Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-02-16
THE BALTIC SEA SITUATION

up in the foregoing relation ard with
reference to the pending proposition OF
the reunion Of Holland and Belgium as
one nation. The present European coali-
ton would be manifestly strengthened by
the settlement of these pending PROPOSE
tons. not only in their separate and par
t!cular interests. but in the assurance OF
the definite peace Of Europe.
The theory of the pangermanist press OF
a closed Baltic sea Is no longer defensible
The league of armed neutrals. it is re-
called endeavored to impose the principle
within the zone of its operation In 1779-
1900. The league was a confederation OF
maritime powers which guaranteed prop
erty OF hostile powers in neutral ships
excepting munitions and articles con-
traband of war The leagde made
treaty In 1900 between Russia and Swe-
den against England. then at war with
France, Prussia and Denmark subse-
quently becoming parties to the treaty
Seventy years later. when Russia was
face to face with the Anglo-Franco-Turko
coalition. Admiral Napier and Vice Admit
raj Observation-Disclosures passed the Baltic
straits and debarked in the Island of
and of Baraguey- d Hitler. The treaty of
the League Of Armed Neutrals land the
idea of a closed Baltic seal was thus
broken and rendered null and void.
Since that time. indeed. the Baltic sea
situation has been tacitly recognized. The
sea is free, and so it must remain.
1t is to that end that the negotiations
now in progress tend and to which in
the speech from the throne January -
in the house Of lords King Edward VII
said:
my government has Joined with the
governments of France. Germany and
Russia in a treaty for preserving the in
tegrity Of the Kingdom of Norway. The
text Of the treaty is to be published in
due course"
LIE Temps. after the conclusion OF the
agreement signed at Christiania in No
vember, 1907. attacked IT
French with singular bitterness in
an editorial entitled "A
Singular Treaty."
It said in the first place that the treaty
of Christiania was "a curious manifesto
ton Of lack of tack and OF equity:
that the negotiation entered upon at
the request of the cabinet OF Christiania to
guarantee the integrity of Norway might
have had satisfactory result for all con-
cerned. It was accomplished, on the con-
trary. under singular conditions OF par
TALLY for Norway and of discourtesy for
Sweden. The great powers had a curious
conception of the manner Of assuring
Scandinavian equilibrium.
The Temps re sumes briefly the origin of
the negotiation of which it complained
November p, 1855, France and England,
the day after the Crimean war. signed
treaty openly directed against the con-
quered at Sebastopol and Bomarsund. BY
this treaty. Napoleon III and Queen VIC
toria prohibited Oscar and his success
sors from ceding to Russia or prohibiting
him from Iel hitting any part of Swedish
and Norwegian territory to be occupied by
Russia. France and England. In view OF
this prohibition. engaged to assure to the
Kingdom of Sweden and Norway their
military SUPPORT against any future ag-
erosion IF Russia. This treaty since many
years las ceased to have any practical
value, and certainly since the conclusion
of the Franco-Russian alliance. The rup-
final annulment. Norway desired the
treaty to be renewed in changing its form
TO suit her own interests. This opinion.
indeed. was expressed by Count Wacht.
meIster, minister Of foreign affairs OF
Sweden. in October. 1905. and the events
that followed corroborated his statement.
and Sir Edward Grey confirmed officially
that pourparlers had been engaged by
Norway with the signatories of the treaty
Of 1855 aid with other powers"
Norway asked in the commencement OF
negotiations not only that the integrity
of her territory might be recognized, but
that Ter neutrality be guaranteed. In
March, 1907, in a speech in the storthing,
o.
sctually president OF the council OF min
listers of Norway, declared that there
could be no question as to a guaranteed
neutrality by the powers" adding that 1t
was necessary to replace the treaty of
1855 by another concerning Norway alone.
1t was this spirit of supreme selfishness,
"particularisme, according to the Temps,
which led to the separation in 1905. and
which has survived the divorce. In reality
1t was against Sweden that the cabinet
nf Tuic tn t,o pnf 2
was a mark of defiance toward Sweden
that Norway appealed to the powers. 1t
had been just as If the powers had refused
to be party to such proceeding.
~
Sweden before and after the rupture had
given ample proofs of her moderation, SO
that no one can suspect her
Avoiding intentions now. Sweden
might have declared war
against Norway-war which
certainly would have been favorable to
her. She would not do SO because she
desired to preserve Scandinavian peace.
Sweden's attitude has been dignffied and
correct. NJ. Nicholson, in abandoning the
presidency of the council at Christiania
bears witness to the fact in the cordial
thanks expressed 10 the minister OF Swe-
den for the courteous and coroia! atutuoe
of his country. 1t was. therefore, put
lust and equitable to eliminate from the
projected treaty everything which might
be disagreeable for the Swedish govern
ment. It was only necessary to admit
Sweden to sign the treaty with Germany,
France Great Britain and Russia. Nor
way refused.
La Temps. commenting upon Norway's
refusal, says:
"By an incorrigible vanity. which should
have received a lesson, Norway persisted
In asking a guarantee which had the aD
-ao.onna az hainp directed aRlinSt SWe-