On June 15, 1867, Þorsteinn Jónsson, sheriff in Þingeyjarsýsla, began his investigation regarding the causes for the proposed emigration to Brazil in 1865 and the consequences of its failure to happen. Einar Ásmundsson, farmer at Nes and former Magistrate, appeared before the court. Before proceedings began, Sheriff Jónsson saw fit to apologize for the delay of the investigation, explaining it was due to neither the court knowing the names of participants in the proposed emigration to Brazil in the county nor their home addresses.
This was followed by Einar’s remarks. He knew what the questions were, they had been clearly worded in the Sheriff’s letter published in Norðanfari, at the end of January 1867. Those called on to appear in court would be asked:
a. reasons for the founding of the Brazil association
b. its constitution
c. who, one or more persons, promoted the emigration
d. what was promised and if and how promises were kept
e. what were the expenses the association faced and what happened to the funds allotted to meet the expenses
f. if some and how many had become recipients of relief from the county as a result of the emigration plans
g. how many suffered significant property losses due to said plans.
Einar responds
Einar showed up well prepared and was ready to answer all questions in writing. The reasons? Yes, first, men were considering a migration to Greenland, but no one did. Twenty or thirty years later, the emigration discussion awakened again, as a result of, among other things, the climate changes but, first and foremost, the scabies on sheep which
became a plague, spreading out to every corner of the country, all efforts to control it costing a fortune.
Younger generations argue that Einar made more of the plague then can be justified, but Norðanfari was in no doubt. They are two issues which more than anything demanded full attention, the newspaper insisted, “the encroachment of foreign fishermen in our waters and the sheep plague”. If nothing was done or the struggle to overcome both would fail, “the nation would suffer much damage and Icelanders would emigrate to Brazil or anywhere else”.
Einar did not discuss the sheep plague but answered all the Sherriff’s’ questions briefly and (?) to the point. The association had been founded in order to examine circumstances “in the new lands in the New World which people in general in Northern Europe are emigrating to”. For that purpose, maps, books, magazines and pamphlets in various languages had been purchased. Einar said he knew no one who had publicly encouraged people to emigrate, but several had encouraged him to lead the association. Einar did not make much of so-called promises and guarantees, he admitted to having abided by the regulations of the association, nothing more had he done.
A total of 51 individuals had joined the association, each paid 4 Rigsdaler (Danish currency) towards the purchase of previously mentioned items and to support the emigration of one Jónas Hallgrímsson, a carpenter by trade. No one became a relief recipient nor had anyone suffered any property loss.
At this point Ólafur Ólafsson from Hringsdalur was called.
No one was promised anything, Ólafur insisted so no promises were broken. Thus no one suffered any losses.
The court met eight more times in Þingeyjarsýsla and twice in Húnavatnssýsla in order to settle the Emigration case or rather to find reasons to prosecute Einar Ásmundsson at Nes. This was generally not discussed except on one occasion, but there was never any doubt who was behind this court case. District Sheriff in the North, Pétur Havstein was not hiding his intentions. Late in 1867 he wrote Jón Sigurðsson at Gautlönd, who a few months earlier had been temporarily appointed Sheriff of Þingeyjarsýsla:
“Among other things, I kindly ask you to continue, as well as you may, the investigation into the disturbance caused by the Emigration movement, and since I have heard more recently I feel obliged to urge every Township Sheriff who feels anyone in their jurisdiction has in one way or another suffered loss from Einar’s at Nes activities to prosecute him free of charge.”
Township Sheriffs interrogated
But progress in justice system was slow despite Pétur’s constant pressure on his subordinates. The man had caused public “commotion with his promoting of emigration” he wrote in April of 1869, and had just encouraged the new Sheriff for Þingeyjarsýsla, Lárus E. Sveinbjörnsson, to continue examinations in the case “with vigorous enthusiasm” The Township Sherriffs needed be interrogated to establish if any of those interested in the 1865 emigration to Brazil was a relief recipient.
From Húsavík Township one man and his family intended to go, a day laborer, in reasonably good standings, had his own house, and a fishing boat equipped with all necessary devices, said the Sheriff in Húsavík.
The Sherriff in Helgastaðir Township informed that four families, all in reasonably good standings had planned to go. Now all had changed for the worst. They had released their farms, sold some belongings at a very low price and had no income since. Although none were benefit recipients – yet – the Township had been damaged. “Valuable members” who before had “contributed to the responsibilities of the Township” of the community were now lost, and considerable time and effort has been wasted on placing the people in the community again.
These were the sort of answers provided by a total of six Sheriffs before the court. Townships had suffered because of the proposed emigration to Brazil. However, none of those were now recipients of benefits, but some almost. Perhaps these situations were, in the minds of Townships councillors, the crucial ones.
