The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-06-15
Will sweden Fightc

King OSCAR of sweden. in n letter to
the President of the Norwegian Parlia-
ment, denies that Norway's declaration
of independence was justified, and an
nounces that it remains for himself and
for Sweden to decide whether the dec
laration shall lead to n separation of
the kingdoms. Whether the views ex-
pressed by the Swedish sovereign are
merely academic or whether they por-
tend a resort to war depends partly on
the extent to which they will meet with
the approval of the Swedish Diet, which
has been convokcd, and partly on the
pressure which may be exerted by for
eign Powers at Stockholm. The pros
pect of peace in tho Far East may, not
improbably, have an important bearing
on the question.
So far as King OSCARS argument
against the validity of the ordinance
Of secession passed by the Norwegian
Storthng is concerned, it is unques-
tonaby plausible. The constitution of
Norway defines the means by which a
bill passed by the StorthnG may become
Law understanding the sovereign's
veto. The bill must be passed three
times, by three successive Parliaments
The Norw egians did not have recourse
to this eSpedient in the present instance,
the bill creating a separate consular
service for Norway having been passed
by only single Storthing. They have
preferred TO reach the desired end in an
other way. The Norwegian constitution
provides that the Kings signature, in
order to be valid in Norway, must be
countersigncd by member Of the Eor-
wegian Council of State The sover-
eign's veto of the consular bill service
could not thus be countersigned, be-
cause every member of the Norwegian
Council of State, when he learned of the
Kings intention to forbid the proposed
legislation, announced to the Storthing
the resignation of his post,
Thereupon, as the Norwegian con-
stitution provides that the King Of
Sweden shall be Norways Executive,
but only in so far.as he acts through
Norwegian Council Of State, the Storthing
held that a constitutional Executive no
longer existed, and proceeded to es-
tablish provisional government. In
Great Britain under analogous circllm-
stances, that is to say, when Ministry
known to have the support Of the House
OF Commons resigns, provisional mode
of escape from the dilemma would be
found in the appointment Of new Min
istry, which would dissolve Parliament
and appeal to the constituencies. In
the case of Norway, it is known that
such an appeal would be useless mas
much as the Norwegian people are al
most unanimously resolved to have a
separate consular service, if indeed
that resolve is not merely the veil of a
settled purpose to acquire absolute in
dependence.
There is, on the face of things, how
ever, ground for dispute on the part
Of constitutional lawyers. as there was
in the quarrel between the English Par
lament and CHARLES l., or in that be-
tween Great Britain and the Thirteen
American Colonies. Moreover, it is
about as clear to-day at Stockholm as it
was in London in 1870 that, in the alb
sence of interposition on the part of
third Power, the uprising for independ-
ence could be suppressed. Sweden, as
we have formerly pointed out, is more
than twice az populous as Norway, has
standing army three times as large.
which, moreover, is one of the best
trained and equipped in Europe, and,
although its mercantile marine is much