Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1905-08-07

way ana Sweden A recent cabfa.
gram brings the information fro,,,
Stockholm that the special committee
~ppolnted by the riksdag to deal with
the crisis which created tho ravof,.
tlon has delivered its report. which
MAS Deeh adopted and ratified bv a
unanimous vote IN the riksdas.
me committee declared unanimous.
y mat the government bill cannot
De adopted in the form in which II
was presented to the rikslae. and
proposes that the riksdag shall sieni.
" It's Willingness 10 negotiate With
Norway for the dissolution of the I'M.
ION. Or If such request is received
from Norway after a plebiscite Of the
Norwegian people has declared in
favor of dissolution.
That the people Of Norway and
their legislative body will so declare
Is regarded as foregonp conclusion
ana the report is looked upon yir-
tually as an acceptance OF the exist.
ing condition with no thought af re-
slstanee by force.
ABjornsteirn Bjornsen. the lannon's
Norwegian writer. thus reviews tha
caoses leading up to the present
crisis between Norway and Sweden.
The matter in which the Norwe
gians have broken off the union with
Sweden may not be approved. But T
would like for that aspect of the oues-
tion to be set aside fer the runtnra
IN itself is as much a blessing for
Sweden as for Norway. It was the
only possible course toward an nnder-
standing among three Scandinavian
peoples. For the time being the
Swedes object forcibly to the sue
cession. but circumstances are strong.
er than men.
An Old Dispute.
we were united to Sweden in 1914,
under one king. The question which
has resulted in the cl aavage first
arose in 1927. A noteworthy fact is
that England, by an unjust act. start
ed the struggle. An English trading
firm was caught smuggling in Bodo.
Nordland. BY means of forged docu-
ments the English government Undue.
ed the Swedish minister of foreign af
fairs to believe that damages were
due from the Norwegian government
for the cOnfiscation of goods and i'm
Of persons. The Swedish
foreign Office was frightened into
yielding. and Norway was most un-
justly compelled to pay. Subsequent
ly great indignation was felt in Nor
way when it was found with what
Swedish diplomacy had
treated our interests, and Swedish
tutelaee was hotly denounced. Swed-
en- had usurped authority granted
neither by the Norwegian constitu-
ion nor by the act of the union.
Points of Difference.
81 will mention some of the Nor
vegian claims which Sweden contest
I'd: That equal importance should
)e given to beth Kingdoms in the
seal of the union: that Norway should
lave her own standards that in Nor
way Norway and Sweden should be
spoken of instead of the reverse: that
Swedish governors of Norway should
10 longer be appointed, as such ap-
continent reduced our country to the
evel of a province. Sweden eventu-
lily gave way on all of these points
lfter holding out for a long time.
Foreign Affairs.
"Norwegian were appointed in the
diplomatic and consular corps. Never
heIess. we could not obtain what we
lad most at heart-the sole direction
If our own foreign affairs. A Swed-
sh and Norwegian commission was
lamed which sat from 1865 to 1869.
The Swedish members insisted that
n return for their concessions Nor
way should recognize the Swedish
minister of foreign affairs as minister
If the same department of Norway
,lso. The Norwegian stOrthing re-
ected the proposal. In 1868 Sweden
settled by law the question of our for
ten affairs, which until then had
,een a royal prerogative. 1t was in
rusted to the Swedish minister OF
oreign affairs. We saw in this a vio-
alton of our rights. To our reiterated
.eouest for share in the direction of
he foreign policy was opposed the
;ame answer, that We had to recog-
,ize the Swedish minister. In 1898
here was another mixed commission,
which divided itself into several fac
ions. The work remained abortive
nd u,;tho,1t result. Last of all we