When the Sheriffs in the Ljósavatns townships were directly asked if they wanted to prosecute Einar at Nes, all answered, no we see “no reason for that”. Two reasonably well-to-do farmers had planned to go and sold all they had, but then settled down again in the township, not a burden to anyone.
Additionally, a widow, mother of four children, had decided to go but she already was a recipient of benefit prior to the proposed emigration and still was.
The other sheriffs were not asked if Einar should be persecuted. None of them as much as hinted at such a thing, which they undoubtedly had thought through, because the purpose of the court case was to establish evidence to prove that the Brazil venture had in fact broken the law. But – to make it clear – none of the Brazil emigrants were recipients of benefit which was the key issue. All of them had survived and managed on their own despite buying into the dream of “mountains of raisins”, “rivers of honey”, and “everlasting summers”.
What then could Einar be charged with? He had not put anyone on relief benefit, this was proven by statements from the Sheriffs. But had he enticed men to emigrate to Brazil? That, on its own, was not a criminal offence – not yet at least, but Iceland´s Althing later dealt with emigration to America. But to charge men a certain amount through lies and deceit was certainly a criminal offence.
No, we only paid four Rigsdaler, some nothing at all, stated all the participants called before the court, seven from Þingeyjarsýsla and two living in Húnavatnssýsla. Magazines, maps, books, and five series of annual German magazines were passed around to participants so all could get acquainted with the future homeland. Not one of them suspected Einar of foul play. Everyone had complete faith in him. The farmer Baldvin Helgason at Sporður in Húnavatnssýsla further came to Einar’s defence. He had met Einar, seen the association’s books, and, as he remembered, payments were higher than income, not a penny had been for Einar himself.
What about the “public commotion”?
No, Einar at Nes did not cause any commotion, on the contrary. This was the evidence provided by all individuals called at the hearings: some had heard “people” discuss the proposed emigration in such a way that it caught the attention of others; one pointed out the lack of available land in Húnavatnssýsla, people there had read Jónas Hallgrímsson’s travel story (he went to explore in Brazil in 1863) in Norðanfari and then – “the thought entered his mind, that it would be easier there (Brazil) to survive with a family than here in this cold and difficult country”, said Baldvin Helgason, a farmer at Sporður.
But what were the promises made to participants? “To provide transport to the West (Brazil) for a reasonable price”, answered two men asked in court. “None”, others replied.
Einar slandered
Someone put an ‘’NB’’ next to the first answer above in the records which indicates that authorities may have felt at long last they had something. Which was very much to Pétur’s liking. No one in the North, except Pétur’s secretary, knew that in February 1869, Pétur had slandered Einar in the Danish Justice Ministry and used, among other issues, the failed Brazil Emigration.
Einar had a few years ago tried to organize an emigration, wrote Pétur. He had collected funds from people and arranged for them to vacate their farms and sell their belongings. He then cancelled all plans so the emigration never took place. And to this day, Einar has refused to explain what happened to the collected funds, Pétur maintained, adding that many participants had lost everything they had, ending as recipients of benefits. “Han er I höj Grad intrigant og meget egennyttig (Danish)” were the terms Pétur used – ´´exceedingly deceptive and unbelievably self-centered´´.
People could debate what sort of man Einar actually was, but Pétur simply lied about the participation fee as well as participants in 1865 becoming recipients of benefits. He knew better. When he wrote the letter to the Danish Justice Ministry, all Sheriffs had been questioned as had both farmers from Húnavatnssýsla and a few from Þingeyjarsýsla.
Pétur never had the opportunity to work with the two men who said Einar promised “transportation at a reasonable price.” In the fall of 1870, Pétur Havstein was released from his duties, without doubt as a result of his slandering; Danish authorities had had enough of the increasing complaints about his conduct.
One man who complained to the Danish was Einar Ásmundsson at Nes. He wrote to -King Kristján 9th: “Einar Ásmundsson vice-Member of Parliament for Suður-Þingeyjarsýsla humbly requests from His Royal Highness, the King for the most gracious protection against the persecutions on behalf of Magistrate Havstein.” This was not because of all the issues regarding the Emigration to Brazil, but for the fact Einar had allowed a French priest to stay in his home for six weeks in the fall of 1868 which Pétur insisted was against the law. Einar´s point of view was simple: “I rarely discriminate between personalities because of religion.”
In his letter to King Kristján 9th, Einar not once mentioned the emigration to Brazil. but he also wrote to Oddgeir Stephensen, director of the Icelandic department in Denmark, asking him to support his plea to the King. In this letter, he explained the proposed Brazil emigration plan as well as its failure to materialize. He concluded with Pétur Havstein’s harassment.
