to tell the people (all Norwegian) their debts, the ship was seized, and in this way the crew managed to get their hard-earned money.
If the captain or the shipping company had paid his people's wages when they demanded it, then the expenses connected with the legal recovery could have been saved, and if there had been a fair and decent real offer from the shipping company for compensation to Oien, then it would undoubtedly have been assumed -- without plaintiff intervention. It is the shipping company itself that has called out the 'rascally litigants.' Had this done its duty towards the people, then they would not have had to resort to the 'Yankee bandits' to obtain the right which was denied them by their own countrymen.'
-----
'If we have not previously commented editorially on this matter, it is because we know that it has not been necessary. The public sympathy between countrymen here, right from the moment the accident was announced, has been on the side where the court's verdict will undoubtedly fall, —- in Oien's favor. And when another body here has taken the opposite side, then it is unconditional happened for reasons which we shall not touch upon at the present state of the matter. As I said, we regret that 'Gaa Paa' appears with such unmotivated accusations and swear words, on the basis of some writings in an unreputable Brooklyn newspaper.
*
This is so-called 'reputable' information, which 'Nordiske Blade' wants 'Gaa Paa' to take for good fish.
With the greatest audacity, or perhaps stupidity, it is said that the ship was seized because the captain 'refused to pay his men the wages due to them.'
What pathetic nonsense. The ship was completely loaded for departure, with exactly the same crew on board, when the seizure was made in Oien's favor, and the captain thus did not have a cent at his own or the crew's disposal. Oien's lawyers seized everything. The crew's second seizure was only a proforma case, so that these could be considered first, which Oien's case managers completely ignored.
There is of course no sensible person who would believe that a ship's captain allows his vessel to be stopped in the exercise of his charter, on the basis that he has refused the people their due hire.
Such skippers are only to be found in the empty brain boxes of the Court Street paper.
Likewise, there was actually an attempt to settle the matter with Oien amicably, but a huge sledge got in the way, about which we have already announced.
It is a mean rascal, thus, to make Captain Krohg blacker in this matter than he is. The one who has suffered the most injustice is precisely him.
The young man Oien, about whom the whole dispute revolves, is a brother of Captain Oien, pilot of the steamer 'Möringen,' partly belonging to the same company as 'Zambrana.'
Captain Krohg was one of the captains of the 'Zambrana,' and also a friend of Captain Oien. This friendship was the main reason why he [Krohg] enlisted his brother [Georg] on board his own ship, something he otherwise would never have done, as the injured man is less strong, and not a very suitable youth for sea life.
We, for our part, however, are finished with this story, as we did not prefer to wait with the statement, which is the stereotyped expression in the mossy paper of Court Street. We could probably come up with many other nice things that would shed a strange light on the whole compensation case, but talk is silver, silence is gold. However, this is not to be understood in the way that the Nidingbladet in Court Street takes it, as it imagines to itself and others that we have received compensation for defending Captain Krohg, which latter we have never undertaken to do. No, being silent right now means gold to anyone but ourselves, although we probably need it badly.
*
We for our part, however, are done with this story, as we did not prefer to wait with the statement, which is the stereotyped expression in the mossy magazine in Court street. We could probably come up with many other strange things that would shed a strange light on the whole compensation case, but talk is silver, silence is gold. However, this is not to be understood in the way that the niding-paper ["niding" referring to coward/scoundrel] in Court Street takes it, as it imagines to itself and others that we have received compensation for defending Captain Krohg, which latter we have never undertaken to do. No, being silent right now means gold to anyone but ourselves, although we probably need it badly.
*
Let's now take a look at our 'irrelevance' and the authority of 'Nordiske Blade.'
The ambulatory editorial staff of this paper is more than enough noticed before this colony.
If the adjective 'irrelevent' is to be placed anywhere, then it probably belongs at 293 Court Street, not only in the magazine itself, but also with the people who maintain its vegetarian existence.
