New-York tribune., 1905-06-08
SWEDEN AND NORWAY.

The Norwegian revolution-for the radical
though not unexpected action of the Storthlng
Yesterday amounts to that-changes altogether
the aspect of the controversy between the TWO
Scandinavian kingdoms. 1t is no longer qlles-
ton of separate consular representation or Of
a common Foreign Ministry. OF of q union en-
blem in the flags but of the right of Norway
to secede and to depose the Swedish King from
her throne Historically no such right exists
The Treaty of Kiel ceded Norway TO Sweden
as an appanage of the Swedish crown. Nor
way refused to recognize that cesson, and IN
sisted upon remaining Independent, going 50
far as to elect a King Of her own. But the
powers refused to recognize that King, and
Swedish troops invaded Norway and compelled
acquiescence If not in annexation ana SUD-
lection, at least in union. Ihereupon 1t was
agreed, as a compromise measure, that Nor
way should remain Independent, but that the
union of the two independent kingdoms should
be perpetual. indissoluble and irrevocabe. with
the same law of succession In each to the COM
mon throne of both.
JJDon what ground does Norway now decree
the dissolution of the indissoluble? Simply
upon this that the King has ceased, or is un-
able longer, to perform his functions lt Will
be recalled, as we have recently explained that
the Storthng passed law providing for the
establishment of a separate consular service
for Norway as it had a right TO do. The King
vetoed it. That was his right. But as he could
not find a single Norwegian Minister to coun-
tersisn It, his veto was of no effect. He per
sisted in regarding it as effective however, and
SO the Norwegian Ministry resigned. The King
refused to accept their designations, and they re-
fused In withdraw them unless he would with
draw his veto and sign the law. He refused
to do either, and admitted his inability TO form
another Ministry. Thus affairs were brought
to an impasse, from which the Storthlng has
sought escape by decreeing the deposition Of
the King We must regard this as somewhat
abrupt recourse for there was another way
ont of the trouble, under the constitution The
King has only q limited right of veto. He may
| exercise the power twice, but if the Storthing
masses a bill a third time it becomes law with
| out his assent. Now, this bill had been passed
before in 1891 If therefore, the Storthing
had been content to wait a while and then
to mass fl again. it could have effected its pur-
pose without revolution.
We must for this and other reasons, then.
| assume that Norway desires, apart from all
| other questions, to sunder the union. IL is hot
unnatural that she should The two countries
are quite separate, in language literature, IRA
ditions ideals Sweden is aristocratic and
protectionist Norway is democratic ana Tree
trade A Norwegian is foreigner in sweden
! and a Swede in Norway. Neither can hold
office in the other country. The interests OF
the two countries are different, even antago
nistic 1t is probably correct. then, to thlnk
that Norway has deereed separation not mere
| " as a necessity but because she desires II
and has been seeking pretext Tor IL
Whether she has technically q right to take
such action or not, ii is scarcely probable tha'
any resistance will be offered. DIR. Sven Hedir
has assured us that Sweden will never thinH
of going 10 war to compel Norway to remain
In the union. The King has protested agains
Norway's action. but there Is no indication noi
probability that his protest will take any othel
form than that OF words. II is auspicious o
an amicabe settlement that the Norwegian &C
of separation expresses only kindly feelings
toward the King personally. and instead o
calling for the establishment of republic
i as many have expected. seeks the nomination
of n Swedish prince for election as King o.
Norway and thus the substitution of alliane
for union. Whether Sweden viii assent TO a.
alliance or viii, some have threatened, In
eist upon leaving Norway entirely TO her Owl