The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1884-04-23
Norwegian Politics

MAUI, April II, 1881.
Enron GAzErTE:-In the GAZETTE dated April
10th. YOU write about Norway, and the decision
the Supreme Court has come to. As | see that
your statements are based false foundation
partly, and have mistakes originating from lack
Of knowledge of that country and its laws and the
origin of the present strife going on there hope
you will forgive me in taking the liberty TO give
YOU a short but true representation OF the facts
10 wonder that my country is so little known; 1t
Is a small kingdom and deemed of little or no I'M
pOrtance in the European concert
Before going into details will draw your atten-
ton TO few points in your articles you say: lit Is
well known that for several years past, the king
has maintained an attitude IN opposition to the
repeated decisions of the StOrthing or represent
alive body. and that again and again has he null
lifted by veto the votes Of the two Chambers and
this on very important constitutional questions.
Now, here are two great and very important mis-
takes. First We have only lHe House, not two.
Our representative body, StrOthIng, Is indirectly
elected the electors electing certain number OF
mon who again elects the number Of the Strothlng
tPariament, as l shall hereafter call IT.. After
the Parliament has assembled and declared itself
duly constituted opened by the King or his rep
res9ntatye the Parliament divides Itself INTO Two
Chambers, Lagthing and Odelsthing. Livery
prop0siti0n. whether from the Ministry OF from
any of the NJ. =. has hrst to pass the Lagthlng,
then the Odelsthing and lastly the Parliament 50
that every law before being land before the hlng
ulruum The Lagthing and the Odelsthing only
divide the work TO be done, that Is all. We have,
am clad to state, no gentry in Norway and never
will have as it is forbidden by law
Second; you say, constitutional questions
That is not 50. There is only one question. which
nov they have tried to settle, but-haye failed.
Further down you write: " whether the
Kings veto is suspens0ry or absolute whether ne
can really stop legislation only delayit. SDgH-
EtTIy saalgh u aBpsdTs that irhe overwhelming
minority Of tie legui profession 10 N0r01g declare
that under the existing constitution, the veto Is
not suspensOry only, but absolute their decision,
though practically unanimous, Is o. no a'ali
against the popular cry against absolute veto on
which every election has been fought Tor some
time past" There two kinds Of veto in Norway,
not one. as it appears above. We have as most
countries have. what We call our Constitution, or
fundamental law. That Law says that it can only
be altered, when the Parliament and King agree
Consequently, tire Parliament alone cannot alter
il. neither can the King. Our constituents who
made that law in 1874, thought and said that .
fundamental law is not toy to be used as casual
majority chooses but is TO be the solid base, upon
shich the corntry and its inhabitants can rely
A foundation law, which can be altered according
10 the wishes OF a casual majority, - no tundn-
mental law at all: the country would be then Ike
q ship without a rudder, or without steady hand
10 hold it. and 1t would consequently In every re-
spect suffer by the wriggling. which would be the
result Alterations in this law can, aecording TO
the same.-as majority of the legal profession
In Norway say see aboye)-be vetoed by the King
If he thinks that the alteration would do more
harm than good He, standing above all parties,
is supposed TO sec everything clearer than many,
nav most Of the voters he knows or ought TO know,
better than they what will be the result of the
said alteration and acts accordingly. by the hing
mean the King and his Ministers or Councillors.
This is the absolute veto. Then comes the suspen-
sory veto, that is hc can veto every common Law
two times but If the law passes the third time IN
altered be has 30 veto. The Law in question must
have passed unaltered- three separate elections
Tins IS his suspensOry veto, in which ereEybodg
agrees The NJ. 7. are elected for three years, 50
that nine years will pass if he uses the veto more
than once, which very rarely has happened. The
Parliament has acknowledged his absolute veto,
as have stated it TO be, several times from 1874
to $50. Can you then, considering that, and also
the decision the "legals' came to, taken into con-
sidcration, wonder that the Ministers advised him
10 DO it when they found that the craved (er1ed
for alteration. would not do the country any good
al least not in that form! Is man 10 be treated
as a common malefactOr, where nlany-the leg
ais too-acree with him and ne acts as his con
science tells him? / think not Has If brought
the country into debtg No, Has IT disturbed the
peace with the other powers: Not BIT has ne
advised the King 10 do anything against the Law:
No. What then, Is his fanltg He would not con-
sent to the majority in the Parliament. Labor on!
/ will come back to this
Then YOU say: forced TO dispense with
the 5as1srps services Of his Ministers for the fu-
turr It is to be hare that be will not ind it dif-
cIt to come to terms with the St0rthing. In what
respect has his Ministers been daHgrlyuss That