For a thieve's price, its editorial help can be bought, even by opponents, as we can fully prove here.
On June 19, 1896, the 'Nordisk Tidende' contained an article regarding an advertised foreclosure sale, which was announced against the 'Nordiske Blade,' the 'reputable' organ at 293 Court Street.
The article concludes as follows:
'What gives this forced sale its distinctive color is not the case itself. There is nothing dishonorable about being in debt. We, for our part, are far from debt-free, but we admit that, and have always acknowledged it openly and honestly. But when a man has gone and boasted that he 'doesn't owe a cent,' and publicly calls a man who claims the opposite a 'liar,' and then at the same time has his possessions as a pledge for debt, -- then honesty is lost -- then he brands himself as an unscrupulous man.'
*
These words were written for 'Nordisk Tidende' by exactly the same editors who now in 'Nordiske Blade' claim we are 'irrelevant'. The reason why this silly 'slap-yourself-in-the-mouth' has been able to take place is that we paid a little more in wages than these kind of scumbags are usually accustomed to get. However, this was paid in ringing coins, but even for a dram and a glass of beer, these despicable creatures can be bought. Here again a proof which we probably do not value very much, but which can nevertheless open the eyes of the readers of 'Nordiske Blade,' and make them understand how pitifully small and miserable its employees are, when they can be bought for such an insignificant compensation for anything:
'I hereby certify that 'Nordisk Tidende' in the term May to November 1896, during which time I was employed by said magazine, increased its subscription number by 300 copies. I do not know how much it has subsequently decreased. Brooklyn, March 27, 1897. - N. C. Andersen'
*
Now, doesn't "Nordiske Blade" think that it can be proud to have such "reputable" men in its editorial staff, and doesn't the magazine think that this is the reason why the readers turn their backs on it with contempt?
If it wasn't to spare individual 'gentlemen' for a while, we should be able to tell about an even more ludicrous move carried out by the same 'gentlemen' who are today 'scraping up' the aforementioned piece of paper. Other persons, about whom one at least thought somewhat dishonestly, would then also be implicated, but this time what has been disclosed may be enough to prove how 'reputable' 'Nordiske Blade and its filth-on-rubbish of an editorial office are."
An article on the second page of the July 9th "Nordisk Tidende" follows:
"Oien and his Process. Probably in for a Long Drag. If one is to judge by statements in 'Eagle', Georg Oien's trial will probably be a late affair before a final decision. Asa W. Tenney, appointed by President McKinley, who is to succeed Judge Bennet in the office, has not yet received Senate confirmation of the office, which was to be filled from June 1 last. Judge Bennet, who was in charge of Oien's trial, is blamed for having been a very tardy man in his office, and several hundred trials lie undecided and await a final solution. Among these, the majority are criminal cases, which absolutely have to be decided first, and there must even be some that are several years old. The prospects for a quick decision in Oien's case are thus all but bright, to the great loss of both himself and others who are involved in the process." |
As mentioned in a later newspaper article, Iver in the meantime set up Georg Oien with newspapers, books, etc., so that he could have some work selling them to passengers aboard ships.
A sad update from September 10th, 1897, follows:
A Despicable Act by Skipper Bjönness on 'Tjömö' - Throws a Cripple Ashore.
Any of our readers will remember the sad fate that befell the young Kristiansunder, Georg Oien, who had his right arm torn off on board the steamer 'Antonio Zambrana' last December.
Oien filed a lawsuit against the vessel for the mutilation inflicted on him, a case which is still pending before the courts.
In the long meantime, the poor fellow has been waiting here, and it seems that he will have to wait a good while longer.
He then had to do something in order to exist, and so his friends, including bookseller I. F. Iverson, enabled him to start selling books and various other small things.
Now it is a matter of course that Oien seeks the market where he can have the greatest hope as possible of trade going, and he addresses his compatriots and colleagues on board the Norwegian ships.
