Morris tribune. [volume] (Morris, Minn.) 1880-2000, 1905-06-10
rue swEEDeN-NoRwAY CONTROVERSY,

Sweden and Norway which last week reached
what aDperred to be serious crisis. Likewise
it is difficult to Judge of the wisdom of the
course pursued by either branch of the Qua
kingdom, or of it's justification, without fal
more intimate knowledge of the facts than it is
possible for those to obtain who not in
constant touch with the situation" says the
Pioneer Press. at appears however, to the
impartial observer that Norway has sufficient
moral justification for it's policy, while Sweden
has the advantage of a strong legal position
1t also appears that the underlying impulse OF
Norway's policy is an intense national conscious
ness rather than specific wrongs inflicted on it
by Sweden It must, however, also be recog-
nzed that Norways policy has immediate
practical ends in view which it believes to be
of Importance to it's Development and pros
perity Nevertheless it's demand for seperate
consular representation seems primarily to be
it's chosen mode of asserting it's desire for in
dependence rather than demand for the right
ing of specific wrong.
"To understand the significance OF the con-
troversy it is necessary to recall the history
and nature of the Swedish Norwegian uuion
Norway, which previously to 1887 had been
governed by it's own kings, had been joined in
a mutually satisfactory union with Denmark
from that time until 1914 when, as result of
the general disturbance of Europe through the
Napoleonic wars and the general reconstruction
of nations and governments, it was coded to
the king of Sweden. The Norwegian people,
however, refused to recognize this cess1on and
declared themselves independent whereupon
the Swedish troops entered Norway and the
foreign powers, refusing to recognize it's indie
pendence, a sort of compromise was reached
which resulted III the present union, In 1915,
after Norway had elected in accordance with
the agreement, the Swedish. king as it's own
sovereign a charter the Riksakt was pro-
mulgated embodying the terms of the union
which was declared "indssolub1e and irrevoC-
able" but without prejudice to the separate
government, constitution and code of laws OF
either of the members. Briefly stated it may
be said that the union Of the two countries is a
union of the crown alone except that in the
single matter Of foreign affairs Norway has no
separate representation. In fact the foreign
minister is usually a Swede. The practical
Importance of this is that the diplomacy of the
dual kingdom is running according to Swedish
policy, which does not happen to conform to
that of Norway; for the latter inclines strongly
to free trade while the former is protectionist.
"ln demanding a separate consular system
and foreign minister of it's own it is clear that
Norway would become entirely independent
nation; while it is subject to the prepon-
sderance of Sweden. It would have the same
king as Sweden but nothing else in common
with that government. Sweden and Norway
would be looked on as two distinct powers by
the world and not single power. 1t is
claimed by Sweden, therefore. that Norway's
demand is tantanount to a dissolution of the
indissolub1e and irrevocable union. If this is
true it would appear that Sweden would have
the same legal justification for resisting the
demand as the United States had for resisting
the secession of the Southern states. On the
other hand, Norway charges Sweden with bad
equal union, It can also plead that the union
was under duress and has always chafed it's
eople
Gust what will come of the dispute is not
clear. No compromise appears possible or at
least likely. Sweden agreed to concede
separate Norwegian consuls provided they were
held responsible to the Swedish foreign office
in diplomatic affairs as distinguished from
commercial matters. But this concession SO
obviously involved practical difficulties and so
clearly failed to meet what Norway is really
aiming at that it was not accented. ODiniOn