Arizona republican., 1905-06-14
Charges NOrwegianS With Violation of Constitution
THE KINGS OWN DEFENSE
An Address to the Storthing Which Contains no Direct Threat but In- inmates That Scandinavian Bond Will not Be Easily Broken.

Stockholm, June Fixing Oscar, in a long and vigorously worded letter to the president of the Norwegian storth ing, NJ. Berner, declares that the ac- cession oath of Norways king makes it the kings duty not to pass over in silence the preferment of the NorweE ian council of state on the occasion of his majestys veto of the consular bill. The king maintains that he did not overstep his prerOgatives under the constitution, and says that considera- tion for the union imposes on the king the duty of exercising his constitu- tional rights.
 'The king of Norway he adds must always. bear in mind paragraph of the Norwegian constitution, which reads: The kingdom of Nor way is free, autonomous, independent and indivisible.'
 'I feel myself justified in demanding respect for the decision taken by the king of Norway in accordance with the constitution. The powers which the constitution place at the disposal of the Norwegian king in order to enable him to promote the welfare of the country according to his convictions are no greater than those which must be reserved to the monarchy united with Sweden under one king"
 After lengthily repudlating the dec laratiOn of the council of state that his veto was unconstitutional, because no member of the council regarded him self as being in a position to counter sign it, King Oscar proceeds:
 "One of the fundamental principles of the constitution, and the fact is that it is the most important, is that Nor way shall be a constitutional mon 7rchy. It is clearly incompatible there with that the king sink to the posi- tion of a mere tool in the hands of the state council. If the members of the council of state, by refusing to coun- tersign any of the royal decisions. could prevent them from having force, the king of Norway would be excluded from participation in the state admin istratiOn. Such a situation would be as degrading to the monarch as harm full to Norway. The position Of the king as monarch of the united king dom of Sweden and Norway makes it incumbent upon him not t0 preiudiC as monarch of one kingdom, questions affecting the other kingdom.
 ''The duty of the king on this point cannot be recOnciled with the view that one Kingdom, through the refuSaI of it's council of state to append it's countersignature, can annul the royal Judgment, wherein the king refuses a decision pvejudiciaI to the other king dom. and injurious to the union.
 ''The Norwegian people and Nor wegian nation demand the right to force the king to give a decision which in his opinion conflicts with his duty as the monarch of the united kingdoms and king of Sweden. and therefore the king of Sweden must become depend ent, as regards his decisions, upon the will of the Norwegian nation througl. its council of state.
 Such a position for kingly power can only describe as being irreconcili- able with the laws of union laid down in the riksakt (the charter promul- gated in 1915 establishing the new fun damental laws on the terms that the union of the two kingdoms can be in dissoluble and irrevocable, without prejudice, to separate the government. constitution and laws, of either Swe- den or Norway.
 My endeavor has always been to