The other day he came on board the steamer 'Tjömö,' which is captained by skipper Bjönnes. [The captain] would not allow the gentleman to look at the deck of his ship, for he grasps the cripple by the arm and says: 'What are you doing here?! Make sure that you get out of here, or something might fall you down and beat you more to pieces!"
The action followed the words, and onto the dock he releases the poor man, who with tears in his eyes, not so much for the treatment as for the mean tone, quietly crept away.
Do not the other Norwegian captains think that such a course of action falls short of the dignity of a gentleman, and can they agree to approve this Bjönness' filthy course of action?
I wonder if Björnson's words: "But our brave flag, flying on today, and it reddens with health like never before' rather should be exchanged with, 'But our brave flag suffered a defeat, it reddens with shame over action by him who stood aside his brother in distress."
Any of our readers will remember the sad fate that befell the young Kristiansunder, Georg Oien, who had his right arm torn off on board the steamer 'Antonio Zambrana' last December.
Oien filed a lawsuit against the vessel for the mutilation inflicted on him, a case which is still pending before the courts.
In the long meantime, the poor fellow has been waiting here, and it seems that he will have to wait a good while longer.
He then had to do something in order to exist, and so his friends, including bookseller I. F. Iverson, enabled him to start selling books and various other small things.
Now it is a matter of course that Oien seeks the market where he can have the greatest hope as possible of trade going, and he addresses his compatriots and colleagues on board the Norwegian ships.
The other day he came on board the steamer 'Tjömö,' which is captained by skipper Bjönnes. [The captain] would not allow the gentleman to look at the deck of his ship, for he grasps the cripple by the arm and says: 'What are you doing here?! Make sure that you get out of here, or something might fall you down and beat you more to pieces!"
The action followed the words, and onto the dock he releases the poor man, who with tears in his eyes, not so much for the treatment as for the mean tone, quietly crept away.
Do not the other Norwegian captains think that such a course of action falls short of the dignity of a gentleman, and can they agree to approve this Bjönness' filthy course of action?
I wonder if Björnson's words: "But our brave flag, flying on today, and it reddens with health like never before' rather should be exchanged with, 'But our brave flag suffered a defeat, it reddens with shame over action by him who stood aside his brother in distress."
The following column is from the October 29th, 1897 "Nordisk Tidende." Interestingly, the pencil marks are not my own-- someone prior had circled this article!
"Captain Otto Krogh, well-known to all the magazine's readers who have read reports of the S.S. 'Antonio Zambrana' and the dispute between him and the firm Oien, lverson & Volckmar, has recently visited the city after half a year's involuntary stay in Norway. He was here this time with the Bergen boat 'Sama,' which came here last week with a cargo of fruit from the Mediterranean and is now on its way back to Europe. We did not have the pleasure of greeting him personally; his goodwill towards the magazine is certainly great enough, but the dislike towards the magazine's current editor is too prominent for us to dare to seek him out. However, he has our best wishes for continued success in his new position." |
On January 28th, 1898, "Nordisk Tidende" reported:
"Will Oien win his Process? Georg Oien, who lost his right arm on board the steamer 'Antonio Zambrana' in December 1896, and on that occasion initiated a compensation process against the steamer, which later was sold at public auction, seems to have little prospect of winning his process. The case will probably come up next month, and in connection with this, in the next issue we will deliver an article that explains our claims." |
Indeed, one week later (February 4th), "Nordisk Tidende" explained their position:
"No Jurisdiction. The treaty of '27 is in power, say the High Judges of Massachusetts. Doesn't the same apply here? This clue will now come up in the case Georg Oien versus 'Antonio Zambrana.' Oien lost his arm on board in December 1896. He is suing for compensation.
As we announced in the previous issue, we shall here reproduce a decision made by the highest tribunal of Massachusetts, regarding whether the treaty of 1827 existing between America and Norway is still in force, and whether it is to be considered as settled that American courts have no authority to directly deal with disputes between ships under Norwegian control and their crews.