This “hateful man”, Einar said about Pétur, “has often secretly and even publicly offered free litigation to anyone willing to bring Einar to court, but no one has yet been found willing to accept such an offer, even if lifelong friendship was added as a bonus.” Pétur did not stop there, Einar continued, he ordered sheriffs in the county to take me to court. He also threatened them by saying if they did not comply, he would replace them by appointing others to carry out his orders. But all to no avail, all the sheriffs declined for the simple reason they could not find any damage to their precinct as a result of “a few residents who intended to move to America but never went”.
This was not quite correct, as the sheriffs felt their precinct had suffered some because of the Brazil plan, but not one ended on relief benefit, this they all agreed on. And that made the difference and nullified Pétur’s court case.
Einar “is a sly old fox”
The odd thing is that despite the statements of the sheriffs and the individuals who intended to emigrate to Brazil which cleared Einar of any wrongdoings, a remarkably strong sentiment of corruption nationwide regarding the Brazil adventure followed Einar for the rest of his life.
The discussion remained amazingly lively, Painter Sigurður Guðmundsson wrote to Jón Sigurðsson in 1865 in Copenhagen and said about Einar: “he appears to be a sly old fox”. Another example is found in teacher’s Baldvin Bárðdal’s autobiography who was born in 1859. He maintained that after long deliberation his parents decided to sign up:
“My father departed on day in late March and visited Einar at Nes. There he signed up for the emigration and paid the full fare, a few hundred rigsdaler. Einar in no manner tried to persuade father to reconsider, on the contrary, he glorified it all in such a fashion that the little doubt my father may have had was completely vanished when he returned home, Einar must be telling the truth!”
The livestock was sold as well as all our household goods and the family headed for Akureyri to wait for the ship. Baldvin insisted his father paid the full fare to Einar, a large amount, and when they asked to be refunded, he declined “and replied with utter nonsense and distortions.” The feather had become a full-grown bird which certainly could fly.
Bergvin Einarsson, Baldvin’s father, instantly would have corrected his son had he had the opportunity. Son, what you said is completely wrong, he would have said. I only paid Einar 4 rigsdaler and he never encouraged me to go. On the contrary, he discouraged the poor people from signing up on the list of emigration.
Thus, Baldvin Bárðdal turned it all upside down and this is how he heard (or told?) the story. Einar had held on to all funds –“so many insisted this, so it was hard not to believe it – that he had not repaid anyone” concluded Baldvin. This simply was the common belief which no one doubted. The public opinion in the community allowed it. Einar was considered ruthless and emigration to America a curse.
Thus, it is not impossible to link Einar’s reputation and character as he never was appreciated by all. Sometimes quiet and cold-hearted, he spoke with difficulty and rarely laughed. Firm and stingy and “as some said he was also avaricious” confessed his friend Jakob Hálfdanarsson at Grímsstaðir.
But men trusted Einar. “He was, in my opinion a very just man but made little if any efforts to explain his own sense of justice.” stated Friðrik Guðmundsson at Hólsfjöll in N. Þingeyjarsýsla, Jakob Hálfdanarson´s son in law. And Björn Jónsson, editor of Norðanfari never tried to hide his admiration for the farmer at Nes: “It is like bringing something close to light to have Einar express his opinion on issues.”
This was not just the opinion of two men, it also was the public opinion. For these reasons Einar occupied various significant positions such as Sheriff, County Council, Member of Parliament, first for Eyjafjarðarsýsla 1874-1885 and later for Suður Þingeyjarsýsla 1892-1893. Einar always cared very much for his rural community. He wanted not only to be useful to his community but the entire Nation as well, especially in a way to guide them along a path which taught them to be self-sufficient in the correct manner. In order to achieve that, he, alone and with others, founded a ship insurance company, a progressive and a reading society in Grýtubakki township. He and Tryggvi Gunnarsson together worked out plans for The Friends of Iceland Society, and at some point, he both managed a navigation school and a public school. Men also trusted him for money. He was the main instigator of the founding of the Höfðahverfinga Credit Union in 1879 and its President for quite some time, and finally was on the Gránufélag (Trading Company) board of Directors.
Everything listed above – which easily could have been more- is important in order to thwart what was previously stated, that perhaps the dishonesty Einar was blamed for was linked to his temperament and personality. That makes no sense whatsoever! Everyone trusted him with their money. But why was that negative rumour so long-lived? There is one obvious answer to that! Powerful individuals in Iceland had a very hard time accepting emigration to America, especially to Brazil. Emigration was, in their opinion, bad news so anything damaging to such plans was of the good. A well organized opposition to emigration never existed, but the mood in the Icelandic community was such that what had been said about Einar might be true – bad deeds, bad people – even though everything about him, his views of life and occupations, strongly opposed such opinions. Heavyweights in the community echoed those sentiments so wasn’t that evidence of the verification there of? Didn´t the psalmist state: “What the chiefs do, the others insist they may too.”
The above is based on research by Icelandic Historian Jón Hjaltason and his article “Einar hrappur eða sómamaður”. English version Thor group.