In 1892, the captain of ship 'Albert,' Captain B. Tollefsen, was arrested in Boston, on the charge of a sailor, Nils Johannesen. The complaint was that the sailor could not get his money paid at the time he wanted, and through an order from the court, the captain was brutally handcuffed and otherwise harassed by a constable from the United States Court of Massachusetts.
The captain complained directly to the constable that the authorities had no right whatsoever to interfere in the affair, as he had to settle the dispute with the sailor at the consulate office. He further pointed out that the Norwegian flag flew from the mast and that he was under Norwegian protection.
The ignorant constable would hear nothing, and the result was that Tollefsen was freed from paying the sailor his debt on a standing foot.
Captain Tollefsen now sought reparation for the violence meted out against him, and with the help of the Norwegian-American businessman and consul, Mr. Lootz, went into the field against the authorities because they had ignored an agreement in full force between the aforementioned countries. For five years the case floated before the court, and it has cost the Norwegian-Swedish consul, Mr. Lootz, many sleepless nights and many blank dollars, to assert Norway's honor and independence in this field.
Finally, in the spring of last year, the Supreme Court ruled in the case that America must comply with the treaty that all disputes on board Norwegian ships are settled exclusively by Norwegian authorities or by a Norwegian court.
On the occasion of the verdict, a Boston newspaper said that the sentence handed down would possibly be a guarantee for the future that such a gross blunder as the one mentioned will not be repeated. Treaties with other countries must be observed, said the newspaper, and Boston cannot afford such mistakes as the one mentioned, as it damages the commercial development.
*
From this point of view, the conclusion can be drawn that New York State will also respect the treaty that once existed, and it is therefore not improbable that the case of Oien vs. 'Zambrana' will be dismissed.
For the injured party, this will be a hard blow, but on the other hand, one cannot but admit that too great interests are at stake if established relations between the respective countries are thus capriciously trampled underfoot."
"No Jurisdiction. The treaty of '27 is in power, say the High Judges of Massachusetts. Doesn't the same apply here? This clue will now come up in the case Georg Oien versus 'Antonio Zambrana.' Oien lost his arm on board in December 1896. He is suing for compensation.
As we announced in the previous issue, we shall here reproduce a decision made by the highest tribunal of Massachusetts, regarding whether the treaty of 1827 existing between America and Norway is still in force, and whether it is to be considered as settled that American courts have no authority to directly deal with disputes between ships under Norwegian control and their crews.
In 1892, the captain of ship 'Albert,' Captain B. Tollefsen, was arrested in Boston, on the charge of a sailor, Nils Johannesen. The complaint was that the sailor could not get his money paid at the time he wanted, and through an order from the court, the captain was brutally handcuffed and otherwise harassed by a constable from the United States Court of Massachusetts.
The captain complained directly to the constable that the authorities had no right whatsoever to interfere in the affair, as he had to settle the dispute with the sailor at the consulate office. He further pointed out that the Norwegian flag flew from the mast and that he was under Norwegian protection.
The ignorant constable would hear nothing, and the result was that Tollefsen was freed from paying the sailor his debt on a standing foot.
Captain Tollefsen now sought reparation for the violence meted out against him, and with the help of the Norwegian-American businessman and consul, Mr. Lootz, went into the field against the authorities because they had ignored an agreement in full force between the aforementioned countries. For five years the case floated before the court, and it has cost the Norwegian-Swedish consul, Mr. Lootz, many sleepless nights and many blank dollars, to assert Norway's honor and independence in this field.
Finally, in the spring of last year, the Supreme Court ruled in the case that America must comply with the treaty that all disputes on board Norwegian ships are settled exclusively by Norwegian authorities or by a Norwegian court.
On the occasion of the verdict, a Boston newspaper said that the sentence handed down would possibly be a guarantee for the future that such a gross blunder as the one mentioned will not be repeated. Treaties with other countries must be observed, said the newspaper, and Boston cannot afford such mistakes as the one mentioned, as it damages the commercial development.
*
From this point of view, the conclusion can be drawn that New York State will also respect the treaty that once existed, and it is therefore not improbable that the case of Oien vs. 'Zambrana' will be dismissed.
For the injured party, this will be a hard blow, but on the other hand, one cannot but admit that too great interests are at stake if established relations between the respective countries are thus capriciously trampled underfoot."
On August 11th, 1898, "Nordisk Tidende" reported the following update. Sadly, George Oien lost his case because the court ruled that he willingly and knowingly worked under a drunken supervisor, and therefore accepted the risk.
Poor Georg Oien Loses His Lawsuit Against "Zambrana" because he did not indicate a drunken mate. His prudence became his ruin.
"When a sailor who has done several things in succession travels to sea with a mate whom he knows to be addicted to strong drink, and when he [the mate] enjoys these to a great extent in the performance of his duty, nevertheless takes new hire under such an officer, and when the ship leaves the quay, is injured through an erroneous order from such an officer, without in advance having reported the officer's condition to the captain, and subsequently seeks to hold the ship responsible, such a sailor is not considered entitled to compensation, as it must be considered true that the said sailor sought to keep the officer's condition a secret."
The above-quoted opinion of Judge Thomas of the U. S. District Court appeared in the Brooklyn Eagle for Tuesday evening, August 9. For many other than us this little note would have gone unnoticed, but unfortunately in our memory it contains a very fateful statement.
With this statement by Judge Thomas, the fate of Georg Oiens, on board "Antonio Zambrana" at the end of December 1896, was sealed.
Our readers will surely remember the related story of how the ship, through the instigation of a few of Oien's friends here, was seized on the occasion of the passing and later sold for the sum of $13,550, which money is taken over by the court, to remain there until a verdict is reached in the compensation case.
At the time, our magazine contained several articles about the seizure, when we openly stated that it was not quite right with this affair, especially since a breach had arisen between Captain Krohg, the ship's captain, and mates, and the present doctor H. Volckmar, a child of the town and a friend of the captain for many years.
We also stated that the boy had been strongly recommended by Doctor Volckmar and bookseller Iverson in Columbia Street to not accept the captain's offer, as they both, as may be reasonable, found the captain's compensation far too little.
However, the truth-loving doctor sought to wriggle out of the affair through a salesman's ploy by loudly assuring that he had no part whatsoever in the entire seizure, and this was solely Iverson's fault.
However, this was immediately contradicted, as Captain Krohg sent for publication a letter written by Doctor Volckmar to Oien's sister-in-law, about a month after the accident, around 7 January 1897, in which Doctor Loud Noise [translation of "höilydt?"] assures that he will get the boy justice.
As a strange intervention of fate, however, it was not to be. Oien managed to get his case before the first judge to hear it, namely Judge Benedict. His term was over when he fell short of the age limit. Then the case was to come before the newly appointed in Benedict's place, but this was cut off from him through death, which suddenly took away Judge Tenney, a few days after he had visited the church to which he belonged on a Sunday morning. With the appointment of the second new judge, things went smoothly, and then Oien was sent home to his hometown, Kristianssund, in the winter.
Now, for the boy, it comes down to hard times: the process is lost. There is hardly any prospect that the case will be appealed, since one of his advisers [presumably Dr. Volckmar] has had other things to think about than acting as a proselytizer of charity for a poor sea man, almost 4000 miles away from the scene of the sad incident, and the other, to our eyes, is apparently not in good health [presumably Iver, whose mental health had suffered after near-fatal exposure to a gas leak].
*
Whether anyone can be directly blamed for the case having come to such a disadvantage for the crippled, we shall not comment on this here. We leave this to the general public. One thing is certain, however, and that is that if those or whoever seemed to be in control of Oien's actions had not acted so harshly and recklessly, the case would probably have had a luckier outcome for the injured party, when the responsible parties had time to come to their senses, and calmly and honestly take the matter under consideration. One cannot suspect these people of considering themselves unjustly treated, in this way without further ado, by a foreign nation to be deprived of one's property, and when one adds to this that most of the ship's helmsmen were people living in such a ravenous corner of the world as Kristianssund with its poor peddlers' souls, the relationship is such that they absolutely put hard against hard.
On the other hand, it is sad and most regrettable that one of our highest judges should let a poor sailor suffer because he may not have dared to report one of his guardians. Every sailor knows what it means at sea to accuse his superiors, and when the complaint is made of such grave circumstances as accusing an officer of drunkenness on board, then he might as well jump into the water right away. The hatred he thereby exposes himself to from that person is worse than death itself.
However, we can hope that this decision of Judge Thomas will put a little fear in the blood of the ship's officers who are guilty of icy acts, like the then mate on board "Antonio Zambrana." Such a sailor is not worthy to command people. He should be exposed and become the subject of every honest sailor's deepest contempt.
With all due respect to the prosecutors-- or, rather, the guardians-- who represented Oien, we dare say that if the case had been left in lawyer Reymert's hands, it would certainly have had a more fortunate outcome for Oien. Reymert knows the life and conditions of Norwegian sailors, and with this in mind, the judge might have looked at the case with other eyes.
"When a sailor who has done several things in succession travels to sea with a mate whom he knows to be addicted to strong drink, and when he [the mate] enjoys these to a great extent in the performance of his duty, nevertheless takes new hire under such an officer, and when the ship leaves the quay, is injured through an erroneous order from such an officer, without in advance having reported the officer's condition to the captain, and subsequently seeks to hold the ship responsible, such a sailor is not considered entitled to compensation, as it must be considered true that the said sailor sought to keep the officer's condition a secret."
The above-quoted opinion of Judge Thomas of the U. S. District Court appeared in the Brooklyn Eagle for Tuesday evening, August 9. For many other than us this little note would have gone unnoticed, but unfortunately in our memory it contains a very fateful statement.
With this statement by Judge Thomas, the fate of Georg Oiens, on board "Antonio Zambrana" at the end of December 1896, was sealed.
Our readers will surely remember the related story of how the ship, through the instigation of a few of Oien's friends here, was seized on the occasion of the passing and later sold for the sum of $13,550, which money is taken over by the court, to remain there until a verdict is reached in the compensation case.
At the time, our magazine contained several articles about the seizure, when we openly stated that it was not quite right with this affair, especially since a breach had arisen between Captain Krohg, the ship's captain, and mates, and the present doctor H. Volckmar, a child of the town and a friend of the captain for many years.
We also stated that the boy had been strongly recommended by Doctor Volckmar and bookseller Iverson in Columbia Street to not accept the captain's offer, as they both, as may be reasonable, found the captain's compensation far too little.
However, the truth-loving doctor sought to wriggle out of the affair through a salesman's ploy by loudly assuring that he had no part whatsoever in the entire seizure, and this was solely Iverson's fault.
However, this was immediately contradicted, as Captain Krohg sent for publication a letter written by Doctor Volckmar to Oien's sister-in-law, about a month after the accident, around 7 January 1897, in which Doctor Loud Noise [translation of "höilydt?"] assures that he will get the boy justice.
As a strange intervention of fate, however, it was not to be. Oien managed to get his case before the first judge to hear it, namely Judge Benedict. His term was over when he fell short of the age limit. Then the case was to come before the newly appointed in Benedict's place, but this was cut off from him through death, which suddenly took away Judge Tenney, a few days after he had visited the church to which he belonged on a Sunday morning. With the appointment of the second new judge, things went smoothly, and then Oien was sent home to his hometown, Kristianssund, in the winter.
Now, for the boy, it comes down to hard times: the process is lost. There is hardly any prospect that the case will be appealed, since one of his advisers [presumably Dr. Volckmar] has had other things to think about than acting as a proselytizer of charity for a poor sea man, almost 4000 miles away from the scene of the sad incident, and the other, to our eyes, is apparently not in good health [presumably Iver, whose mental health had suffered after near-fatal exposure to a gas leak].
*
Whether anyone can be directly blamed for the case having come to such a disadvantage for the crippled, we shall not comment on this here. We leave this to the general public. One thing is certain, however, and that is that if those or whoever seemed to be in control of Oien's actions had not acted so harshly and recklessly, the case would probably have had a luckier outcome for the injured party, when the responsible parties had time to come to their senses, and calmly and honestly take the matter under consideration. One cannot suspect these people of considering themselves unjustly treated, in this way without further ado, by a foreign nation to be deprived of one's property, and when one adds to this that most of the ship's helmsmen were people living in such a ravenous corner of the world as Kristianssund with its poor peddlers' souls, the relationship is such that they absolutely put hard against hard.
On the other hand, it is sad and most regrettable that one of our highest judges should let a poor sailor suffer because he may not have dared to report one of his guardians. Every sailor knows what it means at sea to accuse his superiors, and when the complaint is made of such grave circumstances as accusing an officer of drunkenness on board, then he might as well jump into the water right away. The hatred he thereby exposes himself to from that person is worse than death itself.
However, we can hope that this decision of Judge Thomas will put a little fear in the blood of the ship's officers who are guilty of icy acts, like the then mate on board "Antonio Zambrana." Such a sailor is not worthy to command people. He should be exposed and become the subject of every honest sailor's deepest contempt.
With all due respect to the prosecutors-- or, rather, the guardians-- who represented Oien, we dare say that if the case had been left in lawyer Reymert's hands, it would certainly have had a more fortunate outcome for Oien. Reymert knows the life and conditions of Norwegian sailors, and with this in mind, the judge might have looked at the case with other eyes.
On August 18th, 1898, "Nordisk Tidende" re-printed an older letter Dr. Volckmar had written to Georg Oien's sister-in-law, followed by updated commentary after the judge's ruling:
"Two Insurances. The Oiens Case Again. Doctor Volckmar's statement on January 7, 1897: 'Also this terrible thing about Georg! I spoke to him last time yesterday and found him probably depressed and sorrowful, but nevertheless full of hope that 'Zambrana's' owners will naturally take care of him, so that in the future he will not suffer. Since I am, however, just as naturally sure that from that side no help other than regrets, shrugs and 'poor guy' will come, and so that the same blunder will not be repeated, as in the case against Jacob, I have on my own responsibility spoken to one of the best lawyers in town, and dare I promise that no stone will be left unturned to pin the responsibility on anyone, no matter who, if it can be done in any possible way. It may happen that the whole case ends up if the vessel is Norwegian and thus does not come under American jurisdiction, but we have to prove what can be proven. For my part, it's exactly the same, I'm beyond Kristiansund's reach and can't be reached!' * Doctor Volckmar's statement on 12 August, 1898: On Monday, Judge Thomas ruled in G. Oien's lawsuit against 'Zambrana's' owners, against the boy. But the matter is hardly over there. The judge's reasoning has not yet been submitted to Oien's lawyers, but if it is as the 'Brooklyn Eagle' serves it, the case will almost certainly be appealed. According to the said body, the judgment went against Oien because, by knowing about the mate's drinking habits without giving the captain proper notice, he himself contributed to the accident; in other words: he has himself to thank for it. No-one really expected that the issue would be finally decided in the first instance; that would of course not have been the case if the other party had lost. If the judgment premises are as mentioned above, an appeal will, as I said, be raised, if it can be legally done." |
Along with significant community involvement, the Iversons also enjoyed birthdays, parties, friendships, family, and leasing out rooms of their home to boarders. A few of these "lighter" moments are described on the next page.